decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
JBoss Seminar on Open Source and the Law - And a New Kind of Litigation
Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 04:37 PM EDT

There was a seminar yesterday on open source and the law hosted by JBoss. Panelists included Larry Rosen, David Byer, and Jim Harvey, and the upshot of it all was their conclusion that a lot of the worries about using open source can be alleviated by educating folks on licenses and how they work. Groklaw was mentioned by one panelist:

"SCO's open-source prosecutions also mark a new kind of litigation, one that involves a community of defendants who use the Web as a tool for real-time communication, says David Byer, a partner with Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault LLP's patent and intellectual-property practice group. Their most prominent tool is Groklaw.net, a Web site and blog created by paralegal Pamela Jones with the help of volunteers who post immediate responses to any new developments in SCO's various cases.

"'It's an extraordinary thing to watch, to have evidence provided within minutes of arguments being brought in court,' Byer says. 'This type of response will be with us for a long time.'"

I'll let you know when the seminar is available. Rosen said about patents, "The risks of patent infringement are almost equal for both proprietary and open-source software. Open-source-related lawsuits are just not as prevalent as they seem."

All of the lawyers on Wednesday's panel agreed "that SCO's strategy of keeping its action in the spotlight have helped advance education about open source."


  


JBoss Seminar on Open Source and the Law - And a New Kind of Litigation | 180 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Woo Hoo! Sweet!
Authored by: clark_kent on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 04:55 PM EDT
"Their most prominent tool is Groklaw.net"

It rocks!

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT Stuff here
Authored by: clark_kent on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 04:56 PM EDT
EOM

[ Reply to This | # ]

A seminar like this would be very, very worthwhile....
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 05:06 PM EDT
I would very much like to convince management to attend something like this.
With all of the FUD flying around these days, a seminar on Open Source from well
respected, reputable people like these would be greatly appreciated.

---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
End the tyranny, abolish software patents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is a very large bridge...
Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 05:22 PM EDT
To accomodate lots of Trolls underneath.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Sadly - Authored by: gleef on Friday, October 29 2004 @ 06:59 PM EDT
Somewhat relevant question
Authored by: raynfala on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 05:27 PM EDT
A lot of the indemnification-related FUD seems to imply this scenario:

Proprietary code from company Z is knowingly/unknowingly pilfered by developer X
and put into Linux (and let's say that this pilfering is, as of yet, unknown to
the community at large). Sometime later, company Y starts using Linux for their
internal needs. Later on, Linux-using company Y is sued out of the blue by
company Z for infringement.

Is this even realistic? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't there have to be a
demonstration of a good-faith effort to remedy the situation before company Z
can sue company Y (at least as far as U.S. laws are concerned)? Wouldn't the
"worst case" normally be a letter from company Z to company Y saying,
"Hey, you can't use module M anymore. It contains proprietary code",
at which point company Y gets a 'scrubbed' version of M from the
community-at-large?

--Raynfala

PS: Please don't mention SCO in your response. I asked for realistic scenarios.
That whole SCO situation is so far removed from reality that it can't be
categorized as "realistic".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Official SCO Group postings here please...
Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 05:27 PM EDT
Main posts in this thread may only be made by senior managers or attorneys for
"The SCO Group". Main posts must use the name and position of the poster at "The
SCO Group". Main posters must post in their official capacity at "The SCO
Group".

Sub-posts will also be allowed from non-"The SCO Group" employees or
attorneys. Sub-posts from persons not connected with "The SCO Group" must be
very polite, address other posters and the main poster with the honorific "Mr."
or "Mrs." or "Ms.", as appropriate, use correct surnames, not call names or
suggest or imply unethical or illegal conduct by "The SCO Group" or its
employees or attorneys.
This thread requires an extremely high standard of
conduct and even slightly marginal posts will be deleted.

P.J. says you must be
on your very best behavior.

If you want to comment on this thread, please post
under O/T"

Come on now, don't be shy, we genuinely are inviting you to say
something constructive.....

[ Reply to This | # ]

JBoss Seminar on Open Source and the Law - And a New Kind of Litigation
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 05:48 PM EDT
Kindly delete my account as well, PJ.

Thank you for all your hard work in the past. I don't know what has come over
you lately, but this is not the way you treat long-time contributors to this
site.

Best wishes for continued success.

---
In matters of style, swim with the current, in matters of principle, stand like
a rock.
--Thomas Jefferson

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw's success
Authored by: dogsbestfriend on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 05:51 PM EDT
Remember its the open community that has embraced Groklaw and made it what it
is.. without the community, Groklaw is just another site on the vast blankness
of the internet.. alienate the community, and a new Groklaw will fork off. Or
the old Groklaw will die with SCO.
Now you can go ahead and delete my account, but I really wanted to say this.
--R.

