Google Ordered To Pay $5 Million in Linux Suit

Status
Not open for further replies.

Camikazi

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2008
1,405
1
19,315
5
[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.
 

knowom

Distinguished
Jan 28, 2006
781
0
18,990
1
[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

Distinguished
Jan 6, 2011
423
0
18,810
15
[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?
 

deanjo

Distinguished
Sep 30, 2008
113
0
18,680
0
[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

Distinguished
Apr 25, 2011
1,189
0
19,460
65
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

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2010
585
1
18,980
0
[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

Champion
Moderator
[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

Distinguished
Jul 4, 2009
19
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]dogman_1234[/nom]Rollin, rollin, rollin...keep those lawsuits rollin...[/citation]

USA... land and home of the lawsuits.
 

sadboyzz

Distinguished
Apr 28, 2011
5
0
18,520
1
This is ridiculous. This bedrock is just a typical patent troll. I hope some judge comes to his senses and gets this overturned.
 
G

Guest

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

Distinguished
Apr 28, 2011
2
0
18,510
0
[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

Distinguished
Jun 24, 2010
449
0
18,780
0
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!
 
G

Guest

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

Distinguished
Oct 23, 2009
149
0
18,680
0
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

Distinguished
Oct 23, 2009
149
0
18,680
0
Not to mention that Linux itself was released and implemented the methodology in the patent in 1991, 6 years prior to Bedrocks patent.
 

bit_user

Judicious
Ambassador
[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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS