[TriLUG] Patent Infringement Lawsuit Filed Against Red Hat & Novell - Just Like Ballmer Predicted

Fri Oct 12 17:08:22 EDT 2007

>Clearly the USPTO acted irresponsibly in granting such patents.

The USPTO is trying a peer review system called Peer to Patent (http://www.peertopatent.org/main/education) to help alleviate this problem. M$ will probably screw that up as well, however.

Kevin

----- Original Message ----
From: Tim Jowers <timjowers at gmail.com>
To: Triangle Linux Users Group General Discussion <trilug at trilug.org>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 2:06:14 PM
Subject: Re: [TriLUG] Patent Infringement Lawsuit Filed Against Red Hat & Novell - Just Like Ballmer Predicted

*
IANAL but here's what I can guess from looking at it:

Filing date*: Mar 25, 1987
*Issue date*: Dec 10, 1991

How long is the patent period? When would it expire? Mar 2007 or maybe
 Dec
2008.
Here's what googling showed:
Current law: 14 years for a design patent. 20 for others. From date of
application with a minimum of 17 from date of issue.
But actually 20 years from date of filing or 17 years from date of
 issue for
patents filed before 1995. So, why exactly are they even filing the
 lawsuit?
I guess they want to impede RHAT for a year and a few months? But maybe
 this
is a nuisance lawsuit since
1) RedHat doesn't make the UI
2) Probably the patent does not cover what Gnome and KDE actually do.
 Might
be the realm of a windows manger even?
3) They did not file the lawsuit against the manufacturers of product
 said
to infringe on their patent. AFAIK.
4) In 2005 I used a Windows XP computer to download Linux... does that
 mean
Microsoft infringed on the patent then? They have as much
 responsibility as
RedHat IMO.

Also, some flaws in the logic in the abstract and some non-matching
application (I suspect "different windows" of same application in more
 than
one workspace is not the same as one window in one workspace).

I'm following the Monopolysoft suing efforts after seeing the extremely
embarrassing patents the USPTO has granted to them (is-not, file
 splitting,
etc). For a company which supposedly hires 1/5 of all CompSci Ph.D.s
 they
might have a hard time defending their patent activities since this
 sorta
stuff was taught to me in my first Engr classes about 2 decades ago and
taught to many people in the early 1980's! I can only guess their staff
 knew
full well the patents they were filing were for existing techniques.
 This
begs the question if Monopolysoft was willingly trying to manipulate
 the
patent system? Clearly the USPTO acted irresponsibly in granting such
patents.

   I suspect a countersuit against Monopolysoft will be worth Billions
 to
RHAT. I can imagine dragging in some old codger professor and asking
 them
"In 1985 (1990, 2000 etc) did you teach about comparing pointers?"
 Codger:
"yes". "What does is-not do?"  Codger: "compares pointers". "We call
 Person
1 and employee of Monopolysoft and former student of Codger to the
 stand.
Person 1, what grade did you receive in this class which taught you
 about
pointer comparison?"
-- http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/22/1310232

   Might even be able to wear them out by getting a very old copy of an
assembler code which compares pointers. Absolutely ridiculous patent
 IMO.
Would be funny to bring in some punch cards and say "This was common
practice 35 years before you even filed your patent!". :-)

   It is not inconceivable that a quorum of Linux and Open Source
 vendors
will aggregate into a class action lawsuit against Monopolysoft. The
 taste
of their own medicine could be a poison pill.

Anyone who's ever filed a patent can tell you the actual invention and
content mean zilch to the USPTO. It's a legal entity. All they care
 about is
the paperwork is right. The examiner will have little to zero knowledge
 of
the actual application and make little to no scientific analysis or
comparison to existing technologies or patents. It's all process and no
substance. But I've only every filed one. I'll never bother doing that
 again
I don't think. I've filed numerous anti-patents! :-)

  I can also imagine finding an ex-employee of the USPTO who will talk
 about
fast-tracking or whatever they call it which allows the large companies
 to
buy faster patent processing. Preferential treatment for a monopoly
 might be
frowned upon when the jury is made of people mostly earning less than
 the
median income! "This patent is supposedly worth "$100M; yet documents
something which existed 35 years prior. The USPTO normally takes 6
 years to
process a patent application but processed yours in 2 years?"

TimJowers

On 10/12/07, Mike Shaw <mdshaw89 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Looks like a new battle has begun?
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071011205044141
>
> --
> "Darn bushes yowling at me again." - Old Man Wickles in Scooby Doo 2:
> Monsters Unleashed
> --
> TriLUG mailing list        :
 http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> TriLUG Organizational FAQ  : http://trilug.org/faq/
> TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
>
-- 
TriLUG mailing list        :
 http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
TriLUG Organizational FAQ  : http://trilug.org/faq/
TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/

____________________________________________________________________________________
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC