Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ?

[Chad Perrin]

On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 08:14:33AM +0700, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:57:59 -0600
> Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 01:39:21PM +0000, Traiano Welcome wrote:
> > > >
> > Unfortunately, patent law and copyright law are very different
> > environments.  The truth is that probably every nontrivial piece of
> 
> yes.
> 
> > software created infringes several patents, and the only question that
> > remains is whether those patents would hold up in court under close
> 
> The best tool against any patents is prior art.

. . . assuming you have enough resources to throw at lawyers to
effectively fight your case in court.


> 
> The open source scene misses a very simple platform. Even FreeBSD could
> offer an extra list named 'prior-art' on which people can publish their
> ideas. The moment the server starts distributing the e-mail, nobody can
> claim a patent anywhere in the world for the idea mentioned.

That would be nice.


> 
> > scrutiny.  The greater the disparity in legal expertise and funding
> > behind the two parties, the greater the likelihood that the case will
> > be found in favor of the party with the greater resources.
> 
> Not true for cases of prior art.

Do lawyers not use the law to their clients' advatage -- often abusing it
-- just because they're wrong in the final analysis?  That is not what I
have seen.  What I have seen is that a company like SCO can drag out
proceedings for most of a decade (2003 to 2010 before the final nail in
the Novell v. SCO matter was pounded in, but SCO is *still* suing IBM)
when it not only cannot produce evidence of any infringing code, but
doesn't even own the copyrights in question.  It would take substantially
less than a year for a big corporation to make my little LLC go under,
regardless of how good a lawyer I can find.  In fact, the better the
lawyer, the more quickly I'm likely to run out of money to fight the
case, because of the rate I'd have to pay a better lawyer.

An accountant would be a better investment, to help me save as much money
as possible in the midst of a full-scale legal retreat.

Contrary to what you seem to want to imply here, in civil suits the guy
with the resources usually wins -- especially in matters like patent
infringement, where a bunch of hand-wavy nonsense on a piece of paper can
usually be interpreted however the better funded legal team wants it to
be interpreted.


> > 
> > This is the reason software patents comprise such a blight on the
> > world of software development.  Even a frivolous patent that would
> 
> There is no difference for an engineer who works in other fields.

That's a fair statement.  I wasn't trying to exclude other fields; I was
just speaking specifically about software development.


> 
> > not hold up through completion of litigation may serve its purpose by
> > bankrupting a defendant before the case is concluded.
> 
> That party must have a real dumb patent attorney then.

. . . or very little money relative to the other party.  I suppose
dollars are equivalent to IQ points in your view.


> > 
> > It is possible that Microsoft is going the way of SCO -- into its
> > grave, having hung all its hopes on litigation.  Along the way,
> > though, it will probably do a lot of damage to a lot of people,
> > projects, and businesses, and I just hope it doesn't get as far as
> > the FreeBSD project or any FreeBSD users before things come crashing
> > down.
>
> It is all in the people's mind.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.


> 
> > (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.  This is not legal advice.  Et
> > cetera.)
>
> This is an example of the real problem.

What -- the fact that I understand the law enough to not want to get sued
by someone who's dumb enough to take advice from a mailing list on how to
handle a patent suit?

Are you a patent lawyer?  If not, perhaps the real problem in this
exchange is *your* lack of understanding of how things work.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]