EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

03.06.09

Patents Roundup: TomTom, Microsoft, Patent Trolls, Red Hat, IBM, Google, Bilski and Reform

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Free/Libre Software, FSF, GNU/Linux, Google, GPL, IBM, Law, Microsoft, Patents, Red Hat, TomTom at 10:55 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: An accumulation of many important analyses/developments that have occurred over the past couple of days

TomTom Case Revisited

IN PREVIOUS POSTS about Microsoft’s lawsuit against TomTom [1, 2, 3, 4], clear motives were sought after and explanations given with regards to the TomTom choice as a litigation target. One of those explanations was echoed by Linux Magazine a couple of days ago:

I’m not sure if this tactic will stand up in a court of law nor will we be finding out anytime soon. Why? Because TomTom doesn’t have the money to fight MS.

If TomTom had refused to fight and instead just settled (perhaps due to lack of options), that would have a hugely negative effect on Linux. It makes it likely that Microsoft picked on the feeble on purpose. But a more interesting explanation may have actually come from Jeremy Allison, whom we interviewed 2 years ago. Glyn Moody summarised his argument as follows:

The question now is what Microsoft hopes to achieve by bringing this lawsuit. A fascinating explanation is provided as a comment to my original post from Jeremy Allison. He’s one of the leaders of the Samba project, and knows more than most about how Microsoft thinks and operates, since he’s been heavily involved in the EU’s efforts to get interoperability information from the company. Here’s what he wrote:

What people are missing about this is the either/or choice that Microsoft is giving Tom Tom.

It isn’t a case of cross-license and everything is ok. If Tom Tom or any other company cross licenses patents then by section 7 of GPLv2 (for the Linux kernel) they lose the rights to redistribute the kernel *at all*.

Microsoft has been going around and doing these patent cross licensing deals with companies under NDA’s so they never come to light for *years*.

That was the whole point of the Novell deal – Microsoft lawyers finally thought they’d found a way to *publicly* do these cross licensing deals and get around the GPLv2, but the GPLv3 put paid to that.

Tom Tom are the first company to publicly refuse to engage in this ugly little protection racket, and so they got sued. Had Tom Tom silently agreed to violate the GPL, as so many others have, then we’d only hear about a vague “patent cross licensing deal” just like the ones Microsoft announces with other companies.

Make no mistake, this is intended to force Tom Tom to violate the GPL, or change to Microsoft embedded software.

[...]

So it turns out that the TomTom lawsuit goes to the heart of Microsoft’s attacks on Linux, and its effort to stop people using it in embedded systems – an increasingly popular option, and one, therefore, that is increasingly problematic for Microsoft.

It is not particularly surprising that as Microsoft terrorises many companies out there, patent deals are being quietly signed. SJVN dramatises it a little too much using the headline “Linux companies sign Microsoft patent protection pacts.”

I dug this up during an e-mail discussion with Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft’s corporate vice president and deputy general counsel of intellectual property and licensing, Gutierrez said, “We have a history of licensing the patents in this case through patent cross licensing agreements with other leaders in the car navigation space, including Kenwood, Alpine and Pioneer, and through our FAT LFN (File Allocation Table/Long File Name) patent licensing program, where we have 18 licensees to date.” This is being done under Microsoft’s FAT LFN File System Licensing Program.

[...]

The most important reason why the specifics of these deals are under NDA is that any company doing a patent cross license without covering its downstream recipients, i.e. users, is a direct violation of GPLv2 section 7, and is even more explicitly a GPLv3 violation. In other words, if a company admitted to signing such a deal, it could not legally distribute software or hardware using Linux, licensed under the GPLv2, or Samba the file/print server licensed over the GPLv3.

Despite all of this obvious abuse, there are always goons who are trying to bind Microsoft and Free/open source programmers together. They are very dishonest at times.

We mentioned Elizabeth Montalbano the other day, but IDG, which relies on Microsoft as a large revenue source [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], also employs others who quite often deceive, e.g. this writer.

Nancy Gohring is an IDG News Service correspondent based in Seattle, WA. She covers mobile phones, Microsoft and technology companies in the Pacific Northwest.

There is rarely sufficient investigation into the side which is not Microsoft, even when the articles are about Microsoft’s competitors or victims.

One of Microsoft’s sympathetic bloggers, Todd Bishop, tries to deflect attention away from Microsoft’s patent misbehaviour using a cartoon. It’s worth keeping track of who serves whose interests because the media is biased against Freedom, which does not pay the bills of publishers (separate from writers and editors, whose interests are likely separate and well intended).

Patent Propaganda

Stepping aside for a moment, it is worth remembering that without promotion of monopolistic values, a lot of this would not be possible and therefore would not happen in the first place. Over the years — for decades in fact — companies have been trying to rewrite laws so as to empower themselves further; by means of coercion and suppression, unions have been weakened to allow this. The media is no exception to this rule (it is, after all, just business), so there is apathy of convenience from that direction too.

As we showed last week, Microsoft is very busy rewriting laws in Europe [1, 2, 3]. It is trying to describe Free software as something “criminal”. Yesterday this led to protests and not even reporters from the Microsoft-influenced ZDNet were impressed by the bash that Microsoft had thrown to brainwash European politicians.

Why does Microsoft call its big EU lobbying-party an Innovation Day? When a big company puts on a show in Brussels to get the ear of government, it seems more like business as usual to us

Today, Microsoft gathers several hundred of the EU elite to an Innovation Day in Brussels. It seems reasonable to ask what innovation there will be there.

Yes, there’s Microsoft’s Surface – aptly satirised on Youtube by SarcasticGamer as “a big-ass table” (and perhaps not the sprightliest answer to the iPhone). But the rest is given over to a crew of Microsoft partners who – from the online brochure, are very worthy, but don’t seem to have a lot new to say (but, non-Microsoft readers, please do tell me if you’re excited by anything there).

The programme has an ironic session on Intellectual Property – ironic because Microsoft is currently using its software patents to threaten the open source world in not-very specific terms. The current lawsuit against TomTom starts to get to specifics, but seems very clearly to be directed at stifling innovation.

It’s also ironic to see EU commissioners on the programme, given the EU’s history in nailing Microsoft as a monopolist.

Transmeta’s imaginary assets were acquired by one of Microsoft's patent trolls and an informant sent us this pointer to the press release [PDF]. Despite it being old news, we are told that it “fits all in the pattern of current litigation news: Red Hat, TomTom, Google.

“And don’t forget that Transmeta employed Linus Torvalds,” says the person whom we spoke to.

Let’s look in turn at some litigation against Google and Red Hat, based on the very latest news.

Patent Trolling Against Google

Microsoft’s constant attacks on Google are very distasteful [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. For a fact, they involve Microsoft urging companies to sue Google.

Google has come to the point of publicly complaining about patent trolls and the patent system in general.

Consider this: Of the 20 patent lawsuits filed against Google since late 2007, all but two have been filed by plaintiffs who don’t make or sell any real product or service — in other words, by non-practicing entities or “patent trolls.” Most of these cases seem to feature the same small set of contingent fee plaintiff’s lawyers asserting patent claims against the same small set of companies. We’ve also noticed a more disturbing trend: in many of these cases, the patents being asserted against us are owned by — and in a surprising number of cases, are even “invented” by — patent lawyers themselves.

The Stop Software Patents initiative summarises some of the key points from the above.

Google has published a statement on their Public Policy Blog stating that 90% of companies suing them for patent infringement were non practicing entities, or patent trolls. Google goes on by clarifying that in lots of cases, the patents are “invented” by the patent lawyers themselves.

According to Google, many of these patents and laws seem to be coming from patent lawyers, not engineers. Moreover, there is a surge of lawsuits against Google, the vast majority of which come from patent trolls. May something or someone be encouraging this?

Red Hat and IBM

A couple of days ago, Red Hat was sued over patents. Yes, again. Ars Technica has some more details preceded by background and IBM too has just become a victim.

Software company SuperSpeed LLC on Monday added a claim of willful infringement to its lawsuit accusing IBM Corp. of infringing five patents related to computer data caching.

One of our readers, tacone, showed us this comment. It begs for the question: what can (or should) IBM do about a torrent of lawsuits, especially those that jeopardise GNU and/or Linux?

MS actually jumps on quite a few patents held by IBM and Novell in the Unix world.

