First Patent Infringement Lawsuit Filed Against Linux, Just Like Ballmer Predicted

[reyfer]

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071011205044141


Plaintiffs IP Innovation and Technology Licensing Corp. claim to have the rights to U.S. Patent No. 5,072,412 for a User Interface with Multiple Workspaces for Sharing Display System Objects issued Dec. 10, 1991 along with two other similar patents.

Defendants Red Hat Inc. and Novell have allegedly committed acts of infringement through products including the Red Hat Linux system, the Novell Suse Linex Enterprise Desktop and the Novell Suse Linex Enterprise Server.

"Red Hat's and Novell's infringement, contributory infringement and inducement to infringe has injured plaintiffs and plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate them for such infringement but in no event less than a reasonable royalty," the original complaint states. Check the article and see if you can find Microsoft's hands in the suit (I did ):popcorn:

[Palmyra]

Notice that this suit (it appears) comes after Novell has announced dramatic increase in revenue. Red Hat has had a good year too, but not as good as Novell.

Michael Jackson's laywer (T. Mez) once said "Greed begets greed." Wise words.

[p_quarles]

While I could always be wrong, I seriously doubt this is going anywhere.

First: prior art. Just cause they filed the patent doesn't mean no one had designed a functional desktop switcher before they filed.

Second: the "defensive" patent portfolios of the large Linux backers (Red Hat, IBM, etc.).

Third: U.S. courts have finally been realizing that a lot of trolls are filing patents for obvious concepts.

[FuturePilot]

So I guess Microsoft wants me to throw my Linux boxes out the window eh?

Not happening![-(

And what is this about!? Linux has been using virtual desktops since...forever!

[GSF1200S]

how serious do you guys think this crap will be? Like, assume they win the suit- does this then mean the end of virtual workspaces in Linux? You guys think this will be the beginning of the attacks on Linux?

I see bad things here. Here comes the greed trolls looking to reduce function for their own greed. What about the new mac OSX? This is bound to affect them unless they pay a royalty per OSX installed.

[23meg]

Like, assume they win the suit- does this then mean the end of virtual workspaces in Linux?

Like in all cases before, people will find ways to code around the patent-obscured stuff. Nothing will go away or end; in the worst cases, there will be brief setbacks in development.

[Nano Geek]

Quote from Wikipedia:

The first platform to implement desktop scrolling as a hardware feature was Amiga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga) in 1985.Sorry guys, better luck with your next lawsuit.


how serious do you guys think this crap will be? Like, assume they win the suit- does this then mean the end of virtual workspaces in Linux? You guys think this will be the beginning of the attacks on Linux?

I see bad things here. Here comes the greed trolls looking to reduce function for their own greed. What about the new mac OSX? This is bound to affect them unless they pay a royalty per OSX installed.First off, they won't get anywhere suing Red Hat and Novell. KDE, GNOME, XFCE, ect. are the ones that implement the virtual desktops.

I doubt that they would sue a non-profit group. I'm guessing that they just want a quick buck and some publicity for their stunt.
This won't amount to much.

[RAV TUX]

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071011205044141

Check the article and see if you can find Microsoft's hands in the suit (I did ):popcorn:


YAAAAWWWWNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!

This article makes me very, very sleepy.

[ryno519]

Like in all cases before, people will find ways to code around the patent-obscured stuff. Nothing will go away or end; in the worst cases, there will be brief setbacks in development.

This seems like a pretty flimsy patent to me. It was filed in 1987 by Xerox and I believe AmigaOS had a working implementation of virtual desktops on the market in 1985. Not that I understand a great deal about US patent law, but this doesn't seem like it's anything we should be worrying too much about.

[23meg]

This seems like a pretty flimsy patent to me. It was filed in 1987 by Xerox and I believe AmigaOS had a working implementation of virtual desktops on the market in 1985. Not that I understand a great deal about US patent law, but this doesn't seem like it's anything we should be worrying too much about.

I'm not talking about this particular case, but any potential case that patent trolls can actually take to court and win.

[ryanVickers]

Your know what's hilarious, if they get mad, who are they gonna sue!? There's no "Linux company" ;), so what are they going to do - we're safe! :p

[Nano Geek]

Your know what's hilarious, if they get mad, who are they gonna sue!? There's no "Linux company" ;), so what are they going to do - we're safe! :pLike I said before, they could sue Gnome or KDE or XFCE--the products that actually ship virtual desktops. But I think that they're just trying to make some money off of the big companies.
No need to worry.

[jrusso2]

This is just the opening salvo I fear in a long attack on Linux

[ryanVickers]

I love what GPL3 did to stop novell and micro$oft dead in their tracks ;)

[Depressed Man]

I'm not talking about this particular case, but any potential case that patent trolls can actually take to court and win.

At the same time, courts are getting sick of them (they do take up the courts time) and are starting to throw out flimsy patents as well. So if a patent troll tries to bring a case in without a strong case (and strong patent?), he may just get the case thrown out.

[Dr. C]

This seems to vindicate the position that the real threat here is patent troll companies and not Microsoft, something our own Mark Shuttleworth has been saying all along. Microsoft is simply very vulnerable to a counterstrike to start this kind of war.

http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/118

It also points out that signing an IP deal with Microsoft does not eliminate the threat of patents as Novell has just found out.

My take on this is that the Free Libre Software / Open Source community will hunt for and find lots of "prior art" and post it all over the place as has already started to occur right here on this thread.

[troy1of2]

I guess their motto is, if ya can't beat em sue em!
:popcorn:

[23meg]

I guess their motto is, if ya can't beat em sue em!
:popcorn:

Just if "they" had the guts to do that, things would be much easier for us.

[jbaerbock]

I'd like to see them try to take my Penguin away from me! :P

[ssam]

First off, they won't get anywhere suing Red Hat and Novell. KDE, GNOME, XFCE, ect. are the ones that implement the virtual desktops.


that might not help red hat/novell. the two companies are shipping a product that contains the feature.

[The Grum]

The patent was issued in 1991. How long have Gnome and KDE "infringed"? Isn't there a law where if you don't protect your patents by suing within a resonable amount of time then you lose the claim to it? Does this apply to patents?

Or are they simply suing because the patent is about to expire?


However, they are suing in Texas - neo-con central. That pretty much means they will win. How could the judge rule against a good ol' company in favour of some goddamn communist liberal hippies?

[misfitpierce]

I've yet to see the patents linux infringes on... yet microsoft copies mac up the A**. I dont know these make me so mad yet they dont tell the patents linux breaks... sigh :(

[Tom Mann]

Is there nothing the Amiga guys couldn't do? That fantastic machine keeps coming back!

*goes to find his Amiga 1200, then looks on ebay for accelerator cards*

[EdThaSlayer]

Patents and more patents. It never seems to end.

[tehet]

:'(

But isn't there some rule that says you actually have to do something with your patented tech instead sit on it for years and then start suing? (apart from whether or not this patent is bogus)

[Dixon Bainbridge]

All this serves to illustrate is just what a complete mess the American legal system is in. Suing for spurious crap like this.

[dca]

1) Nobody is safe, ever.

2) Microsoft will use petty ******** tactics to spread FUD. Its already doing it for big companies, and it will follow a similar pattern to the RIAA and MPAA to sue end users for using their "patents"

Honestly? I am quite bitter and angry to pretend I care about what happens to american users at this point. Let em drawn on their own mess for all I care, the rest of the world has enough problems of the military genocide type coming from the US to worry about software.

Geez, you can't join a thread without bringing up the war, bringing up why the US sucks. Did we kick you out of the country or something? Anywho, you're right about MS. This has nothing to do about all the kiddies using a Linux distro as their desktop OS. This has everything to do w/ every enterprise in the world using Linux in the data center. Obviously in the US, it's cornered by RedHat w/ SuSE gaining (not by much). The end result is to show these enterprises that they made a mistake in choosing Linux (FOSS) and getting them to convert to MS Server *whatever*... With all the moneys MS pays out a year in loosing IP cases, licensing crap in their OS that ain't theirs, etc, etc, they now have the ammo to go to the CIOs and say, 'see, this would never happen if you were using MS Server'.

[JurB]

how serious do you guys think this crap will be? Like, assume they win the suit- does this then mean the end of virtual workspaces in Linux? You guys think this will be the beginning of the attacks on Linux?

I see bad things here. Here comes the greed trolls looking to reduce function for their own greed. What about the new mac OSX? This is bound to affect them unless they pay a royalty per OSX installed.

This is exactly what they want, scaring new users out of trying linux.
Fear is a very good weapon.

[dca]

You wanna' know the hilarity involved? Look at it this way, breaking RedHat & Novell will have poeple throwing up their arms saying, 'well, what about competition in America?' MS will be the monopoly again. Too late, the US gov is still to this day patting themselves on the back for the great work they did in the anti-trust case of '02. I think they should call the EU and ask what to do....

[kanem]

MS has one of these desktop switchers too, it's just not in their default setup. But it is actually put out by MS, not some third party.

[andylogo]

Let me first start by saying that i am a recent switch to ubuntu linux...(using as only OS for 4 months).

I really can't stand coming hear and reading some of the following:


I've yet to see the patents linux infringes on... yet microsoft copies mac up the A**. I dont know these make me so mad yet they dont tell the patents linux breaks... sigh :(

Microsoft pays hundreds of millions of dollars each year to companies because of these patent trolls...so don't make it seem like all they do is copy and get away with it. BTW Apple and Microsoft copy each other...its not just microsoft copying apple. Check out the link below

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_beta1_vs_tiger_01.asp



Your know what's hilarious, if they get mad, who are they gonna sue!? There's no "Linux company" ;), so what are they going to do - we're safe! :p

So what you're saying is that just because linux is open source and free that it doesn't have to abide by the same rules as microsoft and apple when it comes to producing an OS?


I love what GPL3 did to stop novell and micro$oft dead in their tracks ;)

LOL, how did it stop them? Obviously Microsoft and Novell arn't doing so bad and i'd be willing to bet that the deal Novell signed protects them from any patent laws with which microsoft already pays a royalty for...pretty smart move on the part of Novell if you ask me.


Quote from Wikipedia:
Sorry guys, better luck with your next lawsuit.

First off, they won't get anywhere suing Red Hat and Novell. KDE, GNOME, XFCE, ect. are the ones that implement the virtual desktops.

I doubt that they would sue a non-profit group. I'm guessing that they just want a quick buck and some publicity for their stunt.
This won't amount to much.

Once again...non profit so we won't get sued...but as long as we don't get sued lets continue to disrespect the laws of the United States.



Don't get me wrong...i love linux as an OS and find it beyond that of apple and windows on a pure graphical level(with CF) but the fact is that if Linux does in fact violate some patents(I'm sure they even violate those same patents that micrsoft violates and pays royalties for) then the software developers should either have to pay the same royalties or the end user should have to pay them.

Unfortunately free software, despite its ideals, SHOULD NOT be able to exist is the world we live today. I really wouldn't mind paying $50 for a LTS version of Ubuntu(while getting free updates in between LTS releases). I believe the OS and software available is worth far more than that. EVERYONE here really needs to start respecting intellectual property...i know some of you already do, but it seems that a majority simply believe that as long as you give it away for free that you're free to steal or copy others ideas.

Its not whether this patent willl hold up...its whether the linux community should have to pay for the right to use these ideas...Microsoft and Apple have to...why shouldn't we?

[forrestcupp]

People here are so driven by their hate for Microsoft that they can't even see the facts straight.

Microsoft is not the one suing anyone here. IP Innovation is the one suing. They are not a subsidiary of Microsoft, they are a subsidiary of Acacia Research Corporation, which happens to employ people who priorly worked for Microsoft. Boy, if you look hard enough you could probably blame Microsoft for the holocaust. Did you know that there are people on this forum who are loyal Ubuntu users that work for Microsoft? Does that mean that Microsoft is here spying on us? It probably does to a lot of conspiracy theorists around here.

Another thing is that this patent was taken out the same year that Linux kernel was released, and a year before XFree86 was started. So no one can say that Linux was using this before the patent.

IP Innovation is not going to sue KDE, Gnome, etc. They are going after Red Hat and Novell. They are allowed to go after Novell because Novell's deal is with Microsoft, who is not involved here. They go after Red Hat and Novell because they are the ones making money off of their patent.

I don't like this either, but at least get the facts straight.

[bash]

Let me first start by saying that i am a recent switch to ubuntu linux...(using as only OS for 4 months).

I really can't stand coming hear and reading some of the following:



Microsoft pays hundreds of millions of dollars each year to companies because of these patent trolls...so don't make it seem like all they do is copy and get away with it. BTW Apple and Microsoft copy each other...its not just microsoft copying apple. Check out the link below

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_beta1_vs_tiger_01.asp




So what you're saying is that just because linux is open source and free that it doesn't have to abide by the same rules as microsoft and apple when it comes to producing an OS?



LOL, how did it stop them? Obviously Microsoft and Novell arn't doing so bad and i'd be willing to bet that the deal Novell signed protects them from any patent laws with which microsoft already pays a royalty for...pretty smart move on the part of Novell if you ask me.



Once again...non profit so we won't get sued...but as long as we don't get sued lets continue to disrespect the laws of the United States.



Don't get me wrong...i love linux as an OS and find it beyond that of apple and windows on a pure graphical level(with CF) but the fact is that if Linux does in fact violate some patents(I'm sure they even violate those same patents that micrsoft violates and pays royalties for) then the software developers should either have to pay the same royalties or the end user should have to pay them.

Unfortunately free software, despite its ideals, SHOULD NOT be able to exist is the world we live today. I really wouldn't mind paying $50 for a LTS version of Ubuntu(while getting free updates in between LTS releases). I believe the OS and software available is worth far more than that. EVERYONE here really needs to start respecting intellectual property...i know some of you already do, but it seems that a majority simply believe that as long as you give it away for free that you're free to steal or copy others ideas.

Its not whether this patent willl hold up...its whether the linux community should have to pay for the right to use these ideas...Microsoft and Apple have to...why shouldn't we?

Besides agreeing or disagreeing with what you say. Lets for one second hypthetically assue that all you said is true and that we assume for this case that the open source community actually does not care about IP (remeber this is just an assumption), than still your argument is problematic because US law does not equal law of the whole world. While if indeed (as we assumed) FOSS does not care about IP it is ok that US based companies can get sued by other US based companies. But to generalize this onto the whole FOSS community is not ok. If your project (lets call it project X) is located or the foundation/company/... behind it is located outside of the US, it does, out of a legal perspective, not matter whatever US patents some company holds. As long as project X is not violating the IP laws of its country everything is ok. So please do not generalise a patent in the US to something that is:
a. valid in the whole wide world
b. enforcable in the whole wide world

Ok end of assumtion. Besides that this whole thing is based upon the assumption that FOSS projects happily take into account the valiation of IP. IP has its usefullness. But as you said yourself MS pays millions a year to settle IP claims. So if they do it its ok? If the same happens to the FOSS community than it equals that the FOSS community does not respect IP? Strange argumantation.

Besides that its just proves that IP trolling can happen to anyone. Wether its MS, Apple or the FOSS community. And I don't think that this case is a whole conspiracy to wipe out FOSS. Its just as always: Money attracts greed. So Novell and Red Hat are having a good year, so people hope they can make some money here. Happens to dozens if not hundreds of other companies a year as well. This is more a problem in the patent system than MS trying to wipe out Linux. Althougth they might not be to unhappy about this case.

[p_quarles]

Unfortunately free software, despite its ideals, SHOULD NOT be able to exist is the world we live today. I really wouldn't mind paying $50 for a LTS version of Ubuntu(while getting free updates in between LTS releases). I believe the OS and software available is worth far more than that. EVERYONE here really needs to start respecting intellectual property...i know some of you already do, but it seems that a majority simply believe that as long as you give it away for free that you're free to steal or copy others ideas.

Its not whether this patent willl hold up...its whether the linux community should have to pay for the right to use these ideas...Microsoft and Apple have to...why shouldn't we?
Several problems with your statements:
1) "Intellectual property" is an extra-legal concept created by patent trolls and other suit-happy leeches. There is no such thing as "intellectual property" in U.S. law.
2) Patent laws were implemented in order to encourage innovators to make their inventions available to the public. By registering a patent, you could release a secret to the public without worrying that everyone would steal it. When you have fake companies registering patents and then suing 16 years later, the system is broken.
3) The GPL (any version) is completely incompatible with the notion of license fees. Sure, you can charge someone $50 for a copy of Ubuntu, but you also have to give them the source code, and permit them to do whatever they want with it. For that reason, it's far more likely the popular X11 DEs would simply become illegal in the U.S. (and anywhere else with software patents) than that they could pay up like you suggest.
4) Like you say, Apple and MS have both been extensively exploited by patent trolls. At the same time, they both got their start in the business prior to the profoundly misguided application of patent laws to software. They had a head start, in other words.