[ Reply to This | # ]

People, please do not jump to conclusions....
Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 06:13 PM EDT
A very unfortunate set of circumstances is currently troubling a lot of people. It is almost certainly not what it seems, so please sit tight and let PJ, in her own time, deal with things.

Several very bad things have happened in the last few days, which have seriously lowered the tone of things here until they were properly removed by PJ. This is almost certainly more lies and FUD. Don't let them gain advantage by acting in haste.

I looked at Yahoo for the first time just now, it is the habitation of all that is unseemly. Don't let that disturb you, please. Let us sit quietly and wait while PJ puts things in order, and support any tough decisions she has to make about who can post to this site.

Thank you all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I have always posted anonymous and always will
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 06:29 PM EDT
And I have read Groklaw front to back, and I have to say that there is something
going on here that smells really fishy. Don't get too hasty people, lets find
out what's going on before we start jumping ship. You have to remember there
are those that walk amoung us who wish to see the anti-sco group break-up and
will use vast amounts of deciet to achieve it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • not anti-SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 10:25 PM EDT
JBoss Seminar on Open Source and the Law - And a New Kind of Litigation
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 06:34 PM EDT
As it's obviously pointless to be logged in I'll post anonymous from now on
whenever I think my post might be controversial and or slightly OT.

Now just some small semi-OT note with regard to the JBoss seminar: I'd just like
to point out that jboss has been involved in some rather ugly copyright dispute
with Apache's Geronimo project.
See http://apache.slashdot.org/apache/03/11/10/2057218.shtml?tid=108
I'm not saying who is right or wrong here, I really don't know.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Posting Policies
Authored by: kjb on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 06:42 PM EDT
The policies that PJ posted clearly states no profanity.
Why is this a problem?
Why is this a breaking point that requires you to remove yourselves from this
site?
Someone IGNORED the posting policy and got nixed.
We should expect no less.
To PJ and the Groklaw Community, Thanks.
I'm sticking around.

---
"No! Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try."
- Yoda

[ Reply to This | # ]

JBoss Seminar on Open Source and the Law - And a New Kind of Litigation
Authored by: miltonw on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 06:47 PM EDT
Groklaw is under attack right now and has been for awhile. This, of course,
includes a heavy attack on PJ. Why? Because she locates and displays the actual
documents and actual facts. These things make this site dangerous to some.

There is no reason why PJ should support attacks against Groklaw and herself on
her own site. If she wanted to just post the documents and articles alone, this
site would be a valuable source of information.

The posts have often been enjoyable, but if they become swamped with efforts to
destroy Groklaw, there is no reason not to remove individual posts, accounts or
even the facility to post at all.

Milton

[ Reply to This | # ]

Get a life
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 07:54 PM EDT
The deleted thread does not matter, and it doesn't matter what you think.

This web site has stated rules. PJ takes time out of her life to administrate
this site.

Groklaw has changed to world we live. Please be constructive.

Willie

Thou few will read these words, many will be affected by them

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Get a life - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2004 @ 01:35 AM EDT
JBoss Seminar on Open Source and the Law - And a New Kind of Litigation
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 08:19 PM EDT
Change brings many other changes, some unwanted. I remember 30+ years ago, the
AMA, after many fights, changed the time one would become a chiropractor, 6 to
8 years, not just 4 years as before the changed law. Chiropractors offered care
of some problems that would have cost many thosands of dollars through
doctor(s). Time of recovering is short too, some people seeing a chiropractor,
have been back to work, and back to a normal life in less time.


30+ years ago the AMA saw a threat, they wanted to slow the number of
chiropractors to doctors every year, and did so through the law. When the law
and litigation are use to control change, even "good" change, the loss
is in a measure of individual choices, and the neglect of the comming future.

[ Reply to This | # ]

We can't assume that's necessarily possible
Authored by: Boundless on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 08:26 PM EDT
Speaking purely hypothetically, if a saboteur posts
deliberately actionable material with the specific intent
of causing GL legal trouble, it needs to be removed,
not discussed.

And if it's a cleverly-orchestrated attack, it could
easily include sympathetic-looking complaints about
GL on other sites.

IANAL - So this advice is worth a bit less than you paid for it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can we get back on track now?
Authored by: darksepulcher on Thursday, October 28 2004 @ 11:11 PM EDT
Fair warning: I'm one of the quiet lurkers who rarely opens his beak to comment
on anything, so take this with a grain of salt (the size of a Rubik's cube).

I just sifted through the commentary on this board, and out of the 102 posts, I
think maybe six were in reference to the associated article. That's a little
heavy on the static in my view. Yes, I know Groklaw is being bombarded with
flaming debris and that PJ is doing her best to hose it down with Halon. That
being said, can we let her get on with her job in relative peace and not clutter
up the boards with the ashes of wanna-be flame wars? It's like an accident on a
highway, everyone wants to stop and look even when very little can be seen which
results in a massive backlog behind them.

