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. In an Effort to Push the Unitary Patent (UPC), EPO and the Liar in Chief Spread the Famous Lie About SMEs

    The EPO wants people to hear just a bunch of lies rather than the simple truth, courtesy of the people whom the EPO proclaims it represents



  2. Links 21/9/2017: Red Hat's Open Source Patent Promise; Qt 5.6.3, Kali Linux 2017.2 Release

    Links for the day



  3. East Asia's Patent Peril and the Curse of Patent Trolls

    The high cost of China's new obsession with patents and the never-ending saga of Samsung (Korea), which gets dragged into courts not only in the US but also in China



  4. USPTO Starts Discriminating Against Poor People, and Does So Even When They Rightly Point Out Errors

    Even though the burden of proof ought to be on one who grants a monopoly, the legal costs are being offloaded onto those who challenge an erroneously-granted monopoly (even if the court sides with the challenger)



  5. Ambrose Chan Enters Document Security Systems (DSS), a Partly Patent Troll Entity

    The Board of Directors of DSS enlists a man from Singapore, whose lack of technical background suggests that the company is still more of a bully than an innovator



  6. UPC Threatens to Weaponise Software Patents in Countries That Forbade These

    The reality of software patents in Europe and what a Unified Patent Court (UPC) would mean for these if it ever became a reality



  7. The Latest Lies About the Unitary Patent (UPC) and CIPO's Participation in Those

    Team UPC continues to overplay its chances, conveniently ignoring simple facts as well as the Rule of Law



  8. The Patents Policy of Facebook is Causing an Exodus

    Yet another major player walks away from Facebook's code because of software patents



  9. Links 20/9/2017: Wine Staging 2.17, Randa 2017, Redox OS 0.3.3

    Links for the day



  10. When Google Used Alex Converse to Raid the Public Domain With Software Patents

    In its overzealous pursuit of software patents, Google is now turning public domain methods into private 'property' (in defiance of critics)



  11. Mark Kokes, the Man Behind BlackBerry's Patent Aggression, Leaves the Company

    The man behind the patent troll-like behaviour of BlackBerry is leaving



  12. WordPress Demonstrates That Facebook's Patent Strategy is Deterring/Alienating Developers

    React is being dumped following Facebook's attempt to restrict distribution/derivatives using software patents



  13. Links 19/9/2017: Pipewire, Mir Support for Wayland, DRM in W3C

    Links for the day



  14. Links 18/9/2017: Linux 4.14 RC1, Mesa 17.2.1, and GNOME 3.26 on Ubuntu Artful

    Links for the day



  15. Patent Trolls Update: Eolas, Conversant (MOSAID), Leigh Rothschild, and Electronic Communication Technologies

    Patent trolls are still being watched -- as they ought to be -- even though some of them shy away, hide from the media, engage in dirty tricks, and file more lawsuits



  16. Microsoft is Promoting Software Patents in India in Another Effort to Undermine Free/Open Source Software, Microsoft-Connected Trolls Are Still Suing

    The ongoing patent threat to Free/libre Open Source software (FLOSS) and the role played by Microsoft in at least much of this threat



  17. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Under Attack by IBM and Other Patent Parasites Who Undermine Patent Quality

    The PTAB, which has thus far invalidated thousands of abstract/software patents, is under a coordinated attack not by those who produce things but those who produce a lot of lawsuit



  18. Why the Mohawk Tribe Should Fire Its Lawyers and Dump the Patents Which Now Tarnish Its Name

    In order to dodge the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with its Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs), the Mohawk tribe is being exploited -- very much in direct detriment to its reputation and status



  19. Amazon and Google Have Both Become Part of the Software Patents Problem

    The transition from so-called 'defensive' patents to offensive patents (ones that are used to suppress competition) as seen in Amazon and in Google, which is already suing rivals and is pursuing additional patents by acquisition



  20. Unless Physical, Inventions Are No Longer Patent-Eligible in US Courts, But USPTO Ignores Precedence

    Even though the ability to enforce software patents against a rival (or many targets, especially in the case of patent trolls) is vastly diminished, the US patent office continues to grant these



  21. Citing the European Patent Convention, Spanish Court Tosses Lawsuit With EPO-Granted European Patent

    The quality of European Patents (EPs) -- a subject of growing levels of scrutiny -- as demonstrated in Barcelona this summer



  22. Links 16/9/2017: More of “Public Money, Public Code”, Equifax Failed to Patch for Months

    Links for the day



  23. BlackBerry Has Turned Into a Patents and Licensing Company

    The Canadian company that made fairly reputable phones early in this century is left with nothing but the power to sue other companies -- a power to which it increasingly gravitates



  24. European Patent Office Continues to Paint a Rosy UPC Picture Even Though the UPC May Already be Dead

    The European Patent Office (EPO) doesn't let facts get in the way as another week passes with UPC promotion and further staff repressions



  25. Tax Evasion by Patent Boxes and Lies About Small Businesses (SMEs) in the Corporate Media

    The lobbying effort of the patent 'industry' -- and its largest beneficiaries -- paints its own perks as something that's intended for their small/minuscule competitors (whom they actually attempt to misrepresent and crush)



  26. Links 15/9/2017: Mesa 17.2.1 RC, Wine 2.17, WordPress to Ditch React Over Patents

    Links for the day



  27. The UPC Fantasy is Going Nowhere as Complaints and Paperwork Pile Up

    Many submissions and complaints about the Unitary Patent have time to arrive before the end of October as a decision on the matter seems as distant as 2018



  28. At Event of EPO SLAPP Firm, a Suggestion That the UPC Should be Scrapped Because It's Stuck

    Just like the TPP, the UPC is now in a potentially fatal deadlock, so people with a stake in the outcome consider starting again (almost from scratch)



  29. Watchtroll Helps the EPO Peddle Fake News About the Unitary Patent (UPC)

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) isn't happening; the EPO, however, keeps on pretending that it can already operate as though the UPC got the green light



  30. Links 14/9/2017: Plasma 5.11 Beta, Q4OS 1.8.8, Orion

    Links for the day


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