[FranMichaels]

Let me first start by saying that i am a recent switch to ubuntu linux...(using as only OS for 4 months).

I really can't stand coming hear and reading some of the following:



Microsoft pays hundreds of millions of dollars each year to companies because of these patent trolls...so don't make it seem like all they do is copy and get away with it. BTW Apple and Microsoft copy each other...its not just microsoft copying apple. Check out the link below

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_beta1_vs_tiger_01.asp




So what you're saying is that just because linux is open source and free that it doesn't have to abide by the same rules as microsoft and apple when it comes to producing an OS?



LOL, how did it stop them? Obviously Microsoft and Novell arn't doing so bad and i'd be willing to bet that the deal Novell signed protects them from any patent laws with which microsoft already pays a royalty for...pretty smart move on the part of Novell if you ask me.



Once again...non profit so we won't get sued...but as long as we don't get sued lets continue to disrespect the laws of the United States.



Don't get me wrong...i love linux as an OS and find it beyond that of apple and windows on a pure graphical level(with CF) but the fact is that if Linux does in fact violate some patents(I'm sure they even violate those same patents that micrsoft violates and pays royalties for) then the software developers should either have to pay the same royalties or the end user should have to pay them.

Unfortunately free software, despite its ideals, SHOULD NOT be able to exist is the world we live today. I really wouldn't mind paying $50 for a LTS version of Ubuntu(while getting free updates in between LTS releases). I believe the OS and software available is worth far more than that. EVERYONE here really needs to start respecting intellectual property...i know some of you already do, but it seems that a majority simply believe that as long as you give it away for free that you're free to steal or copy others ideas.

Its not whether this patent willl hold up...its whether the linux community should have to pay for the right to use these ideas...Microsoft and Apple have to...why shouldn't we?

Giving things away for free does not excuse patent violation. The facts you claim that Linux infringes on patents and even MS patents, actual proof doesn't exist. Thus, I submit to you that that particular "fact" is conjecture.

I may as well make the claim that every software in existence violates some obscure patent (you do realize MS holds a patent on "double clicking".)

These patents have to be proven legitimate and that it applies. I assure you Free software and open source developers try to avoid any issue with patents. Look at why there is png and ogg for example. Licensing matters big time to Free Software and Open source developers. It's the crux of the whole thing, however it uses copyright. The term intellectual property is to confuse, lumping patents, copyrights, and trademark, into a bundle and try to compare it to rights given with physical property.

Not only that, but the world is larger than the United States. These laws don't apply everywhere. Some people over here do think the patent law needs reform, and that perhaps software patents should be thrown out.
Big companies can use it to make cross-licensing deals, create barriers to entry for the "little guy" and conveniently enough put a big damper on Free software. Or trolls can buy an old patent, never produce a thing, then litigate, as is the case with this lawsuit.

As for Free software, it DOES and SHALL continue to exist, since people use it, build upon it, share it, and sell it. It is about everyone having the same rights. Patent protection wouldn't allow that, unless it applies to everyone. The GPLv3 aims to deal with it. Also, Novell is not indemnified from MS patents, only their customers. Ask yourself what would happen if these companies which utilize it big time, would start cutting themselves off from outside developers due to patent concerns or deals, they wouldn't benefit either.

There are companies that have pooled together and do offer patents and indemnification. Google and IBM to name a couple. http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/

Contrary to your assertion, the developers, which do care, will avoid providing the software that violates a patent in the U.S. Ask yourself why Ubuntu can't play mp3's out of the box? Anyway, if anything this may trigger companies that make heavy use of Free software to start suing as well. If anything, that would illustrate that the U.S. patent system needs reform. Or if not, expect innovation to occur elsewhere at a great pace, around the globe.

:twisted:

There are a lot of reasons to not want to play into the patent regime. I for one applaud every single developer and company that makes sure to play by the rules,in their respective country of origin, but are smart enough to know making a deal or writing a large check won't make everything okay.

Last I checked, in the US, innocent until proven guilty. These patents should go to court, one to see if they are legitimate, and the other to see what needs to be done to correct the problem. Just paying fees and limiting the sharing and building of ideas, bah. What's the point of the patent system then? It is in place to for a reason, but that ain't it!

[marco123]

Couldn't....care....less.

I'll be sitting here using Linux.:) (What are they going to do, bust my door down and take my computer? lol)

[p_quarles]

Last I checked, in the US, innocent until proven guilty.
So let's hope that Red Hat doesn't get classified as an enemy combatant. ;)

Anyway, the burden of proof in civil cases (like patents) is a lot different than in criminal cases. The terms "innocent" and "guilty" don't apply to civil cases, just "liable" or "not liable." Part of the problem here is that (like the GrokLaw report mentioned) Texas' court system is notorious for siding too much with plaintiffs in cases like these.

[FranMichaels]

So let's hope that Red Hat doesn't get classified as an enemy combatant. ;)

Anyway, the burden of proof in civil cases (like patents) is a lot different than in criminal cases. The terms "innocent" and "guilty" don't apply to civil cases, just "liable" or "not liable." Part of the problem here is that (like the GrokLaw report mentioned) Texas' court system is notorious for siding too much with plaintiffs in cases like these.

Ah okay :) Sorry, between the RIAA and other weird patent stuff that is going on, it seems like infringement has moved from civil to criminal ;)

Recent example that makes me wonder what the heck is going on:
Hard times for hard drives: US may ban popular imports
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071011-hard-times-for-hard-drives-us-may-ban-popular-imports.html

:(

[floke]

Here we go...

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...71011205044141

The patent claim is for

"a User Interface with Multiple Workspaces for Sharing Display System Objects"

Bring it on I say.

[blithen]

Already there is already a thread on this.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=573747

[jgrabham]

Do we have no better sources?