Attempt to sue linux users, and IBM, Novell et al will quickly get the lawyers out.

Can you imagine IBM forcing a “Cease and Desist” order on ALL MS Windows sales, then demanding full source code disclosure so that windows can be ripped apart line by line, so that IBM can then dismantle all code owned by them from the windows platform?

IBM and Novell could destroy the windows platform with ease, where as the worst than can happen to linux is that all current source code is modified to remove/put outside all code that breaks patents in the US, but make it all available outside the US, where none of this matters.

The debate is a little complicated. For starters, IBM cross-licenses with Microsoft, so to sue would be almost impossible unless Microsoft somehow decided to sue IBM, not TomTom (Microsoft targets companies with whom it has no licensing). In addition, IBM is a supporter of software patents, even in the EU.

SFLC Rearms

The SFLC is looking to hire a patent lawyer, which raises some speculations right now.

The Software Freedom Law
, a New York based not-for-profit legal services organization that provides legal representation and other law-related services to protect and advance Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), seeks a registered patent attorney passionate about defending software freedom.

 

The Software Freedom Law Center is moving closer to joining the defense of TomTom, having posted a want ad for a patent attorney at its blog yesterday…

At the same time skepticism is growing over whether this is the right legal fight for open source, with Matt Asay all but accusing TomTom of high tech panhandling.

The FSF, much like the SFLC (there is glaring overlap therein), is no friend of Microsoft, but with revisionism [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] and posturing Microsoft is trying to lure people in. Matt Lee explains what Microsoft is up to.

Microsoft comes to the Boston area, like a bad uninvited dinner guest in this guest blog by Mark Northfist.

When you visit Microsoft’s web site for New England Research & Development Center you don’t get a sense that it is a part of a 30 year old multinational proprietary corporation with a bad track record when it comes to user freedom and community support. In fact, the site could be called hip and sleek, with an emphasis on small teams, the local community, and innovative research. The site shows pictures of the new office, which features glass walls that don equations painted on them. Almost weekly they are featuring meetups for the tech community at their office, and they are clearly putting money and effort into local collaborations with MIT, museums, and other organizations. And, despite laying off hundreds elsewhere in their organization, they are actively recruiting to their Cambridge office, with an advertisement campaign that takes over multiple subway stations in the Cambridge area.

But, we aren’t fooled. As one local Blogger puts it, Hey Microsoft, welcome! I know you have a history of anti-trust activities and monopolization, so why don’t you go ahead and show us your friendly new image by taking over every square inch of advertising real estate in Harvard Square!

Software Patents May be Invalid

A patent system that is corrupted beyond recognition seems unwilling to mend itself amid the arrival of a disappointing patent reform bill. We have produced an HTML version of this bill (thanks to Tony Manco) and we are at least encouraged to see that the Bilski ruling alone [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14] did more good than any ludicrous bill probably ever could.

Glyn Moody notes that software patents are being ruled out with an explicit mention of the Bilski case.

There have been a number of important cases on both sides of the Atlantic concerning the patenting of software recently. In the UK, there were two cases, both initially rejected.

[...]

If you read these, they are both trying to patent pretty obvious ideas: “groups” and a “device profile table”. Both were rejected, and now their appeals have been turned down too. That’s good news, because it re-affirms that there is, at least, a bar for this kind of stuff, and that it’s being enforced.

Judges seem to be thinking along the same lines in the US, too, following the important and by-now famous Bilski case, with a whole series of rejections based on it…

As Mike Masnick puts it, “Bilski Continues To Cause Software Patents To Get Rejected.” There are still those who are in denial:

Right after the Bilski ruling that greatly limited software and business method patents, lawyers who were in favor of such patents held a conference call, where they basically said the ruling wouldn’t change anything.

Moving forward, it seems reasonable to suggest that programming alone is not going to win in a world that is so corruptible. Google, for example, has found out the hard way that having a superior product is not sufficient when a company is scheming to “kill” rivals using lawyers and legalised bribery.

Patent law matters. It’s time to get involved.

“There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes or makes it the official duty of a president to have anything to do with criminal activities.”

Sam(uel) James Ervin, Jr.

