|
Not So Fast, Bedrock |
|
Monday, May 16 2011 @ 02:30 PM EDT
|
There was a good deal of gnashing of teeth just two weeks ago when Google was found to have infringed the patents of Bedrock Computer Technologies, Inc. with respect to caching in Linux. In terms of patent judgments, the award was relatively small, just $5 million. But it still raised issues with respect to other developers and users of Linux, many of whom were engaged in related infringement suits brought by Bedrock.
Well, lo and behold, in the same court in the Eastern District of Texas this week Bedrock lost [PDF] on its infringement claim against Yahoo (related NewsPick), another defendant using exactly the same technology, albeit without executing the Bedrock code.
Now wait a second. A jury says valid and infringed in one case, but in a second case before the same court but a different jury the jury concludes valid but not infringed even though the technology is, for all intents and purposes, identical. Does anyone need a better object lesson in the arbitrary aspects of our patent system when it comes to software?
Moreover, in a third case involving the same patents and Bedrock, Amazon has forced Bedrock to throw in the towel [PDF] and agree to a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice [PDF]. Whether this is the result of a settlement is not clear.
By the way, some of the other defendants settled either before or immediately after the Google judgment. Bet they are wishing they had waited. Meantime, there may be news in the next day or two with respect to the remaining defendants. Stay tuned.
While we may never know the agreements arrived to settle these suits, these settlements do raise a question about the terms of any agreed license since the software involved, Linux, is under the GPLv2. It is not impossible to get a patent license that is compatible with GPLv2; you only have to turn to the license [PDF] entered between Red Hat and DataTern to resolve that litigation. [You may remember this article on Groklaw at the time explaining this, as well as the article on Red Hat's explanation of the agreement.] As Red Hat explained at the time, they used a series of definitions with the license grant to assure that upstream developers, Red Hat, and all downstream recipients are covered by the license. A really clever bit of license drafting.
While the idea of taking a license may be anathema to many in the free and open source software community, it is simply a cost of doing business for the defendants. The key question is whether they have resolved all claims without compromise with respect to the GPL.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 16 2011 @ 03:03 PM EDT |
Post corrections here as so:
Korrections --> corrections
Good stuff. Welcome Mark.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Monday, May 16 2011 @ 03:08 PM EDT |
After you, Alphonse! [Someone else posted the same time as me, and we both
deleted at the same time.]
Corections -> Corrections in the title, please.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Monday, May 16 2011 @ 03:10 PM EDT |
Let's keep it organized, so Mark doesn't wonder what he's gotten himself into!
;-)
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Canonical Threads - Authored by: artp on Monday, May 16 2011 @ 03:18 PM EDT
- Novell v. Vigilant (insurance claim for SCO case) appeal ruling - Authored by: mattflaschen on Monday, May 16 2011 @ 06:18 PM EDT
- What has happened to linux.org? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 05:16 AM EDT
- Groklaw – "The blog that made a difference" A Q&A with Pamela Jones - Authored by: Winter on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 08:17 AM EDT
- Is there really an Open Source “Tea Party Movement”? - Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 09:02 AM EDT
- Microsoft gets another monopoly - Authored by: soronlin on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 09:04 AM EDT
- High Court Upholds Warrantless Search - "police-created exigency" is OK - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 10:21 AM EDT
- About Groklaw - Authored by: David Gerard on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 11:54 AM EDT
- Net pirate monitoring firm hacked - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 12:38 PM EDT
- Individual mandate - appeal - Authored by: YurtGuppy on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 02:09 PM EDT
- Attachmate kicks MONO to curb - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 02:12 PM EDT
- JavaScript Linux - Linux in your browser - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 03:53 PM EDT
- De Icaza Launches New Mono-Based Start Up - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 05:20 PM EDT
- does this mean groklaw will stop hiding behind a fake name? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 07:45 PM EDT
- Who’s Suing Whom in the Telecom World - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 10:31 PM EDT
- Where Are they Now -- Sandeep Gupta - Authored by: soronlin on Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 05:29 AM EDT
- Blogger ordered to pay $60K in defamation case - for telling truth - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 09:59 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Monday, May 16 2011 @ 03:11 PM EDT |
Comment on or around News Picks here.