[floke]

Already there is already a thread on this.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=573747

Didn't see it.
Didn't show up.

Redirecting readers = http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=573747

[DarkOx]

Just some general comments on what's been said.

First, everyone saying something to the effect of "this doesn't affect me" or "What are they gonna do, take my Linux" is missing the point. Fact of the matter is, large portions of Linux development is funded via American companies. In other words, if enough lawsuits like this are successful, it could affect you down the line regardless of where you live.

Secondly, just because it's easier for Apple and Microsoft to settle out of court (or pay the royalty outright) does not mean that those patents were valid. To say that Linux vendors must pay the fees simply because others are is absurd; Red Hat and Novel should pay only if a court find that a) the patent is valid and b) Red Hat and Novel have infringed it. Hence, the whole point of the lawsuit.

[ryanVickers]

Well, how stupid is this in the first place though! They think they can just copyright whatever they want, like double-clicking something! That would be as stupid as some reporter copyrighting the concept of writing up text in columns and printing it on tissue paper ;) - no one would then be allowed to ever print newspapers again! :mad:

[ryanVickers]

ooo, ooo! I have another idea; does anyone have copyrights on the concept of a graphical interface? :p

If not (I'd be surprised :)), then we could put that in the Linux license and force them back to the ages of DOS!! :twisted:

[p_quarles]

The lawsuit is about patents, not copyrights. There are pretty detailed laws about how innovative an idea has to be before it can be patented. So, no, you can't just patent anything you want to.

Linux vendors like Red Hat, IBM and Novell already have very extensive patent portfolios. Whether that will make a difference in this case, though, remains to be seen, since the company filing suit doesn't actually seem to produce any good, and therefore couldn't be selling anything that violates someone else patent.

[ryanVickers]

Can anyone name something that we have that they're using ;)

Just to sue them back :p

[Ireclan]

since the company filing suit doesn't actually seem to produce any good

So, what, they're just in the business of buying up patents and suing?

[ryanVickers]

yeah actually, they've never really made anything! MS-DOS was from IBM, Word was WordPerfect, the FlightSim, they bought that too!... ;)

[Nekiruhs]

yeah actually, they've never really made anything! MS-DOS was from IBM, Word was WordPerfect, the FlightSim, they bought that too!... ;)MS is not suing Redhat and Novell, if you bothered to read the thread. IP Innovation is suing Redhat and Novell. IP Innovation is not a subdivision of MS.

[misfitpierce]

And so it has begun again redhat and novell for WORKSPACES!!! Keep in mind that apple now uses these quote "Workspaces" so they would have to sue them as well... Interesting how this will turn out. I do not think it will go far.

[tbroderick]

Keep in mind that apple now uses these quote "Workspaces" so they would have to sue them as well...

They already did. Apple and IP Innovation came to a settlement.

[ryanVickers]

Apple, and all the *nix companies need to team up and get the support of some even bigger company and sue them for owning stupid patents, and maybe the US patent office too for letting it happen :p

[ellis rowell]

While I could always be wrong, I seriously doubt this is going anywhere.

First: prior art. Just cause they filed the patent doesn't mean no one had designed a functional desktop switcher before they filed.

Second: the "defensive" patent portfolios of the large Linux backers (Red Hat, IBM, etc.).

Third: U.S. courts have finally been realizing that a lot of trolls are filing patents for obvious concepts.

The two screen (or workspace) was implemented on the Sinclair QL with the Minerva ROM which was produced in the 1980's. The concept was Tony Tebby's original plan for the QL but was not included in the original ROM. The Minerva ROM was written by Jonathan Oakley, Lawrence Reeves and Stuart McKnight.

[p_quarles]

The two screen (or workspace) was implemented on the Sinclair QL with the Minerva ROM which was produced in the 1980's. The concept was Tony Tebby's original plan for the QL but was not included in the original ROM. The Minerva ROM was written by Jonathan Oakley, Lawrence Reeves and Stuart McKnight.
That seems to be one of many. I've been reading the comments on Slashdot and Groklaw, and many people have pointed to things like Emacs, Atari, GEOS and others as GUIs that had features that would technically be described by this patent.

So, I'm hopeful. Of course, U.S. patent law is so arcane (which is the biggest problem, IMO) that I don't really know what to think. I'll be following it closely, though.

[-grubby]

Microsoft is just sue happy aren't they? Greedy jerks

[ryanVickers]

they have to have all the money ;)

[happysmileman]

Unfortunately free software, despite its ideals, SHOULD NOT be able to exist is the world we live today.


And should ford be the only car company because the others copied their ideas?



I really wouldn't mind paying $50 for a LTS version of Ubuntu(while getting free updates in between LTS releases). I believe the OS and software available is worth far more than that.


If it cost $50 to get Linux, then what about all the schools and churches and third-world children who use it now? Should it be de-activated because it doesn't fit in with US law? Or maybe because it doesn't fit in with your beliefs and you're able to afford it, so you ignore those who can't.



EVERYONE here really needs to start respecting intellectual property...i know some of you already do, but it seems that a majority simply believe that as long as you give it away for free that you're free to steal or copy others ideas.


Actually only the Americans have to starting "respecting IP", because the laws you're talking about don't apply to any country with a sane legal system, and the majority of people here are therefore ALLOWED legally to "steal or copy others ideas" (if by stealing and copying you mean programming from scratch without having access to the code of the other companies products)

[perce]

And should ford be the only car company because the others copied their ideas?


Actually the car was patented in Germany by Benz in 1879. Ford was only founded in 1903, when even Italy, at the time a rural and underdeveloped country, already had its car company: FIAT was founded in 1899.

[andylogo]

And should ford be the only car company because the others copied their ideas?



