--Larry Goldfarb, Baystar, key investor in SCO
ACCORDING TO Glyn Moody, the world's biggest patent troll -- an anti-competitive man [1, 2] who originates in Microsoft -- makes his move to make some more money through patent racketeering. Others at Microsoft are still behind him [1, 2], so his firm (essentially a shell) should not be treated an an entity separate from Microsoft. Moody calls it "the Super-Troll" (we called it ÃÅbertroll).
As with all patent trolls, the danger is that the more companies accept these proffered licensing deals, the stronger the trolls become. I imagine we'll see many more such stories leaking out as Intellectual Ventures gains in confidence and ambition.
The big problem is not only that Myhrvold's an ex-Microsoftie, but that Microsoft is also an investor in the company; this means that we are not going to see Microsoft on the receiving end of Intellectual Venture's “offers”. But there is a very real danger that at some point the larger supporters of open source will be.
[...]
Expect, then, Mr Myhrvold to emerge as public enemy number one for the free software community; it's just a matter of time now that the super-troll has awoken from its deep slumbers and started to feed on those that foolishly fail to defend themselves.
Aaron Martin-Colby points us to Good Magazine's softball interview with Erich Spangenberg, considered by many to be one of the more successful "patent trolls" or "non-practicing entities" out there.
Network content in dictionary-based (de)compression , patent No. 7,554,467, invented by Kasman E. Thomas of Wilton, Conn., assigned to Novell, Inc. of Provo.
Comments
Chips_B_Malroy
2009-07-02 19:04:55
Debian thinks they are immune because they are non-profit, donation based. What could MS sue them for? Ubuntu thinks they are immune, because they are located outside of the USA. Both are wrong. MS continues to promote software patents outside the USA, in the EU. Also, a quick review of the MS vs Tomboy case, notice that MS went after Tomboy right away with a stay to stop Tomboy from selling anything in the USA. Now Ubuntu wants to become a force in Server OS, commercial, while MS maybe cannot sue them for patents outside the USA, they can ask for an injunction against Ubuntu to sell "software or server OS software" inside the USA. Furthermore, MS could ask that distros that infringe on their patents, are injunction against using servers within the USA to spread their software, or their repo's. Further, just because they are non-profit, does not mean that whatever assets they have within the USA, cannot be sieged at some point in the litigation should MS win the court case on infringement.
It would just seem to me for these distro's, to remove Mono and Moonlight as default installs, and to completely remove Mono and Moonlight from their repo's entirely. Treat Mono and Moonlight like CSS decryption is treated, (a patent threat) that someone can add in a repo from some foriegn country, that is not connected itself with the distro, that is the proper way to give Mono and Moonlight and protect the distro.
Sabayon User
2009-07-02 19:59:45
sUSE User
2009-07-02 20:56:24
Chip's just saying the same thing FSF & SFLC, "Better safe than sorry"
bored
2009-07-03 02:26:19
The MS vs. Tomboy case? perhaps you're getting your note taking software mixed up with your gps hardware?
And there's a handy acronym for "Better safe than sorry": FUD.
David "Lefty" Schlesinger
2009-07-03 11:07:53
Roy has no issues, apparently, with gross misstatements of fact, nor with the kind of play with words your Mom wouldn't let you get away with in fifth grade ("I didn't break that vase", meaning "I did knock it over, but the floor broke it"), nor with completely over-the-top invective and character assassination (see the Jimmi Hugh article, the claims of tech writers being "bribed" by Microsoft, etc.)
This sort of thing can only damage and divide the community. It's especially heinous, in my view, in that folks like Roy (and his "advocate" minions) don't actually contribute to the community, either in terms of code or anything else. Perhaps we can't all be programmers, but there are lots of ways to support the community that don't involve falsehoods and defamation.
Maybe you folks should look into some of those. Is anyone associated with this site going to GUADEC? Did anyone go to FOSDEM? To LinuxTag?
That's the community, friends. Not disrupting mailing lists. Not slandering people who hold different opinions than you do. Not attempting to interfere with people's employment.
SubSonica
2009-07-04 17:02:09
PatentSleuth
2009-07-04 17:53:44
This will be an effort to identify patents that Microsoft has, and to find workarounds for those.
The introduction is here:
http://linuxpatents.blogspot.com/2009/07/introduction-post-patent-day-project.html
This is an effort to highlight "one day, one patent". Please join me in finding these elusive patents. I have an inaugural patent listed, so we can all get started on working on finding prior-art or removing the functionality:
http://linuxpatents.blogspot.com/2009/07/patent-5892904-code-certification-for.html
bored
2009-07-05 21:24:59
The only time to publicly deal with patents is when the patent holder brings a suit. *then* you look for prior art to dispute their claim.
If you want to start the project analyzing patents which might infringe and then looking for prior art, more power to you. If you find prior art, address the individual patents through non-blog, non-public channels. Whatever you do, don't make the information (especially "Linux infringes on patent xxxxxxx") public. You'd be doing *nobody* a service in that case.
Jose_X
2009-07-05 22:08:47
Most people have no idea of how these software work at the time they read the patent (assuming they made sense of the patent) to be able to verify a patent applies.
PatentSleuth wants to pretend that mono is less of a risk to patents than are most other FOSS software.
Look at what else PatentSleuth said: "Since XPIs did not exist in 1996 this is a clear cut infringement."
Apparently PatentSleuth is not familiar with the concept of prior art. To show a "clear cut infringement" you'd have to prove no prior art by anyone existed. Instead we should be talking about likelihood of infringement.
And let's not mention that PatentSleuth did not take the requirements of any of the alleged violated patent claims and show clearly that each such requirement is violated by, eg, the Mozilla XPI framework. To avoid potential infringement, Mozilla would just have to avoid any one of these requirements (eg, of patent claim 1).
bored
2009-07-06 17:51:31
Boggles the mind, to put it mildly.
This is actively damaging, not only to existing, established products, but also to unreleased ones.
Jose_X
2009-07-06 19:26:58
The website is not at the actual project. This means those that want to see if something is violating can do so (go through the code, reason out the patent, etc) and try to create a patch to help stave future problems. Those others that are not affected by patents or disagree that a particular or any patent might be violated can rather easily ignore such a website (as being one more website among many that make allegations).
bored
2009-07-07 03:37:32
"...can rather easily ignore such a website (as being one more website among many that make allegations)."
name another website that makes allegations about specific patents that a variety of open source projects might infringe on.
I mean give me a break. given the rabid nature of many of the people who frequent this site (and those who commented initially on the other one), think about how long it'll be before you see a post on the ubuntu/fedora lists about a program they're shipping which infringes, and about how the sky is falling and "M$", or Intel, or IBM will sue the pants off everyone and linux will die a horrible death. Hyperbole aside, once this happens there's no claiming that "oh i didn't know about that website."
the entire reason developers are able to get ANYTHING done is that they don't know (and can't know) about the patents that are out there. This site will essentially become a list of patents that the open source community knows about. So yeah, it's great we know about them. Now try and design software that doesn't infringe on them. Look at the recommendations on the site: "Remove functionality"? really? that's quite the recommendation.
I'm all for people working on finding prior art as a means of challenging patents, and I'm all for people researching patents as a means for reworking existing code such that it no longer infringes. but this should done be in PRIVATE. The only time anything should be done publicly is after a suite has been initiated.
Jose_X
2009-07-07 18:42:14
So I think it is very important for anyone that tracks Microsoft technology and then encourages its spread and use to replace other safer tools to be called on it.
I did not start such a website, but with what that website was offering, it needed (or needs.. haven't checked) balance.
Software patents are likely unconstitutional and make no sense. Wasting time digging through them doesn't help me make a better product and would consume a lot of personal time. However, let me repeat, it is great harm to suggest that one of the riskiest technologies appear to be safer or simply as bad as the rest.
See some of the comments I wrote here http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2009070602635OSMSLL if you want an explanation over API traps.
Jose_X
2009-07-05 21:57:16
One reason perhaps why Microsoft names their technology within the patents (even though it could potentially apply beyond their technology) is because using their names might increases the chances of them protecting at least some of their technology should more general prior art be found (also, different legal environments treat patents a little differently). Also, when protecting inventions based off what they have created (eg, dotnet and derivatives) there is a special psychological effect in Microsoft's favor by those being threatened if these recognize names used in the patents.
Since the technology most closely related to Microsoft offers the greatest threats, here are two patents you can add to your list http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7017162.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7165239.html
I don't know if those patents you mentioned affect Mozilla XPI, etc actually do or would hold up in court; however, knowing little else, it's very reasonable to expect all dotnet patents to have a greater chance of avoiding prior art and of applying specifically to a clone of dotnet.