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

03.21.09

Novell, Red Hat, and Software Patents: Strike II

Posted in Microsoft, Novell, Patents, Red Hat at 4:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Pinoccio
Searching for truth regarding Red Hat and software patents

Summary: Novell’s long tradition of software patenting lives on, but what about Red Hat?

WE already know very well about Novell and its attitude towards software patents. It keeps acquiring them and according to the Salt Lake Tribune it has just gotten some more.

Method and system for dynamic assignment of entitlements, patent No. 7,505,972, invented by Jay Wootton of Lindon, Dennis Foster of Spanish Fork, Joe Skehan of Sandy, Charles Morgan of Springville, Jason Elsberry of Provo, Ryan L. Cox of Provo, William Street of Orem, Stephen R. Carter of Spanish Fork, and Nick Nikols of Draper, assigned to Novell Inc. of Provo.

System and method for filtering of web-based content stored on a proxy cache server, patent No. 7,506,055, invented by Carolyn B. McClain of Springville, and Jim E. Thatcher of Pleasant Grove, assigned to Novell Inc. of Provo.

What we are a little disappointed to see is that Red Hat is not serious about or at least not committed to fighting software patents, so the latest Red Hat kerkuffle is not quite over yet. Red Hat did participate in making the Bilski ruling happen, but the FFII is suggesting that there is conflicting evidence nonetheless (more on that soon).

Pieter Hintjens, the former head of the FFII, has pointed out that the first patent problem was not exactly an isolated incident when he pointed at Slashdot’s direction. It made the front page and Digital Majority covered this too. To summarise:

US Patent 7453593 claims command-line processing by a web server of SOAP requests, resulting in XML responses, from and to a remote client. The HTTP Common Gateway Interface (CGI) operates precisely as described in Claim 1. If you POST a SOAP document and return an XHTML response or a SOAP document, this infringes on Claim 2, since both XHTML and SOAP are XML languages. This patent thus claims to own the processing of SOAP documents by CGI programs.

Some guys from the FFII were preparing some questions for Rob Tiller. He joined Red Hat about a year ago. To quote JupiterMedia: “Red Hat today announced that it had hired Rob Tiller as vice president and assistant general counsel, and Richard Fontana, as open source licensing and patent counsel.”

Pieter attaches some questions (from the above):

I have some questions for Red Hat. Dear Red Hat,

* Why are you filing patents on obvious ideas with ample prior art?

* Will you promise not to sue my clients if they embed my AMQP/XML routing engine in their closed-source applications?

* What if IBM buys Red Hat, as they are buying Sun. Does Red Hat’s patent promise still apply?

* Can you confirm or deny suggestions that the Red Hat patent promise lets Red Hat license it patents to a third party, which can then sue FOSS implementors freely?

* Does Red Hat file patents on business methods (as well as on software algorithms)? If so, does your Promise cover the use of these patents by other FOSS distribution businesses?

Later on, Pieter asked:

Here are my questions to Red Hat’s lawyers:

1. Why are you filing patents on obvious ideas with prior art, like SOAP?

2. If my clients embed my free AMQP/XML engine in their closed apps, are they covered by your Promise?

3. If IBM buys Red Hat, does your Promise still hold?

4. If a 3rd party licenses a patent from you, and then sues my FOSS company, does your Promise still hold?

5. Does Red Hat file business method patents on their software distribution business?

6. If “Yes”, does your Promise protect my FOSS distribution business which uses these patents?

7. Would opposition to a Red Hat patent filing at the USPTO or EPO count as “litigation” under the Promise?

Until the use of Red Hat’s patents against competing FOSS firms and their clients is 100% clear and permanent, then I hold that Red Hat’s patent portfolio is first and foremost aimed at FOSS competitors, and only second at “trolls” and closed source firms.

In other patents news, the so-called 'reform' continues to show its wrinkles.

If Silicon Valley wants help in dealing with the so-called patent troll problem you do not need to limit damages, you just need to fix the problem.

Nothing there addresses the issue of self-defending monopolies which fend off competition. Moreover, this remains a system that punishes those who expose the truth and rewards/bribes those who propagate the great lies about ‘innovation’ and the “small inventor”. Another Internet giant, The Go Daddy Group, has just obtained patents on Web hosting/registration.

Go Daddy gets three new patents, bringing total to five.

The Go Daddy Group, Inc, parent company of domain registrar GoDaddy, has been awarded three new patents this month. Based on a search of “Go Daddy” with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Go Daddy now has five patents. Its previously issued patents include one for private domain registration (whois privacy) and a server based spam filter.

Who does this system actually serve? It merely protects those who are wealthy enough to be able to afford patents. When it comes to software that respects people’s freedom, it even illegalises it. This helps not at all when O’Reilly publishes a book with the vague/broad title “Intellectual Property and Open Source”; there is now an excerpt from it online. If it’s patents, then call it “patents” and if it’s about copyrights, then be it “copyrights”. To say “intellectual property” is like calling Switzerland “Europe” and arguing that Europe is a land of mountains (never mind if Belgium and Holland hardly have any).

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

6 Comments

  1. JohnD said,

    March 22, 2009 at 10:01 am

    Gravatar

    Acquiring a patent isn’t the same as using against someone. I’m guessing Novell has dozens if not hundreds of patents – how many times have they sued FOSS for patent infringement.
    If Novell has the patent, it means M$ doesn’t – which is good in my opinion. Hopefully the goal of the acquisitions is donation to OIN.
    Only time will tell.

  2. Roy Schestowitz said,

    March 22, 2009 at 11:14 am

    Gravatar

    If IBM or Microsoft bought Novell along with its patents, then what good would Novell’s promises and obligations be? UNIX counts too.

  3. JohnD said,

    March 22, 2009 at 11:35 am

    Gravatar

    I see your point, but how realistic are either of those situations?
    M$ has already been nailed as a monopoly, I doubt antitrust regulators would allow them to buy a major firm like Novell especially given it’s presence in the server rooms and on desktops. One of the popular theories is that M$ is propping up Novell in an effort to avoid antitrust issues – buying the company would defeat that purpose.
    People are already questioning if IBM/SUN could past antitrust muster and that’s just on the server hardware/Unix end of things.
    One would hope that any donations to OIN are permanent so if Novell does donate it’s a done deal.
    I still think one of the best moves Novell could make is to just buyout SCO then they could donate Unix IP to FOSS and begin a merge of Unix and Linux. You’d be looking at more serious market share if that happens.

  4. Roy Schestowitz said,

    March 22, 2009 at 11:56 am

    Gravatar

    It would not be of much use. Besides, not only Microsoft is a potential acquirer.

  5. Jose_X said,

    March 22, 2009 at 4:47 pm

    Gravatar

    I’m assuming a patent could be encumbered for all time by its owner, right (like giving the public certain rights)? An example might be that patent X can be used only for Y purpose and all other rights are given up (to the public). I understand why people would hesitate to make that decision today without knowledge of future threats or risking wording the encumbrance incorrectly. It might make more sense to donate it to a not-for-profit group that would have to work within predefined but more flexible boundaries.

  6. JohnD said,

    March 23, 2009 at 7:43 am

    Gravatar

    I would think that the owner has the ability to change the public’s rights to the patent at anytime – a perk of ownership. Kind of like owning a car. I could restrict it’s use for certain tasks and leave the rest up to the end users, but at the end of the day my name is on the title so I have the final say.
    It is my hope that Novell will donate what patents it can to OIN especially since I doubt the patent system will be fixed anytime soon. I think the only near term fix will be for the public to decide what kind of software is best for them. Hopefully the migration away from Windows will continue.

What Else is New


  1. EPO 'Business' From the United States Has Nosedived and UPC is on Its Death Throes

    Benoît Battistelli and Elodie Bergot further accelerate the ultimate demise of the EPO (getting rid of experienced and thus 'expensive' staff), for which there is no replacement because there is a monopoly (which means Europe will suffer severely)



  2. Links 17/11/2017: KDE Applications 17.12, Akademy 2018 Plans

    Links for the day



  3. Today's EPO and Team UPC Do Not Work for Europe But Actively Work Against Europe

    The tough reality that some Europeans actively work to undermine science and technology in Europe because they personally profit from it and how this relates to the Unitary Patent (UPC), which is still aggressively lobbied for, sometimes by bribing/manipulating the media, academia, and public servants



  4. Links 16/11/2017: WordPress 4.9 and GhostBSD 11.1 Released

    Links for the day



  5. The Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO) is Rightly Upset If Not Shocked at What Battistelli and Bergot Are Doing to the Office

    The EPO's dictatorial management is destroying everything that's left (of value) at the Office while corrupting academia and censoring discussion by threatening those who publish comments (gagging its own staff even when that staff posts anonymously)



  6. EPO Continues to Disobey the Law on Software Patents in Europe

    Using the same old euphemisms, e.g. "computer-implemented inventions" (or "CII"), the EPO continues to grant patents which are clearly and strictly out of scope



  7. Links 16/11/2017: Tails 3.3, Deepin 15.5 Beta

    Links for the day



  8. Benoît Battistelli and Elodie Bergot Have Just Ensured That EPO Will Get Even More Corrupt

    Revolving door-type tactics will become more widespread at the EPO now that the management (Battistelli and his cronies) hires for low cost rather than skills/quality and minimises staff retention; this is yet another reason to dread anything like the UPC, which prioritises litigation over examination



  9. Australia is Banning Software Patents and Shelston IP is Complaining as Usual

    The Australian Productivity Commission, which defies copyright and patent bullies, is finally having policies put in place that better serve the interests of Australians, but the legal 'industry' is unhappy (as expected)



  10. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Defended by Technology Giants, by Small Companies, by US Congress and by Judges, So Why Does USPTO Make It Less Accessible?