If it cost $50 to get Linux, then what about all the schools and churches and third-world children who use it now? Should it be de-activated because it doesn't fit in with US law? Or maybe because it doesn't fit in with your beliefs and you're able to afford it, so you ignore those who can't.



Actually only the Americans have to starting "respecting IP", because the laws you're talking about don't apply to any country with a sane legal system, and the majority of people here are therefore ALLOWED legally to "steal or copy others ideas" (if by stealing and copying you mean programming from scratch without having access to the code of the other companies products)

what i'm trying to say is that in ubuntu we already have a restricted drivers manager...what are we going to have next?...a restricted feature manager? If Red Hat and Novell do in fact have to pay up for infringing on this patent...would this not then constitute mulitple desktops as NON-FREE software? What i'm trying to say is that we should not be able to use this feature in free linux distros if other companies have to pay to license the rights to it.

Everyone here can complain all you want about Microsoft being evil and that they charge too much for their software...but maybe the software is so expensive because they have to pay so many royalties to ridiculous patent trolls such as this.

Their may be a windows tax on every new oem computer...but there is a patent troll tax on every copy of windows also.

[kvonb]

I reckon we start an international campaign to raise funds to take out a contract on ms bosses if they try any funny business :)

I suggest looking in the Phillipines, it's cheap to get someone knocked off there, $20 so I'm told by a Phillipino friend!

[helane]

how patents work in canada? does anybody know? i have to admit i am very confused with all the legal talk. and what happened lately in us - the woman that had to pa 220k for few songs that she downloaded... are they going to sue end users of linux too? :|

h.

[kanem]

what i'm trying to say is that in ubuntu we already have a restricted drivers manager...what are we going to have next?...a restricted feature manager? If Red Hat and Novell do in fact have to pay up for infringing on this patent...would this not then constitute mulitple desktops as NON-FREE software? What i'm trying to say is that we should not be able to use this feature in free linux distros if other companies have to pay to license the rights to it.

Everyone here can complain all you want about Microsoft being evil and that they charge too much for their software...but maybe the software is so expensive because they have to pay so many royalties to ridiculous patent trolls such as this.

Their may be a windows tax on every new oem computer...but there is a patent troll tax on every copy of windows also.
I can see where you're coming from: if MS has to pay these patent trolls then so should other (American) companies like Novell and Redhat. But I think others here are implicitly saying that MS shouldn't have to pay them either. Two different arguments. So when someone says that Linux companies shouldn't have to pay royalties for these software patents, they're not saying MS should have to pay but not Linux companies because it's Free software. They are saying no one should have to put up with these patent trolls (or software patents at all).

But it's not the Free software community's job to defend MS (MS can fend for themselves), it's the Free software community's job to defend Free software, which they are doing by fighting these patent trolls. And if their actions gets a patent troll off of MS's back, well that's fine too.

But a fact in this case that points to pure anti-Linux sentiment is that Windows also infringes on this patent. Unless this patent troll is just afraid to take on MS and it's lawyers, it seems fishy that they are going after relatively poor companies that make Linux distros. The connection between this particular patent troll and MS makes it even fishier.

[kopinux]

good thing the Philippines does not include software patents.:)

[RomeReactor]

what i'm trying to say is that in ubuntu we already have a restricted drivers manager...what are we going to have next?...a restricted feature manager? If Red Hat and Novell do in fact have to pay up for infringing on this patent...would this not then constitute mulitple desktops as NON-FREE software? What i'm trying to say is that we should not be able to use this feature in free linux distros if other companies have to pay to license the rights to it.
You're trying to look too far ahead, when this has just started. Until a verdict is reached, we don't know if it's considered legal or illegal to use multiple desktops. This is a process that could easily take years--just look at SCO v. Novell. In the meantime, we can keep using the workspace switcher just fine until the opposite is declared.


Everyone here can complain all you want about Microsoft being evil and that they charge too much for their software...but maybe the software is so expensive because they have to pay so many royalties to ridiculous patent trolls such as this.
Patent trolls are one of the things that are wrong with the patent system nowadays. If a company can dedicate itself solely to the acquisition of software patents, not with the intent of putting them to good use in the development of programs, but to amass a patent portfolio to wield against others as if it were nothing less than a Zweihander, then the system is in dire need of revision. Another thing that's wrong is that the USPTO is only too happy to award a patent to even obvious implementations of commonplace ideas in exchange for money. It's been said many times: software patents are just stifling innovation.

[Jimmyfj]

Well - With the ruling against Microsoft by The European First Court in mind I can't wait to find out what happens if this suit is tried in Europe. The EU First Court wold laugh their A''' of. Patents has to be defended especially in the first year or two otherwise you can't make any claim on infringement. No court, at least not in the EU wold ever consider that claim serious. And the patent in question hasn't been defended for sixteen years.

I've only one thing left to say: God bless America - I love Americans, but the few greedy bastards in eternal quest to enrich themselves on other peoples works,well you got brains of your own, right?

[happysmileman]

Well - With the ruling against Microsoft by The European First Court in mind I can't wait to find out what happens if this suit is tried in Europe. The EU First Court wold laugh their A''' of.


Software patents don't exist at all in Europe, so there would definitely be a lot of people laughing their *** off :P

Makes me glad I don't live in the US

[autocrosser]

Can anyone name something that we have that they're using ;)

Just to sue them back :p

Please look at:

http://www.news.com/GPL-defenders-say-See-you-in-court/2100-7344_3-6210837.html

Proof that we do not just roll over and take it.....

[Pekkalainen]

They cant sue us in Europe, so when GNU/Linux gets more widespread I guess we would have an advantage. The US patent system is, to quote every populist american politician, "unamerican" ;)

[Samnsparky]

:'(

But isn't there some rule that says you actually have to do something with your patented tech instead sit on it for years and then start suing? (apart from whether or not this patent is bogus)

I may have missed this if someone has already responded, however, you are referring to the Statue of Limitations (I am not a lawyer so I dont know what those limitations are) but after x amount of time someone can not sue for a crime (I think, I could be wrong). This could help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations.