20 dollar bill

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

2 Comments

  1. vincent said,

    March 7, 2009 at 4:23 am

    Gravatar

    Why doesn’t Linus Torvald change the license of the Linux kernel ?
    (GNU GPL v2 => GNU GPL v3)

  2. Jose_X said,

    March 7, 2009 at 10:18 am

    Gravatar

    I think we can get US software patents really curtailed if not totally eliminated via the courts.

What Else is New


  1. Links 19/2/2018: Linux 4.16 RC2, Nintendo Switch Now Full-fledged GNU/Linux

    Links for the day



  2. PTAB Continues to Invalidate a Lot of Software Patents and to Stop Patent Examiners From Issuing Them

    Erasure of software patents by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) carries on unabated in spite of attempts to cause controversy and disdain towards PTAB



  3. The Patent 'Industry' Likes to Mention Berkheimer and Aatrix to Give the Mere Impression of Section 101/Alice Weakness

    Contrary to what patent maximalists keep saying about Berkheimer and Aatrix (two decisions of the Federal Circuit from earlier this month, both dealing with Alice-type challenges), neither actually changed anything in any substantial way



  4. Makan Delrahim is Wrong; Patents Are a Major Antitrust Problem, Sometimes Disguised Using Trolls Somewhere Like the Eastern District of Texas

    Debates and open disagreements over the stance of the lobbyist who is the current United States Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division



  5. Patent Trolls Watch: Microsoft-Connected Intellectual Ventures, Finjan, and Rumour of Technicolor-InterDigital Buyout

    Connections between various patent trolls and some patent troll statistics which have been circulated lately



  6. Software Patents Trickle in After § 101/Alice, But Courts Would Not Honour Them Anyway

    The dawn of § 101/Alice, which in principle eliminates almost every software patent, means that applicants find themselves having to utilise loopholes to fool examiners, but that's unlikely to impress judges (if they ever come to assessing these patents)



  7. In Aatrix v Green Shades the Court is Not Tolerating Software Patents But Merely Inquires/Wonders Whether the Patents at Hand Are Abstract

    Aatrix alleges patent infringement by Green Shades, but whether the patents at hand are abstract or not remains to be seen; this is not what patent maximalists claim it to be ("A Valentine for Software Patent Owners" or "valentine for patentee")



  8. An Indoctrinated Minority is Maintaining the Illusion That Patent Policy is to Blame for All or Most Problems of the United States

    The zealots who want to patent everything under the Sun and sue everyone under the Sun blame nations in the east (where the Sun rises) for all their misfortunes; this has reached somewhat ludicrous levels



  9. Berkheimer Decision is Still Being Spun by the Anti-Section 101/Alice Lobby

    12 days after Berkheimer v HP Inc. the patent maximalists continue to paint this decision as a game changer with regards to patent scope; the reality, however, is that this decision will soon be forgotten about and will have no substantial effect on either PTAB or Alice (because it's about neither of these)



  10. Academic Patent Immunity is Laughable and Academics Are Influenced by Corporate Money (for Steering Patent Agenda)

    Universities appear to have become battlegrounds in the war between practicing entities and a bunch of parasites who make a living out of litigation and patent bubbles



  11. UPC Optimism Languishes Even Among Paid UPC Propagandists Such as IAM

    Even voices which are attempting to give UPC momentum that it clearly lacks admit that things aren't looking well; the UK is not ratifying and Germany make take years to look into constitutional barriers



  12. Bejin Bieneman Props Up the Disgraced Randall Rader for Litigation Agenda

    Randall Rader keeps hanging out with the litigation 'industry' -- the very same 'industry' which he served in a closeted fashion when he was Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit (and vocal proponent of software patents, patent trolls and so on)



  13. With Stambler v Mastercard, Patent Maximalists Are Hoping to Prop Up Software Patents and Damage PTAB

    The patent 'industry' is hoping to persuade the highest US court to weaken the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), for PTAB is making patent lawsuits a lot harder and raises the threshold for patent eligibility



  14. Apple Discovers That Its Patent Disputes Are a Losing Battle Which Only Lawyers Win (Profit From)

    By pouring a lot of money and energy into the 'litigation card' Apple lost focus and it's also losing some key cases, as its patents are simply not strong enough