--- Well, it's either Captain
Kirk or Doctor Strangelove. —me, ca. 1984-1985 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Nokia denies Microsoft buyout rumours - Authored by: JamesK on Monday, May 16 2011 @ 04:24 PM EDT
- [NP] Groklaw under new management - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 16 2011 @ 04:32 PM EDT
- [NP] News Picks threads - Monopoly Supports CentOS on Hyper V - Authored by: webster on Monday, May 16 2011 @ 06:13 PM EDT
- Beyond Skype: VoIP Alternatives - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 16 2011 @ 09:26 PM EDT
- Is the Roberts Court Really a Court? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 16 2011 @ 10:45 PM EDT
- Digital Images of Yale’s Vast Cultural Collections Now Available for Free - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 11:32 AM EDT
- Sony Hackers: Pirates or Thieves, CEO Bristles - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 01:57 PM EDT
- Bill Gates Says We're All Doomed - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 06:03 PM EDT
- Bill Gates Says We're All Doomed - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 07:07 PM EDT
- Bill Gates Says We're All Doomed - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 08:03 PM EDT
- Oh, my, seriously? - Authored by: Bernard on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 08:25 PM EDT
- Oh, my, seriously? - Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 09:53 PM EDT
- Actually, NO! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 10:56 PM EDT
- Actually, NO! - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 10:12 AM EDT
- Actually, NO! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 10:49 AM EDT
- Actually, NO! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 04:41 PM EDT
- Actually, NO! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 06:22 PM EDT
- Actually, NO! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 19 2011 @ 09:13 AM EDT
- An even stronger causal relationship exists - Authored by: Bernard on Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 09:05 PM EDT
- Not necessarily - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 11:08 PM EDT
- Oh, my, seriously? - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 11:41 PM EDT
- Oh, my, seriously? - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 04:11 AM EDT
- If he is promoting THORIUM reactors, then that might be a GOOD thing. Google it. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 04:10 AM EDT
- Bill Gates Says We're All Doomed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 09:43 AM EDT
- Bill Gates Says We're All Doomed - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 06:08 PM EDT
- Journalist Arrested at IT Security Conference (for reporting) - Authored by: gfim on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 10:37 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Monday, May 16 2011 @ 03:12 PM EDT |
Comes v. MS. docs here. --- Well, it's either Captain Kirk or
Doctor Strangelove. —me, ca. 1984-1985 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, May 16 2011 @ 03:13 PM EDT |
So with this loss is their appeal stronger?
One would think so.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Observer on Monday, May 16 2011 @ 04:19 PM EDT |
Let's say a company "X" has opened up various patent
infringement lawsuits
against multiple companies, "A", "B"
and
"C". Let's assume that company "A"
decides that it's a lot
easier and in the long run, cheaper to just
settle
for some
minimal amount. However, company "B" takes the case to
court
and wins.
Obviously, all three cases are likely to have their own
unique
points, but generally speaking, is the fact that
company "A" caved in and
didn't fight going to have a large
negative impact on the lawsuite with company
"C", or is the
larger factor going to be the fact that "B" has already won
in
court??? --- The Observer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 16 2011 @ 06:27 PM EDT |
> Does anyone need a better object lesson in the arbitrary aspects
> of our patent system when it comes to software?
I asked another question under NewsPicks a couple of stories ago, but
either nobody knew, or were prepared to divulge:
What's the difference between the Google and Yahoo cases?
Same patent, same court, superficially same technology, but is it?
Different jury, different defendants, with different counsel.
To me it demonstrates the arbitrary aspects of a jury trial
on matters of "fact".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Bystander on Monday, May 16 2011 @ 08:08 PM EDT |
One of the biggest problems with the way things are currently handled is
that excessive secrecy exists at all levels. If much of this secrecy were
eliminated, many of the problems we see today would be greatly
reduced.
Secrecy prevents people from fairly valuing many patents. In a
free
market system, the value of goods for sale is determined by the
willingness of
informed buyers to pay a certain price balanced against the
willingness of
sellers to provide goods at a certain price. With software
patents, it is often
unclear exactly what a party is getting when they purchase
a license. The
market is further distorted when knowledge of different
transactions (such as
prices and terms) are kept hidden from the view of other
potential
buyers.
The court system seems to be a willing accomplice in
keeping many
important details away from affected parties. For example, take a
look at the
list of docket entries for the Bedr
ock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et
al.
Virtually all of the documents containing any real information about
the case
have been filed under seal. Enormous effort from all parties goes
into making
sure that information is kept away from and out of sight of the
public. This
seems wrong. Companies should not be allowed to exploit the
use of public
resources to fight their own private battles without providing
some significant
public benefit in return.
To me, it seems that if companies want to
utilize public resources such as
the courts to resolve their disputes, then one
of the requirements for that use
should be that virtually all of the
proceedings should be available for public
inspection. That would serve several
important purposes. It helps make the
legal system more transparent and
credible in the eyes of the public. It likely
reduces the number of lawsuits
from companies that are afraid to operate in
the open, perhaps because of too
many skeletons in the closet they want to
keep hidden. And finally, it helps
reduce some wasteful re-litigation over
issues that may have already been fully
addressed and settled in other
cases.
