Google Ordered To Pay $5 Million in Linux Suit

[Guest]

Google has violated a Linux-related patent and has to pay Bedrock Technologies $5 million in damages.

Google Ordered To Pay $5 Million in Linux Suit : Read more

 

[joytech22]

Couldn't Google buy the patent?

Oh well, I doubt it will have any significant impact on us Android users.

 

[dogman_1234]

Rollin, rollin, rollin...keep those lawsuits rollin...

 

[aznpwned]

And this is a large sum of money to Google?

 

[Camikazi]

[citation][nom]aznpwned[/nom]And this is a large sum of money to Google?[/citation]
It isn't for Google, but what about the smaller companies that rely on Linux to power their servers? These guys might just go after everyone and that will hurt anyone who relies on Linuxs Open Source nature to survive.

 

[burnley14]

In other news, Google sneezed and wiped its nose with $5 million.

 

[knowom]

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]I think I'll patent how to take a dump then charge everyone a license fee when they go to the bathroom.[/citation]
Simpsons did it in episode #1039483 "Bart takes a crap on broken patent system"

 

[pelov]

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]Thought Linux was open..lol[/citation]

It is, for the most part, but when a company is making money off of the code you developed then it's kinda not, right?

 

[illo]

You mean like apples whole OS is based off FREEBSD and they charge for it?

so.....

 

[deanjo]

[citation][nom]illo[/nom]You mean like apples whole OS is based off FREEBSD and they charge for it?so.....[/citation]

Completely two different licenses here. BSD is a "go ahead and use it if you can no matter who you are" license by choice. GPL on the other hand is a restrictive license that says "hey, you can use my code only if you agree on my terms and principals". Apple used the BSD code EXACTLY LIKE IT WAS LICENSED FOR. The original code is and always shall be free for anyone to use and modifications are left up to the modifier to decide if they wish to contribute back.

 

[mlcaouette]

I don't feel bad for Google cause 5 million to them is like a Penney that has been cut in half to me. I do fear what this will mean for all the Linux OS makers, you now the ones that don't make a butt-load of money off ads.

 

[ProDigit10]

[citation][nom]pelov[/nom]It is, for the most part, but when a company is making money off of the code you developed then it's kinda not, right?[/citation]
Android is supposed to be free, and google does not get money for the OS.
So in that case, the company putting the lawsuit will have to give all the cash they get to the Linux community, or else they get sued for making money on a Linux OS too!

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]Thought Linux was open..lol[/citation]
It is. This company thinks that they have claim to some ideas/concepts within the code used in the Linux kernel. Neither the Free Software Foundation nor The Linux Foundation are suing Google here (and the FSF certainly would if there was even a hint of GPL violation).

 

[eldesconocido]

[citation][nom]dogman_1234[/nom]Rollin, rollin, rollin...keep those lawsuits rollin...[/citation]

USA... land and home of the lawsuits.

 

[sadboyzz]

This is ridiculous. This bedrock is just a typical patent troll. I hope some judge comes to his senses and gets this overturned.

 

[sonofliberty08]

ok , google pay linux to help linux develop , AMD go on ARM , soon we will have ARM Linux desktop for gaming and everyday use ......

 

[x3style]

Next on the news: Google buys Bedrock Technologies for xxx$ and sues everyone else.

 

[Guest]

I'm not too worried about this East Texas ruling. They have a reputation for siding with patent holders. The patent itself is almost ridiculous from a developer's POV, the process they are claiming a patent on is the data equivalent of throwing out the milk you noticed was expired in the fridge when you originally went there to get bread for a sandwich.

The patent system is definitely broken, and at what point do we draw the line. An algorithm is an algorithm, and different individuals could very conceivably arrive at the same logical solution to a problem (Leibniz and Newton come to mind). It seems unrealistic to award ownership of an idea to whomever registered it, and then say that anyone else with the same idea now owes you money.

 

[mrgreggie]

[citation][nom]deanjo[/nom]Completely two different licenses here. BSD is a "go ahead and use it if you can no matter who you are" license by choice. GPL on the other hand is a restrictive license that says "hey, you can use my code only if you agree on my terms and principals". Apple used the BSD code EXACTLY LIKE IT WAS LICENSED FOR. The original code is and always shall be free for anyone to use and modifications are left up to the modifier to decide if they wish to contribute back.[/citation]

Deanjo, the GPL is only "restrictive" in that it requires that the code and ALL derivative works remain open and FREE! Free dude. Software patents and software licenses are two different issues anyway.

 

[mikem_90]

We NEED patent reform. Eliminate Software process patents that allow stupid crap like this.

Can you imagine how many billions if not trillions would be saved if all American companies didn't have to deal with stupid crap like this? Maybe Microsoft's Crusade against Linux would be blunted. They pushed the SCO thing, there was talk that they said they had 50 such lawsuits waiting in the wings.

Innovate, not litigate!

 

[Guest]

we can't patent english sentence structures.
we can't patent mathematical formulae; and
yet we can patent software algorithms ?
this does not make sense.

ELIMINATE SOFTWARE PATENTS IMMEDIATELY (RETROACTIVELY !) !!!!

 

[phate]

This article misses the other case in which Google is challenging the patent. The aforementioned patent has tons of prior art, including being depicted in a textbook in 1978? I believe. Bedrock did not get the patent until 1997?


Red Hat vs Bedrock on patent invalidity is already on the docket.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/6:2009cv00549/120079/

 

[phate]

Not to mention that Linux itself was released and implemented the methodology in the patent in 1991, 6 years prior to Bedrocks patent.

 

[eddieroolz]

Patent, on Linux? Why did that sound so wrong?

 

[bit_user]

[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]Neither the Free Software Foundation nor The Linux Foundation are suing Google here (and the FSF certainly would if there was even a hint of GPL violation).[/citation]
Patent and copyright are two different things. Even if I give away software implementing a patented technique, you still need permission from the patent holder to use it.

In other words, a software license applies to one specific implementation (like the Linux kernel), whereas a patent applies to anything implementing a given technique (like ALL kernels).

And Bedrock doesn't have to license their patent to anyone (but could potentially face antitrust charges if they don't) and doesn't have to sell the company (if it's privately owned).

The $5M figure might be calculated to cost less than a court battle. This is how patent trolls operate - they figure out how to get companies to settle.

BTW, I'm pretty sure the FSF doesn't own any patents, since Stallman doesn't believe in them. Or, at least that they're compatible with GPL.