Comments on: Red Hat, Novell sued for patent infringement

Intellectual property company alleges patent infringement by the top two Linux sellers--and by extension, the free and open-source programming movement.

[WJeansonne]

Make my day!

So much for having a cavalier attitude and sticking your head in the sand of over intellectual property rights. As they say in Texas, that'll learn em'!

[The_Decider]

Yeah right

A patent troll trying to enforce an obvious and non-novel patent is going to put them in the same gutter that SCO is living in.

[WJeansonne]

PJ's paranoid obssesion with Microsoft is over the top

That woman is ridiculous!

[kakman1]

.. said the Microsoft employee

... about as ridiculous as you being fair and balanced observer (oh, wait, you aren't, so I guess PJ isn't ridiculous).
I have no problems with proprietary software or its right to compete and exist with other licensed software, what I object to is the unethical and illegal tactics that certain companies who peddle such products will resort to maintain
market share and eliminate competition. The sad thing is consumers get the short end of the stick in the end because the bigger company addicted to market share and money is unwilling to at least innovate to compete with comparable products and services on market because it is easier to maintain status quo.

[the_piano_man]

be very paranoid

When one is dealing with ms there is no such thing as paranoid. Does anyone really think that these people at this corporation will let go of their wealthy lifestyle? They can afford the most expensive lawyers in the world. While some of the programmers at ms may have done some good, the people in "charge" have absorbed and crushed many people's companies and careers. These minions at ms are the creators of a deceitful, crafty and evil golem without conscience or ethics. As an entity without soul they have lied, cheated, stolen and done anything they can to make money. To trust them is living on the river of DeNile. But hey, don't believe me read it for yourself in this book: "The Making of Microsoft" by Daniel Ichbiah and Susan L. Knepper; ISBN 1-55958-071-2 . . . really, read the book Ok? and then research some of the stuff in there and maybe, just maybe, there will be some enlightenment, and words like "paranoid" will be reserved for rich people who are afraid of losing their multi-million dollar vacation cabins, plush yachts, and custom bmw's.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Could be interesting

This could really help Linux prove that it is ready for the real world- ie business. If it can toss away the shackles of uncertainty and support that is the bain of the opensource existance and offer a rock solid solution that consumers don't have to worry about being sued for using, then they can make a good jump ahead in their industry.

I wish them well to finally settle things one way or another. Open-source is a cool thing, but the very same things that make it so neat and cool are what make it dangerous for businesses to use. They can't take the chance to invest heavily into a product that may get yanked out from under them due to legal issues later.

[Penguinisto]

Yep.

Although a couple of things that stand out in your post...

First off, this suit has to do with one (easily proved as prior art) feature of the GUI, not the kernel. All of my Linux servers operate at runlevel 3 (that is, no GUI), so this suit doesn't come near touching those machines. I suspect that the majority of the Linux servers in operation are equally untouched.

To be honest, Microsoft Windows stands the same chance of being yanked out from under a business that any other OS does.

This case looks like a test case in a much larger assault. Why? Because:

1) the alleged patent looks expired anyway.

2) a legal concept known as Laches (look it up :) ).

3) Prior Art.

Personally, I think MSFT is behind it indirectly, more as paying off an old favor to Redmond. I'd start looking to see whether or not MSFT has recently (or will soon) "license" a few of these bogus patents for exorbitant sums in the near future. They did the exact same funding scheme with SCO back in 2003.

/P

[otheus]

More trivial patents

Another case for patent reform.

Kudos to "inventors" Henderson, Card, and Maxwell for devising a data schema that allows each virtual desktop to use the same Desktop icons. Woo. This patent was filed in 1987 and granted in 1991. Strangely, it has appeared in variants of X-Windows since at least 1989, when I first started using this "invention".

I think there was more work put into filing the patent than in the underlying innovation. I wonder how often that is the case.

[digitalshaman]

"inventors" deserve kudos

you used the so-called virtual-interface in 1989? so... they filed in
1987 ... they were first to invent something you claim to have used
2 years after they invented. what am i missing here? did you have
to pay anyone for the rights? i didn't think so ... get over yourself.

[Dr. StrangeOne]

Just Another Form of Extortion

This is no different then say the MOB insisting you need to take out an insurance policy (protection) with them in order to conduct business. Only difference is one side uses thugs and the other lawyers.

[starcannon]

Thugs... Lawyers....

whats the distinction again? :D

[TC110]

Isn't this patent expired or near expiration?

Patents generally expire after 20 years from the application date. Since this patent was filed on March 25, 1987 one would expect that it would have expired March 25, 2007 or if they use the older 17 year rule from issue date then this patent expires next year, December 10, 2008.

[Commander_Spock]

Tete-a-tete!

"Red Hat, Novell sued for patent infringement"... Wow! Told you so Sergeant: The Trees Are Moving - It must be those 800lb Gorillas (OS/2 Warp/eComStation) having their (read the subject line). It must be time for the "Desktop" hunting expeditions to begin!

[sportcatz]

patents

Tenchnogreed hath no boundaries.

[digitalshaman]

better question why is microsoft behind PATENT FAIRNESS COALITION?

if the coalition for patent fairness truly wants to improve the quality
of patents, why didn't they go through negotiations instead of
resorting to litigation?

hmmm...

[Dachi]

Short answer, YES!

The last part of the article links to: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071011205044141
and states:

"Jones pounced on two Microsoft connections, both also on Acacia's Web site: Brad Brunell joined the company this month as senior vice president after 16 years at Microsoft, including general manager of intellectual property licensing, and Jonathan Taub, who joined in July as vice president after leaving Microsoft as director of strategic alliances for the company's mobile and embedded devices division."

Here is a blog from CNET's Matt Asay on the topic:
http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9796697-16.html

[Bubulus]

Legal equivalent of Usenet trolls

This is just another example of losers attempting to pervert the legal system to extort money from successful innovators. Hopefully they will meet the same fate as USL and SCO. The whole notion of patenting software has been controversial. The copyright system is probably more appropriate.

[prothe113]

Abolish software patents!

Europe has had a long debate about software patents, and about whether or not they add anything to the common good. Many sources think that they do not, IP trolls (unsurprisingly) disagree.

Software patents do little except enrich the lawyers; even the original innovators don't end up seeing much money (it's all absorbed by giant holding companies and IP trolling firms).

Abolish software patents today, and we may start seeing true innovation in the industry for the first time in a few decades.

[rhaft22]

Time is Right

I think the timing is right to address one of the key questions which loom over Linux (and other open source products). Linux patent infringement claims have gone unanswered and perhaps rightfully so. Perhaps this is the case that Microsoft really doesn't want to happen. A "victory" by Linux will give it perhaps an un-stoppable path to future dominance while a loss will give the Linux community the information it can use for future development which ensures the validity of open source licensing.

[Commander_Spock]

"Software Patents for Methods of Doing Business...

... ?A Second Class Citizen No More":

"For many years, anyone seeking to patent the use of a computer for functions that were previously performed manually had double trouble if the invention related to a ?way of doing business.? First, the Patent and Trademark Office decided that mathematical algorithms were not a statutory category of subject matter that could be protected by patent. Second, ?business methods? were held to be unpatentable. These two objections have been eroded over the years.

Recently, software inventions involving algorithms have been eligible for United States patents as long as tangible results are produced. Also, in the mid-1980s, Merrill Lynch won a court ruling that it was entitled to have a patent on its Cash Management System, which involved various types of processing of financial data by computer.

In 1998, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the State Street case destroyed the last remnant of the ?method of doing business? objection to obtaining a patent. It ruled that no legal basis exists for such an exception to patentability and that if an invention otherwise meets the standards for patentability, there is no legitimate basis for denying the issuance of a patent. This ruling was made for a software invention that used computerized processing to establish a system for pooling of assets of mutual funds..."

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-0012.html

According to the above... It is what the laws say anyhow this particular case is put "Eolas" or no "Eolas" of the Americas!!!. Read The Subject Line!

[Commander_Spock]

"Court Puts Further Limits on Software Patents"

"The Wall Street Journal is reporting on a recent court ruling that may severely limit the scope of both software and business model patents. The court found that 'The routine addition of modern electronics to an otherwise unpatentable invention' isn't enough to get over the 'non-obvious' hurdle that every patent is supposed to clear. This is a huge step in the right direction and one of the first admissions from the court system that perhaps software and business model patents have gone too far. 'In August, the Federal Circuit in essence raised the bar for proving willful infringement, a finding that allows a judge to triple a damage award. In April, the Supreme Court handed down a patent decision making it easier for trial-court judges to call an invention "obvious" and therefore ineligible for a patent.'"

Source: os2world: http://www.os2world.com/content/view/14973/79/

Let The "Showdown At The OK CORAL" (Games) Begin!

Got To Have That Ring Side Seat For The Economic Rate of Return (ERR) "Eolas Class" Missile Strikes!

[starcannon]

Good stuff, thanks for the link

Progress towards sanity, no matter how slowly, is welcomed.

[zigdog]

Another Blatently Bogus and Moronic Patent. RSS News sites watch out

According to this bogus patent obviously applied for for litigation only, all news sites should watch out. Wow, collecting data from different boxes to display on the same page !! What a bunch of MORONIC IDIOTS that company is composed of.

oh BTY I patented the alphabet last week so look for my law suit soon.

[alegr]

Ever heard of Palo Alto?

In case if you don't know, this patent was granted to Xerox, for invention by folks from Palo Alto center. This was where Steve Jobs and Bill Gates got ideas about GUI.
This patent actually is quite fundamental.

[cyberbian]

I propose a new law!

No free product shall be considered in regards to patents. Patents are meant to give a competative head start to commercialization. Surely there is no competition between a free product and a commercial one.

[davidsarmstrong]

Patenting Software

Patenting Software is like patenting math. There might be discoveries but there are no real inventions.

[adder1972]

Boycott Micro$oft

Now I had enough of Micro$oft's FUDD. Tomorrow my business will stop using M$ software, and we will switch to a Linux distro that has not payed fear-tax to M$.

[davidsarmstrong]

You won't regret it.

We've been running a Unix-like OS (don't want to give the lawyers at MS anything to bite on here) since 2000. Our bread-and-butter runs on Java and without MS and it was the smartest move we've made.

We have an accounting package running under Windows on five machines (compared to 50 Linux ... Unix-like boxes). The 5 windows machines require more admin than the 50 Linux boxes. Not to mention the costs of the Linux boxes were cheaper and because it runs well on low-end hardware we haven't had to replace many of the boxes.

[richto]

It will cost you more...

TCO of Linux / Open source is far higher than Microsoft platforms in the vast majority of businesses...

[starcannon]

Get on it, I switched 3 years ago

and I have no regrets, I keep 1 windows partition rolling for those occasional and dwindling situations where I have to have I.E. for some terribly developed web-app that doesn't know how to be platform neutral. Down to just one of those applications now, and even it has an end in site, somewhere in December it will no longer be required for my daily affairs.

[Commander_Spock]

Hello Houston We Have A Problem - Not!

Here is why - Code-Base OS/2 = Windows X.. = eComStation = VOYAGER = CASINNI:

"Around this time (circa 1990), Microsoft's other project, Windows, now at version 3.0, was starting to gain popularity with some users. Previously, Windows had been little more than a task-swapping shell for DOS applications, and was intended to compete with QuarterDeck's DesqView. Users found it appealing becaused it contained some of the GUI elements that were being developed for OS/2. A decision was made to drop all support for OS/2, and go strictly with Windows. However, because of the history they had with IBM, and because they still used so much of their technology (Object Linking and Embedding [OLE] aka ActiveX and Component Object Model [COM] are derived from Dynamic Data Exchange [DDE]), Microsoft to this day maintains a broad-ranging cross-licensing agreement with them. Windows NT was partially based on the OS/2 work that they did for IBM, and Windows 95 also borrows heavily from this code.

With Microsoft no longer doing development on the user interface, IBM was faced with creating this themselves. In this timeframe, a deal was made with Commodore. Commodore licensed IBM's REXX scripting language for inclusion in their AmigaOS, and IBM took many GUI design ideas from the AmigaOS for their new GUI. With the release of OS/2 2.0, the WorkPlace Shell (WPS) user interface was born. OS/2 was now a 32-bit operating system, with a fully object-oriented graphical user interface. Based on IBM's System Object Model (SOM), the WorkPlace Shell is still the model for all graphical user interfaces, since nothing else has come even close to providing the same functionality. OS/2 2.1 and 2.11 followed, including a version of 2.11 with full Symmetric Multi-Processing (SMP) support. OS/2 2.x won over many Windows 3.x users because of it's ability to run Windows programs seamlessly, while maintaining a stable system, something that Windows had trouble doing. IBM even went so far as to trademark the term "Crash-Proof..."

http://www.os2bbs.com/os2news/OS2Warp.html

OS/2's History cannot be erased or re-written; and, it is the Operating System that Redmond fears the most!

"eComStation is a highly efficient operating system that truly flies on today?s powerful computers, and works great on legacy hardware. The minimal resource requirements extend the life of your IT environment, offering a greater return on your investment in computer hardware.

eComStation interoperates with Windows, Linux and NetWare. It also offers excellent compatibility with DOS, Java and OS/2 applications. You can safely share your ADSL, cable or ISDN Internet connection with up to 253 PCs by using the built-in firewall. And, all of this comes packaged with an easy to use GUI... WOW!

http://www.ecomstation.com/product_info.phtml

[tyggna]

losing battle

X-server-- which is the backbone of the user interface in Linux-- predates this patent by 3 years. It's been using multiple "virtual" desktops since before windows 3.0 ever came out.

[davidsarmstrong]

Can't wait for first lawsuit against MS

for illegal use of Open Source patents. I'm wondering, for example, about the legality of the WMA and WMV formats. What are the chances that they are using open source compression (bzip) algorithms in those. The first version of MS Sql Server was so similar to Sybase Sql Server that you could use the same drivers. Sound like stolen code?

[pjpeacock]

SQLServer was Sybase

It was a partnership of some sort. SQLServer was Sybase (it's been largely re-written since). So at least in this case, the code was not stolen.

[alegr]

WMA, WMV

Man, get a clue. bzip is a variant of zip - lossless general purpose compression. Audio and video compression use different algorithms and usually provide lossy compression. For lossless audio and video compression, you need algorithms much different from bzip.

[wmb1957]

Not against Linux

Computer users today seem to forget that computing history is much older then the computers we use today. In fact GUI's, windows, mice all existed in the 70's.

Software patents did not exist in the U.S. in the '70s.

This patent does not apply to the linux kernal. If anything it would apply to the multi desktop portion of windowing systems that actually do multi desktops the way the patents refer to. In fact, it may apply to ANY application that has multiple workspaces as referred to in the patent rather then just desktops.
The patent seems to be quite broad.

Desktop wise, SWM was in 1989. However, swm is considered to be based upon the MIT work of the 1970's.
Incidentially, Linux was started in 8/91 and did not support X until version 0.95 in 3/92.

[meh130]

Window Managers, not Red Hat or Novell

This seems to relate to a specific feature of UNIX window managers/GUIs. More than likely, any infringement is against KDE or GNOME. It is not Linux, or Red Hat, or Novell.

I wonder if it affects CDE, the primary UNIX window manager/GUI. If it regards GNOME, it could affect Sun, now that Solaris' primary interface is GNOME.

I almost want to see this go to court, because Red Hat and Novell may be able to argue they simply support this technology rather than infringe upon it. With open source, the distributors definitely have levels of plausible deniability.

But the patent trolls are not going to go after non-profit foundations which shepherd open source projects, because there is no money there.

Other questions: Why are two companies involved? How did they gain access to a patent originally filed by Xerox? Can prior art be used as a defense (the patent was awarded in 1991, eight years after the Xerox Star inspired Apple Lisa GUI.