--bystander1313 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 16 2011 @ 09:50 PM EDT |
Google has two non financial reasons to appeal. There is
the 'Dane geld' argument (made above) - show other potential litigants that you
are not an easy target. Then there is the desire to keep the Android software
free. Google presumably thinks it benefits from Android being open source, but
it can't be if it is encumbered by patents.
However, Google may feel they've already done enough Dane discouragement in
fighting it this far. "Android must be Free" can also be satisfied by
coding around the patent instead - some other comments indicate this has already
happened.
What we want Google to do may not be what Google thinks is best for itself. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 01:23 AM EDT |
I don't understand that phrase in this article. A patent doesn't contain code.
Bedrock didn't write any code in the Linux kernel--if it had, then it would have
been forced to put it under GPLv2 and attempting to sue for patent infringement
would be nonsensical.
So what is "the Bedrock code"?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pcrooker on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 01:39 AM EDT |
I'm sure I can speak for all of us readers, thank you so much for taking on
Groklaw. I was so dreading the 16th May, but now it is just a new start.
I can keep getting my daily sanity fix. I'm truly grateful.
Just shout if you need a hand...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ile on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 05:39 AM EDT |
Welcome, Mr Webbink!
And thank you for stepping up.
I know you will not think me discourteous in missing PJ,
too... :)
And a suggestion: the e-mail link on the (reader's) left hand
side column is to PJ (and glad about it, too). Should there be
one for you? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 06:11 AM EDT |
Now wait a second. A jury says valid and infringed in one case,
but
in a second case before the
same court but a different
jury the jury concludes
valid but not infringed even though the technology is,
for all intents and
purposes,
identical. Does anyone need a
better object lesson in the arbitrary
aspects of our patent system when it
comes to software?
The
same sort of thing happens in other areas of law. There have been
many criminal
cases where two
defendants accused of being
equal participants in a crime but
who were tried separately have had different
outcomes on the same
evidence,
for instance.
In a civil case, such as a patent case, I don't see why
this kind of thing
would be surprising. After all, if
one side's case were so
strong that no reasonable jury could find for the other side, the case would
be decided on the pretrial
motions and wouldn't ever get to
the jury. If it
gets to the jury, there is some chance of either outcome, and so
if essentially
the same case is
tried multiple times with
different juries, we should expect
to have some differing outcomes.
Here's a question that I hope is
interesting. Suppose company A and B
are both using Linux. They get their Linux
from the same source. They are
both sued over this patent. Company A loses,
pays a lump sum to cover their
past infringement, and has to pay a royalty on
future Linux use.
Company B, on the other hand, is found to be
non-infringing.
What happens if company A starts getting their new Linux
kernels from
company B, instead of staying with the kernels that came with
their
distribution? Can A now stop paying royalties to the patent holder,
because
they are using a copy of Linux that was found to be non-infringing? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 07:56 AM EDT |
Shouldn't we be getting it soon?
It would be nice to get a judgement that makes SCO history.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 09:07 AM EDT |
It's not PJ's style, so I'll assume it's Mark. The problem is that there's going
to be other people contributing in future as well.
So I'm going to suggest that all future posts should be signed by the poster.
---
Regards
Wayne Borean
http://madhatter.ca - Through the Looking Glass
http://wayneborean.ca - About Writing
http://weblit.ca - Web Lit Canada
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 09:10 AM EDT |
Now that you have taken over I have a few questions that are bothering me.
Will there be any changes to Groklaw's Comments Policy, and other
infrastructure? At present it is still very PJ centric.
Will your contributions be clearly marked as such?
Will she continue to own the copyright on Groklaw going forward?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: iraskygazer on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 10:14 AM EDT |
<p> As a developer all I see in front of me is a field full of patent
landmines. I don't have a pot of money, like Google, to fight unintentional
infringement. Also, I don't have enough money to hire a lawyer to help me
determine if a claim of patent infringement is valid.
</p>
<p> To put it simply, software patents styfle innovation by anybody that
isn't part of a corporate entity. The only way to protect individual software
developers is to eliminate most software patents.</p>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Agree - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 12:08 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 12:32 PM EDT |
A jury says valid and infringed in one case, but in a second case before
the same court but a different jury the jury concludes valid but not infringed
even though the technology is, for all intents and purposes,
identical.
Cases argued by different lawyers? The better legal team
won in both cases?
Tentative conclusion: the side with more money to
spend on its legal team has a big advantage?
Does anybody think that the
US legal system has anything to do with "justice", as that word is commonly
understood? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 01:43 PM EDT |
.....links to scofacts.org ? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 17 2011 @ 07:11 PM EDT |
If I look at a patent and build a device that uses the patent am I guilty of
infringement or are there conditions that would trigger infringement (such as
distribution)?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 18 2011 @ 09:17 AM EDT |
guess this patent doesn't apply to friends of microsoft [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|