    In spite of the popularity of PTAB and the growing need/demand for it, the US patent system is apparently determined to help it discriminate against poor petitioners (who probably need PTAB the most)



  11. Declines in Patent Quality at the EPO and 'Independent' Judges Can No Longer Say a Thing

    The EPO's troubling race to the bottom (of patent quality) concerns the staff examiners and the judges, but they cannot speak about it without facing rather severe consequences



  12. The EPO is Now Corrupting Academia, Wasting Stakeholders' Money Lying to Stakeholders About the Unitary Patent (UPC)

    The Unified Patent Court/Unitary Patent (UPC) is a dying project and the EPO, seeing that it is going nowhere fast, has resorted to new tactics and these tactics cost a lot of money (at the expense of those who are being lied to)



  13. Links 15/11/2017: Fedora 27 Released, Linux Mint Has New Betas

    Links for the day



  14. Patents Roundup: Packet Intelligence, B.E. Technology, Violin, and Square

    The latest stories and warnings about software patents in the United States



  15. Decline of Skills Level of Staff Like Examiners and Impartiality (Independence) of Judges at the EPO Should Cause Concern, Alarm

    Access to justice is severely compromised at the EPO as staff is led to rely on deficient tools for determining novelty while judges are kept out of the way or ill-chosen for an agenda other than justice



  16. Links 14/11/2017: GNU/Linux at Samsung, Firefox 57 Quantum

    Links for the day



  17. Microsoft: Sheltering Oneself From Patent Litigation While Passing Patents for Trolls to Attack GNU/Linux

    Another closer look at Provenance Asset Holdings and what exactly it is (connection to AST, part of the cartel Microsoft subsidises to shield itself)



  18. The Patent Trolls' Lobby is Losing the Battle for Europe

    The situation in Europe is looking grim for patent trolls, for their policies and the envisioned system (which they lobbied for) isn't coming to fruition and their main casualty is the old (and functioning) EPO



  19. Unitary Patent (UPC) is Dead to the EPO and ANSERA is Not the Answer as Patent Quality Declines and Talented Staff Leaves

    EPOPIC comes to an end and the EPO does not mention the UPC 'content' in it; ANSERA, in the meantime, raises more questions than it answers and IP Kat makes a formal query



  20. Why Honest Journalism on Patent Matters Barely Exists

    Media coverage in the area of patent law is still appalling as it's dominated if not monopolised by those who benefit from patent maximalism



  21. Patent Maximalism Around the World

    A roundup of stories or spin observed over the past week, mostly favouring those who profit from patents rather than creation of anything



  22. Links 13/11/2017: Samsung’s DeX Revisited, Linux Kernel 4.14 Released

    Links for the day



  23. Time for the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) to Disregard Rulings From the Eastern District of Texas

    A look at the latest developments at the Federal Circuit and some bits about Microsoft's extortion using software patents (even after Alice)



  24. Alice (De Facto Ban on Software Patents) Remains Untouched in 2017 and Likely in 2018 As Well

    The patent microcosm (people like Dennis Crouch) is trying to find cases that can contradict Alice (at the higher levels, especially the US Supreme Court) but is unable to find them; as things stand, suing anyone with a software patent seems like a losing/high-risk strategy



  25. The USPTO's Joe Matal (Interim Director) Sounds Serious About Improving the Patent Quality and Services

    An expressed desire to improve the US patent system rather than treat is like a money-making machine, as illuminated in recent days by Patently-O



  26. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Defends Firms From Bogus Patents and US Congress Hears About How PTAB Dodgers Misuse Immunity

    The debate about PTAB is being lost by the patent microcosm, whose attempt to dodge and demonise PTAB merely serves to reinforce PTAB's importance and continued success



  27. Links 11/11/2017: Mesa 17.2.5 and Wine 2.21 Released

    Links for the day



  28. Benoît Battistelli Gives Power to Željko Topić, Not Just to António Campinos

    Topić still derives power from Battistelli, who treats him like his right-hand man



  29. Next EPO President Will Continue a Cooperation Which Does Not Exist

    Kluwer Patent Blog is nitpicking the words of António Campinos and expressing scepticism about progress to be made by Campinos



  30. More Microsoft AstroTurfing by Association for Competitive Technology (ACT) and Mingorance

    ACT, now led by Morgan Reed rather than Zuck, is still meddling in European policy (software patents agenda) and other familar front groups appear at the scene in an effort to influence DG Competition


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