[matthekc]

@ andylogo
I read what you said and saw red! (the color) The first computers were made by home brew users. Apple and Microsoft merely stood on their shoulders. Further most software stands on the research done at universities before vacuum tubes were even invented.

[raldz]

Ever since this patent issues came up, my hatred towards M$ just grew bigger.. I work as a tech support for a big computer company here in America.. and to do my share of bringing down M$, when customers ask me.. Why is Vista like this? Why is XP like this? Why I can't do this with Vista?... I just answer... "Well, you see MIcrosoft did a very awful job in copying Mac and Linux that they ended up messing the entire system, that's why at home, I don't use Windows."... and of course, since I am the "Tech Guy" that they trust, they will believe me and hate M$ too... hehehe...

[FredB]

Software patents are really a big bag of crap. As I am leaving in Europe, I hope European Union will never adopt this.

Anyway, another SCO lawsuit like ?

[Zorael]

Patents describing an idea, a concept or a way of implementation are roughly equavilent to patents describing a morning routine (get up, shower, brush teeth), a route to work, or a way of walk. It's an economically brilliant move, though underhanded as dirt incarnate.

I remember hearing about some US citizen patenting "transport aided by magnetic fields" or similar, some time ago now. It made me /facepalm.

It'll be interesting to see how this particular case ends up. I'm Swedish, so I'll just watch safely from a distance.

[p_quarles]

Patents describing an idea, a concept or a way of implementation are roughly equavilent to patents describing a morning routine (get up, shower, brush teeth), a route to work, or a way of walk. It's an economically brilliant move, though underhanded as dirt incarnate.

I remember hearing about some US citizen patenting "transport aided by magnetic fields" or similar, some time ago now. It made me /facepalm.

It'll be interesting to see how this particular case ends up. I'm Swedish, so I'll just watch safely from a distance.
lol . . . You know that the US also allows the patenting of "business processes", right? So the "morning routine" analogy is unfortunately not as absurd as it should be.

Yes, the situation with patent law here is pretty ridiculous. It might be "economically brilliant" from the perspective of mega-corporations and patent trolls, but it's really pretty harmful to our overall wealth.

[red_Marvin]

lol . . . You know that the US also allows the patenting of "business processes", right? So the "morning routine" analogy is unfortunately not as absurd as it should be.

Yes, the situation with patent law here is pretty ridiculous. It might be "economically brilliant" from the perspective of mega-corporations and patent trolls, but it's really pretty harmful to our overall wealth.

Hmmm we should patent the patent trolling business model then:rolleyes:

[ryanVickers]

That's what I've always said! "Why doesn't someone patent the concept of patenting!?":p

[sageb1]

Their greed will bite them in the a$$.

I mean, Gates got married and now is giving his money away.

It is doubtful they can sue any Linux company not making a buck giving away their CDs like Ubuntu.

[mattjoy]

In 1987 I worked for new-York life and I remember installing an application called desqview that allowed for multi-tasking Virtual DOS desktop sessions that could be switched out. This was production software on the marked Before the patent was filed!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DESQview

[wolfbone]

Laches is the (possible) defence in the US that some people have hinted at but it would only prevent the patentee from claiming compensation for past infringements of the patent anyway.

The EPO, just like the USPTO (but not quite as frantically), does grant software and business method patents. Only in some European countries - most notably the UK - would a patent like this one likely be found invalid in Court.

http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10535-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=39719&messageID=732097&start=0

The use of the word "stealing" to describe patent infringement is grossly inappropriate. Because of the extreme low quality (e.g. "obviousness") and breadth of many software and business method patents, independent reinvention is common. Also common are duplicate or overlapping patents and non-novel ones. The patentee and the Patent Office are the thieves.

[Depressed Man]

That's what I've always said! "Why doesn't someone patent the concept of patenting!?":p

I just did. But someone's bound to patent the idea of patenting, patenting a patenting process.

[mattjoy]

An application called desqview allowed for multi-tasking Virtual DOS desktop sessions that could be switched out. This was production software on the market before the patent was filed!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DESQview

[ruibernardo]

Wasn't Novell (Suse) protected from this kind of actions when they (linspire, novell/suse and others) signed some agreements with Microsoft? I though that "in return" of those deals, Microsoft would take no actions related with patent infringements against these distros...

LOL@microsoft and their agreements :lolflag:

[akiratheoni]

I'm not sure if anyone mentioned it, but the company that is suing Red Hat and Novell is known as a patent troll -- they buy out companies that go out of business, and obtain their patents, then sue whoever has 'infringed' on it.

In other words, they have a history of suing companies for stupid things... now, I'm not sure if they've won in the past, but I bet their credibility is really, really low.

Kind of like how Michael Jackson was acquitted... the family who sued him had terrible credibility because of lawsuits in the past, so the trustworthiness of the family was pretty low.

[Frak]

Wow, somebody suing for an obvious innovation, for more money.

And if they were to get away with this, what would happen to 10.5 (Leopard) and its innovative new "Workspaces"

[troy1of2]

An application called desqview allowed for multi-tasking Virtual DOS desktop sessions that could be switched out. This was production software on the market before the patent was filed!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DESQview


I remember DESQview! I used to use it to run a 4 line BBS on DOS 5.0 back in the day. Whew! Man, I'm an old fart.

:lolflag:

[gimpguy2000]

wow reading through all this has my eyes all red...hey, I should patent eye redness :)

There are a lot of good points made.

My take is this, what we need is to throw away and re-evaluate all patents by

THOSE WHO KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE GIVING A PATENT FOR
This is where a lot of the blame lies, those who gave out patents like sticks of gum, those who had no idea what multiple work windows were, to them, it may have seemed like having more monitors. Stupid system we have, truly. Hey, let me hand out patents, don't know anything about rocket science, but tell me what you got, a blue transistor? Yes, you hereby have a blue transistor patent! So now all blue transistors used owe you a profit. BTW, what the hell is a blue transistor anyway? Oh well, who cares?

I want to patent a certain fart sound, hey, I got it! I own the squeeky one! Every time you cut one, you owe me money! Honestly, it's no different than most of the corner marketing patent schemes out there now.
Patent a brand, not a vehicle.

This current system is like attacking one ant at a time that gets into your home, you need to find the ant hill and then get rid of the buggers. The laws need to be changed. This will keep happening and happening and happening otherwise.

In a perfect world, I would love to see some shell patent that Unix actually had and MS or others didn't know about. *sigh* we won't see that but if only.
I do think MS has it's mitts into all this stuff. BTW, if anyone knows, Windows holds no claims to multiple desktops on their systems and I think it's created by some off teams, like powertoys, they are responsible, not MS, very clever huh?

[conphara]

Is this the beginning to the end?

I read another guy's reaction and he felt great concern and if the two companies will win, many more will follow their act and that can really, really threaten gnu/linux in a vital state.

If they lose, for God's sake Novell/Red Hat, move to Europe, that's my advice.

[mips]

Here is the patent, http://www.google.com/patents?id=3tUkAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,072,412

How long has X windows had multiple workspaces as this was filed in 1987?

[Sunflower1970]

Here is the patent, http://www.google.com/patents?id=3tUkAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,072,412

How long has X windows had multiple workspaces as this was filed in 1987?

Just reading the summary on that patent (I just can't sit through 50+ pages to read...) and looking at their pictures, it seems kind of vague as to what this is. Not only could it be the multiple desktops in Linux/Macs, I also got the feeling a 'workplace' could be something like being in Photoshop, or a browser window, or any program and having the ability to 'switch' or go back and forth between programs.

Hopefully this'll just be thrown out in court.

[Samnsparky]

I suppose many of you have seen this,but, I just thought it was kinda interesting: http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1001964

[Flying caveman]

http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation/14030/css/14030_123.htm <-example of multiple workspaces sharing data.

I hate to say it, but that technology is pre-1975, so I'm pretty sure any patents don't belong to microsoft.

[YetAnotherNoob]

Only the lawyers will win with this.

[Presto123]

Unfortunately free software, despite its ideals, SHOULD NOT be able to exist is the world we live today.

What? Why? Does it violate some ethical code? I just do not get your point here.

I can understand if you mean that they should pay if they copy someone else's programming, but forcing someone to charge for something that they would rather give away like the Linux OS just violates rights.

[ripntime]

Redhat, Novell and users already have a license to use the patented
technology.
Under the xerox patent when they modified x-windows, under the bsd license.
Under the license, they granted use and modification of the technology.
Done deal MS (acacia) not going to hold out in court, Suspect it will be dropped before the ink dries.
Obviously these Patent trolls used MS live search to do thier research.
Try google next time might actually find something relevant.
It would be prior art if it was a commercially available product that :lolflag:
pre-dated the patent, and would thus invalidate the said patent.

Gotcha

[Frak]

Microsoft pays hundreds of millions of dollars each year to companies because of these patent trolls...so don't make it seem like all they do is copy and get away with it. BTW Apple and Microsoft copy each other...its not just microsoft copying apple.

True, MS does copy Apple at times and vice versa.



So what you're saying is that just because linux is open source and free that it doesn't have to abide by the same rules as microsoft and apple when it comes to producing an OS?

Yes and No, Its wrong because it is against the law, it is okay because it won't die off from lawsuits.


LOL, how did it stop them? Obviously Microsoft and Novell arn't doing so bad and i'd be willing to bet that the deal Novell signed protects them from any patent laws with which microsoft already pays a royalty for...pretty smart move on the part of Novell if you ask me.

The GPL v.3 states that partnerships like those made with Novell and Microsoft, are forbidden.


Once again...non profit so we won't get sued...but as long as we don't get sued lets continue to disrespect the laws of the United States.

Yep, and I won't be first to tell you that the U.S. is one of the only countries with software patent laws. Other countries have warned us about them (such as India)



Don't get me wrong...i love linux as an OS and find it beyond that of apple and windows on a pure graphical level(with CF) but the fact is that if Linux does in fact violate some patents(I'm sure they even violate those same patents that micrsoft violates and pays royalties for) then the software developers should either have to pay the same royalties or the end user should have to pay them.

Then let the lawyers cry. Because they are the only ones who get any benefits from lawsuits in the long run.


Unfortunately free software, despite its ideals, SHOULD NOT be able to exist is the world we live today. I really wouldn't mind paying $50 for a LTS version of Ubuntu(while getting free updates in between LTS releases). I believe the OS and software available is worth far more than that. EVERYONE here really needs to start respecting intellectual property...i know some of you already do, but it seems that a majority simply believe that as long as you give it away for free that you're free to steal or copy others ideas.

I use a checkbox in my application, I wouldn't call it my IP so others could use it. Others use it and creativity spreads.

You can charge for OSS software, just look at RedHat and Novell.


Its not whether this patent willl hold up...its whether the linux community should have to pay for the right to use these ideas...Microsoft and Apple have to...why shouldn't we?

Microsoft and Apple are dumb to do so. OSS doesn't solve all problems, but it alleviates most of them. There would be less lawsuits against people for stealing software, because a good "Please enter key" would work just fine instead of saying "You copied that disk, that is stealing".