
Total victory for open source software in a patent lawsuit - linhat
http://opensource.com/law/10/5/total-victory-patent-lawsuit-against-open-source-software
======
jacquesm
Acacia has been doing this for _years_ , they have a very big warchest filled
with the money from previous extortions.

They simply bit off more than they could chew, you can bet that in the future
they're not going to change their game much, they will just go after smaller
companies again.

I really hope that this will set precedent in the sense that a future
defendant will be able to point to this suit and link this party with their
previous loss, unfortunately that is not how it normally works in the
courtroom.

It's a pity that the lawyers didn't get reprimanded for bringing this case,
that would have been better still. After all, if you can get the legal
profession to think twice before bringing bogus lawsuits then Acacia et al
will have do a lot of homework beforehand instead of hoping that the sheer
pressure of a lawsuit will cause their opponents to capitulate, as has
happened so frequently in the past.

Here's a link to a previous case they lost, it doesn't seem like that deterred
them much:

<http://www.eff.org/files/acacia-patent-invalidated.pdf>

and a blog article about that:

[http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/200...](http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2009/09/good-
day-for-the-industry-federal-court-invalidates-acacia-streaming-patents.html)

Another party that should be in the docket here is the patent office, they
should somehow be made liable for the cost of litigation stemming from the
issuing of patents that should never have been granted in the first place.

~~~
moultano
How do they sleep at night? :(

~~~
lsb
On a big pile of money.

~~~
rkowalick
With many beautiful ladies.

------
mmelin
"Plaintiffs attempted to exploit this inexperience by arguing that open source
software involved behavior that was, if not downright illegal, at least
ethically dubious. They promoted the fallacy that open source distributors
unfairly take the property of others and thereby unfairly profit. They also
suggested that Red Hat's public criticisms of the U.S. patent system as it
relates to software and related calls for legal reform were un-American and
indicated a secret fondness for the writings of Karl Marx."

Wow. It's like a bad movie.

~~~
lionhearted
> They also suggested that Red Hat's public criticisms of the U.S. patent
> system as it relates to software and related calls for legal reform were un-
> American and indicated a secret fondness for the writings of Karl Marx."

What an ignorant and destructive attitude - systems of free enterprise allow
people to build whatever charity they want, whatever church they want,
whatever business they want, build a worker's cooperative if they want, or
create an open source platform. Marx advocated violence and control, free
enterprise is the opposite of that. Free enterprise is not and shouldn't be
equated with profit-seeking: For profit businesses are one way to build and
better the world, but there are many other ways. Marx would have the
government snuff out churches, businesses, private charities, and everything
that isn't subordinate to the state. Free enterprise is the opposite of that.

~~~
bad_user
> _systems of free enterprise allow people to build whatever charity they
> want, whatever church they want, whatever business they want, build a
> worker's cooperative if they want, or create an open source platform_

Kind of off-topic, but it's something that bothers me ...

Some free software activists should also be reminded of this, since their
agenda is getting rid of proprietary software which is considered to be
immoral / unethical. Some open-source projects or companies having a business
on top of open-source are perpetually harassed for their choices, some of
which are viewed to be in the detriment of free software.

See here for a shining example:
[http://verofakto.blogspot.com/2009/07/timeline-of-david-
schl...](http://verofakto.blogspot.com/2009/07/timeline-of-david-
schlesingermark.html)

Every ideology is right of course (
<http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003097.html> ), it's only a matter
of perspective.

------
grellas
This case at once underscores the good and the bad of the jury system.

The good: surprising as it may seem to many, jurors usually do try to evaluate
the facts, and apply the law as instructed, in a conscientious manner - and,
probably 90% of the time, the result is sound.

The bad: Red Hat and Novell undoubtedly put up a 7-figure defense to get the
case to a jury and then had to undergo the risk of sweating it out to see if
this particular jury might be gulled into giving sleazeballs or opportunists a
victory - this is something an average defendant just can't afford to do.

Another note for those who can't abide by the idea of software patents: even
though an orgy of such patents has been granted this past 30 years, there does
come a time when all of the dubious and obvious ones do enter into prior art
through lapse of time and, in this sense, the problem is at least to a degree
self-correcting (obviously, this is cold comfort for those who have to suffer
under such patents during their long tenure). That really was what won the day
for the defendants in this case.

~~~
rbanffy
> this is something an average defendant just can't afford to do.

Every time we don't, we fund the trolls even further. Acacia won't die because
of this one and will live on to extort smaller companies.

~~~
algorias
So the solution is to fund defendants so they can stand up to this abuse. Wear
the trolls down. Easier said than done, of course.

~~~
rbanffy
Indeed. Much easier to say than to do, but, still, it looks like it's the only
correct solution - to borrow the M.A.D. doctrine from the cold-war era.

------
BrandonM
Yay! A jury acted intelligently!

Woohoo! The obviously-just outcome was reached in an unjust accusation!

Does it really have to be like this? How can we as a nation justify a system
that forces entities _that are obviously not in the wrong_ to spend a large
sum of money in order to defend themselves from freeloaders who clearly _are_
in the wrong? And even after spending all that money, we are _elated_ when the
correct individuals manage to win.

Why can't the patent office (if we must have one) actually employ field
experts? Patent infringement cases would be submitted to the appropriate
department, and the accused would submit evidence supporting their case. The
case should have to go to court only in the case that the accused loses such
an accusation and decides to appeal.

------
mseebach
This seems like a pretty big deal - not only did the patent troll lose the
case, he lost his patents.

I wonder on what grounds the jury found the patents invalid. Was it a
technicality, or prior art or obviousness?

This could significantly raise the risk (cost) of being a patent troll since
the pressure to settle out of court is now, at least to a higher degree than
previously, on the plaintiffs.

~~~
bartl
Judging by this article alone, I'd say "prior art".

>However, the plaintiffs came forward with minimal evidence to support their
argument of infringement. They also faced abundant evidence showing that the
patents were invalid based on prior art. In other words, there was nothing new
in these “inventions” sufficient for a patent.

~~~
s-phi-nl
Why wasn't the prior art discovered when the patent was granted?

~~~
CamperBob
Because the USPTO couldn't give a hoot. They face no negative consequences
when they rubber-stamp a bogus patent application.

------
vaksel
good.

Patent trolls have abused the system for too long. The whole point of patents
was to increase innovation not stifle it

~~~
barnaby
>>> The whole point of patents was to increase innovation not stifle it

Don't tell the lobbyists that. They've worked really hard to make sure that
the point of patents (and all IP law) is to protect large companies from
innovative newcomers on the market.

------
setori88
In the general scheme of things this is an example of a failure. Software
patents are a failure - full stop.