If you're like me, you tend to check the board really late at night and see more
than a few smoking craters were posts used to be. But instead of stopping to
gawk or post "What happened here, why was it deleted?", could y'all
just keep on walking and try to keep the threads reasonably on-topic? You know,
keep the signal-to-noise ratio at a decent level and all. Just my biased
viewpoint. Cheers.



---
Had I but time--As this fell Sergeant, Death
Is strict in his arrest--O, I could tell you--
But let it be.
(Hamlet, Act V Scene 2)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Risk to open-source IP lawsuit is somewhat higher
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2004 @ 12:04 AM EDT
The risk of a IP threat is higher to a project if it's source is publicly
available than if it's not.

Why?

Part I: Easier to see violations.

Because trade-secret source code can succesfully hide
"non-obvious-by-behavior" theft of someone else's IP, where
open-source cannot.

If I'm a developer in Washington State and I steal a GPL'd sorting algorthim,
nobody's going to notice unless it's significantly "better" than
public domain or BSD-licensable code.

However, if I'm an open-source program and I steal someone's commercial
algorithm, one they've patented or that they've published but not licensed
freely, they can spot it by simply inspecting the code.

They say Linux violates 200+ patents. My guess is that MS-Windows violates a
similar number of patents per million lines of code. Until it's recent
willingness to let others peek at its code, nobody outside Redmond knew for
sure.

Part II: Motivation to sue, lack of defensive portfolio

There's a strong motivation NOT to sue large companies for violating your patent
- they've got a patent portfolio they can fire right back at you.

While there is an effort to build up a defensive patent portfolio to protect
FOSS, this does not YET exist.

Suppose, hypothetically, we found out tomorrow that someone had a key patent on
something high-value, such as the 0(1) scheduling algorithm used in the 2.6
kernel. Suppose Microsoft bought the patent outright. Microsoft might be able
to force the Linux maintainers to revert to a less efficient algorithm for the
public distributions. Large companies like IBM, with their patent portfolios,
might be able to cross-license the patent and publish their own "IBM-brand
Linux, with O(1) scheduling" but the community and other non-big-guy
distributions would be out of luck.


What's the solution to this?

For #1, as long as code has "trade secret" status, there's not much
that can be done, short of decompiling the binaries or grepping for strings and
hoping the code-thiefs didn't use an obscufying tool.

For #2, developing FOSS-wide defensive patent portfolios is a partial fix, as is
reforming the patent system to
1) cut out "submarine patents,"
2) cut out patents with little or no merit,
3) make it easier to fight a patent of questionable merits,
4) mandatory patent licensing on financially realistic terms, terms that
"further the useful arts" not hinder them

[ Reply to This | # ]

Please don't let this site become like YAHOO...
Authored by: MacUser on Friday, October 29 2004 @ 04:49 AM EDT
... where self-indulgent, self-referring, spiteful posts outnumber relevant
items. (I've stopped going there, and have deleted it from my bookmarks).

The sad thing is that the YAHOO board might have been a useful forum,
introducing financial types to the broader issues in SCO v IBM and the other
cases. But the sane voices are lost in the noise.

As a lurker I applaud PJ'S work, and moderation. I would completely support
more stringent moderation and deleting of posts (including this one!) if PJ
felt it necessary.

PJ's output exceeds that of many tech journalists (I was once one), and she
still has a day job! I'd hate to see her time wasted, or effort diluted, by
valueless postings.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Suggestion to PJ on deleting accounts
Authored by: DarrenR114 on Friday, October 29 2004 @ 12:35 PM EDT
PJ -

I think the biggest controversy is being created because these jerks are
PUBLICLY making a stink while requesting you to delete their accounts.

Perhaps the thing to do is NOT delete accounts where the request is made through
a comment posted to a story.

You could make it a policy to only honor those requests for account deletion
which are received via email.

However, as others have stated, I also believe that deleting accounts is a bad
precedent.

A better thing to do would be to simply disable the account. It would be better
for data integrity and easier to recover when cooler heads prevail.

Just some thoughts of mine.

---
No job is too small for dynamite ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

JBoss Seminar on Open Source and the Law - And a New Kind of Litigation
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 29 2004 @ 04:01 PM EDT
Back on topic...

The 'Golden IP' sect knows they 'working' the system. They buy legislation like
the DMCA that would never make it past your average prudent person if our
lawmaking system wasn't so dodgey. They register silly, obvious patents and
then pay for not-so-independent reports about rampant violations. They work
like cockroaches.

The thing is ... they can't actually move on it. Any patent suit against FOSS
would have tens of thousands of really clever people doing the kind of prior-art
research not even billionaires could buy. Advocate groups and individuals would
pay the legal fees. University Professors would render expect opinions gratis.

All they can is let Steve Balmer open his mouth to convince a few more bosses
that he sounds a lot like a liar.

[ Reply to This | # ]

sorry, wrong thread
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 30 2004 @ 01:09 AM EDT
sorry, followed up in the wrong thread

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )