Total victory for open source software in a patent lawsuit

http://opensource.com/law/10/5/total-victory-patent-lawsuit-against-open-source-software

by linhat • 16 years ago

188 24 16 years ago

mmelin• 16 years ago

"Plaintiffs attempted to exploit this inexperience by arguing that open source software involved behavior that was, if not downright illegal, at least ethically dubious. They promoted the fallacy that open source distributors unfairly take the property of others and thereby unfairly profit. They also suggested that Red Hat's public criticisms of the U.S. patent system as it relates to software and related calls for legal reform were un-American and indicated a secret fondness for the writings of Karl Marx."

Wow. It's like a bad movie.

Gupie• 16 years ago

Might make a good movie, but probably not mainstream :)

FooBarWidget• 16 years ago

Bad movie? It's worse than that. It sounds like a classic Internet "open sore" troll.

lionhearted• 16 years ago

> They also suggested that Red Hat's public criticisms of the U.S. patent system as it relates to software and related calls for legal reform were un-American and indicated a secret fondness for the writings of Karl Marx."

What an ignorant and destructive attitude - systems of free enterprise allow people to build whatever charity they want, whatever church they want, whatever business they want, build a worker's cooperative if they want, or create an open source platform. Marx advocated violence and control, free enterprise is the opposite of that. Free enterprise is not and shouldn't be equated with profit-seeking: For profit businesses are one way to build and better the world, but there are many other ways. Marx would have the government snuff out churches, businesses, private charities, and everything that isn't subordinate to the state. Free enterprise is the opposite of that.

rbanffy3• 16 years ago

I would add that Free Software is the final step for software and capitalism: it commoditizes software.

bad_user• 16 years ago

> systems of free enterprise allow people to build whatever charity they want, whatever church they want, whatever business they want, build a worker's cooperative if they want, or create an open source platform

Kind of off-topic, but it's something that bothers me ...

Some free software activists should also be reminded of this, since their agenda is getting rid of proprietary software which is considered to be immoral / unethical. Some open-source projects or companies having a business on top of open-source are perpetually harassed for their choices, some of which are viewed to be in the detriment of free software.

See here for a shining example: http://verofakto.blogspot.com/2009/07/timeline-of-david-schl...

Every ideology is right of course ( http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003097.html ), it's only a matter of perspective.

yanw• 16 years ago

It's the patent system that fits the 'un-American' bill here, when you get the government to grant you a monopoly on an often straight forward and obvious technique as it's the case for software patents, it's the opposite of free and competitive market.

nickpinkston• 16 years ago

Completely true - it's funny how so-called "capitalists" are so for the government helping them use force to enforce their "right" to intellectual "property". The whole language of this issues needs to be changed really. How about renaming pro-IPers "idea hoarders" or similar?

mseebach• 16 years ago

This seems like a pretty big deal - not only did the patent troll lose the case, he lost his patents.

I wonder on what grounds the jury found the patents invalid. Was it a technicality, or prior art or obviousness?

This could significantly raise the risk (cost) of being a patent troll since the pressure to settle out of court is now, at least to a higher degree than previously, on the plaintiffs.

bartl• 16 years ago

Judging by this article alone, I'd say "prior art".

>However, the plaintiffs came forward with minimal evidence to support their argument of infringement. They also faced abundant evidence showing that the patents were invalid based on prior art. In other words, there was nothing new in these “inventions” sufficient for a patent.

s-phi-nl• 16 years ago

Why wasn't the prior art discovered when the patent was granted?

vaksel• 16 years ago

good.

Patent trolls have abused the system for too long. The whole point of patents was to increase innovation not stifle it

barnaby• 16 years ago

>>> The whole point of patents was to increase innovation not stifle it

Don't tell the lobbyists that. They've worked really hard to make sure that the point of patents (and all IP law) is to protect large companies from innovative newcomers on the market.

jacquesm• 16 years ago

Acacia has been doing this for years, they have a very big warchest filled with the money from previous extortions.

They simply bit off more than they could chew, you can bet that in the future they're not going to change their game much, they will just go after smaller companies again.

I really hope that this will set precedent in the sense that a future defendant will be able to point to this suit and link this party with their previous loss, unfortunately that is not how it normally works in the courtroom.

It's a pity that the lawyers didn't get reprimanded for bringing this case, that would have been better still. After all, if you can get the legal profession to think twice before bringing bogus lawsuits then Acacia et al will have do a lot of homework beforehand instead of hoping that the sheer pressure of a lawsuit will cause their opponents to capitulate, as has happened so frequently in the past.

Here's a link to a previous case they lost, it doesn't seem like that deterred them much:

http://www.eff.org/files/acacia-patent-invalidated.pdf

and a blog article about that:

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/200...

Another party that should be in the docket here is the patent office, they should somehow be made liable for the cost of litigation stemming from the issuing of patents that should never have been granted in the first place.

moultano• 16 years ago

How do they sleep at night? :(

lsb• 16 years ago

On a big pile of money.

grellas• 16 years ago

This case at once underscores the good and the bad of the jury system.

The good: surprising as it may seem to many, jurors usually do try to evaluate the facts, and apply the law as instructed, in a conscientious manner - and, probably 90% of the time, the result is sound.

The bad: Red Hat and Novell undoubtedly put up a 7-figure defense to get the case to a jury and then had to undergo the risk of sweating it out to see if this particular jury might be gulled into giving sleazeballs or opportunists a victory - this is something an average defendant just can't afford to do.

Another note for those who can't abide by the idea of software patents: even though an orgy of such patents has been granted this past 30 years, there does come a time when all of the dubious and obvious ones do enter into prior art through lapse of time and, in this sense, the problem is at least to a degree self-correcting (obviously, this is cold comfort for those who have to suffer under such patents during their long tenure). That really was what won the day for the defendants in this case.

rbanffy3• 16 years ago

> this is something an average defendant just can't afford to do.

Every time we don't, we fund the trolls even further. Acacia won't die because of this one and will live on to extort smaller companies.

algorias• 16 years ago

So the solution is to fund defendants so they can stand up to this abuse. Wear the trolls down. Easier said than done, of course.

setori88• 16 years ago

In the general scheme of things this is an example of a failure. Software patents are a failure - full stop.

BrandonM• 16 years ago

Yay! A jury acted intelligently!

Woohoo! The obviously-just outcome was reached in an unjust accusation!

Does it really have to be like this? How can we as a nation justify a system that forces entities that are obviously not in the wrong to spend a large sum of money in order to defend themselves from freeloaders who clearly are in the wrong? And even after spending all that money, we are elated when the correct individuals manage to win.

Why can't the patent office (if we must have one) actually employ field experts? Patent infringement cases would be submitted to the appropriate department, and the accused would submit evidence supporting their case. The case should have to go to court only in the case that the accused loses such an accusation and decides to appeal.

Total victory for open source software in a patent lawsuit

Related Stories