<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Red Hat&#8217;s Legal Department Was &#8216;Closed-Source&#8217;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://techrights.org/2008/07/16/red-hat-secret-settlement/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://techrights.org/2008/07/16/red-hat-secret-settlement/</link>
	<description>Free Software Sentry – watching and reporting maneuvers of those threatened by software freedom</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:00:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roy Schestowitz</title>
		<link>http://techrights.org/2008/07/16/red-hat-secret-settlement/comment-page-1/#comment-15403</link>
		<dc:creator>Roy Schestowitz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:04:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boycottnovell.com/2008/07/16/red-hat-secret-settlement/#comment-15403</guid>
		<description>Thanks for pointing that out. I thought it was closer to being squashed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for pointing that out. I thought it was closer to being squashed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Victor Soliz</title>
		<link>http://techrights.org/2008/07/16/red-hat-secret-settlement/comment-page-1/#comment-15377</link>
		<dc:creator>Victor Soliz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:24:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boycottnovell.com/2008/07/16/red-hat-secret-settlement/#comment-15377</guid>
		<description>Groklaw says that Sun has not nullified the patent yet.

PJ @ groklaw.net: 
&lt;blockquote&gt;What has happened isn&#039;t quite like that, from what I know. What has happened is a first office action. A lot can happen, and while it&#039;s good to be optimistic in one&#039;s outlook, the end result is by no means certain. This patent has definitively NOT been invalidated yet. If you don&#039;t believe me, look up what happened to Microsoft&#039;s FAT patent. The first office action also rejected it, but in the end, two years later, it was upheld.] &lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;It&#039;s certainly a good thing that Sun is trying to knock out any patents, though, and trying to help out the community. But note that the USPTO action Dillon writes about is is a first office action in a reexamination. The patent isn&#039;t knocked out yet. Sometimes reexams work; sometimes they don&#039;t; sometimes what happens is that there are some narrowing amendments, but the patents survives. So it&#039;s a worthwhile effort, but there is a long way to go and an uncertain ending, patent law being as nutso as it currently is, which will explain why Red Hat made the decision to enter this agreement. It means everyone is protected immediately and forever and without any doubt.&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Groklaw says that Sun has not nullified the patent yet.</p>
<p>PJ @ groklaw.net: </p>
<blockquote><p>What has happened isn&#8217;t quite like that, from what I know. What has happened is a first office action. A lot can happen, and while it&#8217;s good to be optimistic in one&#8217;s outlook, the end result is by no means certain. This patent has definitively NOT been invalidated yet. If you don&#8217;t believe me, look up what happened to Microsoft&#8217;s FAT patent. The first office action also rejected it, but in the end, two years later, it was upheld.] </p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>It&#8217;s certainly a good thing that Sun is trying to knock out any patents, though, and trying to help out the community. But note that the USPTO action Dillon writes about is is a first office action in a reexamination. The patent isn&#8217;t knocked out yet. Sometimes reexams work; sometimes they don&#8217;t; sometimes what happens is that there are some narrowing amendments, but the patents survives. So it&#8217;s a worthwhile effort, but there is a long way to go and an uncertain ending, patent law being as nutso as it currently is, which will explain why Red Hat made the decision to enter this agreement. It means everyone is protected immediately and forever and without any doubt.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Saul Goode</title>
		<link>http://techrights.org/2008/07/16/red-hat-secret-settlement/comment-page-1/#comment-15341</link>
		<dc:creator>Saul Goode</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:01:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boycottnovell.com/2008/07/16/red-hat-secret-settlement/#comment-15341</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;You know what the real problem was? Sun let Red Hat do a settlement that was unnecessary, Sun failed to inform Red Hat they were able to make the patent invalid, Sun tricked Red Hat ...&lt;/blockquote&gt;

According to Mike Dillon, VP and General Counsel at Sun:

&quot;We also let our friends at Red Hat know early in the litigation of our activities, that we had filed a request with the PTO for reexamination of the patent, and shared copies of the prior art for Red Hat to possibly use it in its defense.&quot; -- http://blogs.sun.com/dillon/entry/firestar</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>You know what the real problem was? Sun let Red Hat do a settlement that was unnecessary, Sun failed to inform Red Hat they were able to make the patent invalid, Sun tricked Red Hat &#8230;</p></blockquote>
<p>According to Mike Dillon, VP and General Counsel at Sun:</p>
<p>&#8220;We also let our friends at Red Hat know early in the litigation of our activities, that we had filed a request with the PTO for reexamination of the patent, and shared copies of the prior art for Red Hat to possibly use it in its defense.&#8221; &#8212; <a href="http://blogs.sun.com/dillon/entry/firestar" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.sun.com/dillon/entry/firestar</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Victor Soliz</title>
		<link>http://techrights.org/2008/07/16/red-hat-secret-settlement/comment-page-1/#comment-15337</link>
		<dc:creator>Victor Soliz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:37:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://boycottnovell.com/2008/07/16/red-hat-secret-settlement/#comment-15337</guid>
		<description>You know, I don&#039;t get why this is a bad image for red hat. If anything the evilness comes from Sun, Red Hat has just done a settlement where they thought there weren&#039;t other choices and instead of doing it just for themselves they did for everyone else.

Now the payment section is secret, I don&#039;t really see the problem there it actually makes sense, if I was trolled I would push for the money I am paying not to be disclosed - that would just attract more trolls. I guess the problem is, some people are assuming that the payment section is undisclosed because it is firefly who payed Red Hat... we should try more non-sense accusations like that...

You know what the real problem was? &lt;b&gt;Sun&lt;/b&gt; let Red Hat do a settlement that was unnecessary, &lt;b&gt;Sun&lt;/b&gt; failed to inform Red Hat they were able to make the patent invalid, &lt;b&gt;Sun&lt;/b&gt; tricked Red Hat into paying money to Firefly and getting bad publicity, and who is the beneficiary here? &lt;b&gt;Sun&lt;/b&gt;. So Sun&#039;s disbandment of the lame patent sure was a victory and all, but their little trick is showing us that Sun, Like Novell, can be treacherous to other companies in the OS field.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You know, I don&#8217;t get why this is a bad image for red hat. If anything the evilness comes from Sun, Red Hat has just done a settlement where they thought there weren&#8217;t other choices and instead of doing it just for themselves they did for everyone else.</p>
<p>Now the payment section is secret, I don&#8217;t really see the problem there it actually makes sense, if I was trolled I would push for the money I am paying not to be disclosed &#8211; that would just attract more trolls. I guess the problem is, some people are assuming that the payment section is undisclosed because it is firefly who payed Red Hat&#8230; we should try more non-sense accusations like that&#8230;</p>
<p>You know what the real problem was? <b>Sun</b> let Red Hat do a settlement that was unnecessary, <b>Sun</b> failed to inform Red Hat they were able to make the patent invalid, <b>Sun</b> tricked Red Hat into paying money to Firefly and getting bad publicity, and who is the beneficiary here? <b>Sun</b>. So Sun&#8217;s disbandment of the lame patent sure was a victory and all, but their little trick is showing us that Sun, Like Novell, can be treacherous to other companies in the OS field.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