  15. The Patent Microcosm Takes Berkheimer v HP Out of Context to Pretend PTAB Disregards Fact-Finding Process

    In view or in light of a recent decision (excerpt above), patent maximalists who are afraid of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) try to paint it as inherently unjust and uncaring for facts



  16. Microsoft Has Left RPX, But RPX Now Pays a Microsoft Patent Troll, Intellectual Ventures

    The patent/litigation arms race keeps getting a little more complicated, as the 'arms' are being passed around to new and old entities that do nothing but shake-downs



  17. UPC Has Done Nothing for Europe Except Destruction of the EPO and Imminent Layoffs Due to Lack of Applications and Lowered Value of European Patents

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is merely a distant dream or a fantasy for litigators; to everyone else the UPC lobby has done nothing but damage, including potentially irreparable damage to the European Patent Office, which is declining very sharply



  18. Links 17/2/2018: Mesa 17.3.4, Wine 3.2, Go 1.10

    Links for the day



  19. Patent Trolls Are Thwarted by Judges, But Patent Lawyers View Them as a 'Business' Opportunity

    Patent lawyers are salivating over the idea that trolls may be coming to their state/s; owing to courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) other trolls' software patents get invalidated



  20. Microsoft's Patent Moves: Dominion Harbor, Intellectual Ventures, Intellectual Discovery, NEC and Uber

    A look at some of the latest moves and twists, as patents change hands and there are still signs of Microsoft's 'hidden hand'



  21. Links 15/2/2018: GNOME 3.28 Beta, Rust 1.24

    Links for the day



  22. Bavarian State Parliament Has Upcoming Debate About Issues Which Can Thwart UPC for Good

    An upcoming debate about Battistelli's attacks on the EPO Boards of Appeal will open an old can of worms, which serves to show why UPC is a non-starter



  23. The EPO is Being Destroyed and There's Nothing Left to Replace It Except National Patent Offices

    It looks like Battistelli is setting up the European Patent Office (EPO) for mass layoffs; in fact, it looks as though he is so certain that the UPC will materialise that he obsesses over "validation" for mass litigation worldwide, departing from a "model office" that used to lead the world in terms of patent quality and workers' welfare/conditions



  24. IBM is Getting Desperate and Now Suing Microsoft Over Lost Staff, Not Just Suing Everyone Using Patents

    IBM's policy when it comes to patents, not to mention its alignment with patent extremists, gives room for thought if not deep concern; the company rapidly becomes more and more like a troll



  25. In Microsoft's Lawsuit Against Corel the Only Winner is the Lawyers

    The outcome of the old Microsoft v Corel lawsuit reaffirms a trend; companies with deep pockets harass their competitors, knowing that the legal bills are more cumbersome to the defendants; there's a similar example today in Cisco v Arista Networks



  26. The Latest Lies About Unitary Patent (UPC) and the EPO

    Lobbying defies facts; we are once again seeing some easily-debunked talking points from those who stand to benefit from the UPC and mass litigation



  27. Speech Deficit and No Freedom of Association at the EPO

    True information cannot be disseminated at the EPO and justice too is beyond elusive; this poses a threat to the EPO's future, not only to its already-damaged reputation



  28. No, Britain is Not Ratifying 'Unitary' Anything, But Team UPC Insinuates It Will (Desperate Effort to Affect Tomorrow's Outcome)

    Contrary to several misleading headlines from Bristows (in its blog and others'), the UPC isn't happening and isn't coming to the UK; it all amounts to lobbying (by setting false expectations)



  29. The EPO's Paid Promotion of Software Patents Gets Patent Maximalists All Excited and Emboldened

    The software patents advocacy from Battistelli (and his cohorts) isn't just a spit in the face of European Parliament but also the EPC; but patent scope seems to no longer exist or matter under his watch, as all he cares about is granting as many patents as possible, irrespective of real quality/legitimacy/merit



  30. Andrei Iancu Begins His USPTO Career While Former USPTO Director (and Now Paid Lobbyist) Keeps Meddling in Office Affairs

    The USPTO, which is supposed to be a government branch (loosely speaking) is being lobbied by former officials, who are now being paid by private corporations to help influence and shape policies; this damages the image of the Office and harms its independence from corporate influence


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts