What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
33 Comments
- sirhomer, on 06/12/2008, -2/+53***** software patents.
- matthekc, on 06/12/2008, -2/+21I find it upsetting that someone who makes nothing can get a very long patent and sue people who make products. I am very pleased Red Hat was able to protect everybody. http://redhat.brandfuelstores.com/ I'm thinking about buying a little Red hat gear in thanks that usb hub looks sweet.
Don't forget to write your congressmen.
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Ubuntu_forum_post_urges ... - Chupatumama, on 06/13/2008, -0/+14I hope people at Novell are taking notice.
Whenever those douchebags get in the Red Hat envy stage, they should remember what RH has done to protect the FOSS community and how people are thankful that they are looking out for more than their own ass.
Signing protection rackets that cast doubts on the legitimacy of FOSS as long as it benefits Novell is NOT how to do it.
Hurray for Red Hat!
F$$$ Novell. - cplusplus, on 06/13/2008, -0/+13Its true, Red Hat is open source's friend. eg They have the most Linux kernel developers.
- sockpuppets, on 06/13/2008, -2/+10***** things suck.
- tobiasly, on 06/13/2008, -3/+8Meh... for some reason I just can't get too excited about this. I think fighting the patent and getting it thrown out would have been "looking out for the OSS community". The patent holders obviously knew their patents were very weak which is why they agreed to these terms.
The patent holders got exactly what they wanted... money for nothing, at the expense of those who actually do innovate. This one is settled, but now many others will have just that much more incentive to do the same thing.
Don't get me wrong, I think Red Hat is one of the few companies who actually does practice what they preach when it comes to protecting OSS and I have nothing but respect for them, especially for their refusal to enter patent deals with Microsoft. I just don't consider it a victory that they chose to settle a case that could have set a precedent against frivolous patent suits. - ptFoe, on 06/13/2008, -2/+7***** you Novell, ***** Traitors
- Myztry, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3"patent on a "user interface with multiple workspaces for sharing display system objects," which was originally filed by Xerox."
I can't believe that scam is still going on. I read the 1991(?) patent when it came up, and it was blatantly based on the prior art of the Amiga. Not too easy to find people who knew how the multiple desktops worked, or find video demonstrations of such pre-internet technology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS-NYK-8KL0 around 4:30 shows a second desktop, but doesn't show the system gadgets being used. Never the less, it works as per the patent (+more) that was lodged 6 years later. Pisses me off. - supermanKD, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3***** the Government that lets this ***** happen!
- ezran, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Especially the ones used against open source projects.
- ungamedplayer, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2This post will probably lie a little too deep in diggs comment system, but I'll respond anyway.
The "win" here for open source, is that open source softwar can co-exist with patents in place. Not that open source invalidates patents.
On the flip side of the coin, it means that open source -can- therefore invalidate patents (as prior art), even if the idea came from the conglomeration of thousands of people. - MrPig, on 06/13/2008, -2/+4This problem may not exist if patent officers weren't flaming idiots.
I patented an "original" method by which to transfer complex series of ones and zeros between computers over electromagnetic waves. I call it "wire-not communication".
*parent granted* - akurashy, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2What?...
- inactive, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1***** everyone and every thing!
- GMorgan, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Prior art means nothing to the patent system.
- neko, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1So does your password. *******.
- matthekc, on 06/12/2008, -6/+7They had a comments section I left this...
Thank you for protecting the whole community with the JBoss patent deal. I have decided to buy some Red Hat gear in response.
I bought the usb hub :) - supermanKD, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1There should be an open source Clause in every law... yes I realize why that wouldn't work so ***** off to all the haters
- NedSlider, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1I'm sure Red Hat weighed the risks/benefits vs the costs of fighting this and have protected their users, as well as the wider community, against this particular threat. One battle at a time folks - it's going to be a long war against software patents. If you're going to pick a test case you best make sure it's one you can win (not to imply this wasn't).
I really see no good reason to get on Red Hat's back over this - they are NOT the bad guys so quit biting the hand that's feeding you (or to use an analogy, enabling you to feed yourselves). - GMorgan, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Not necessarily. It shows that not all patents are disastrous.
- qwuinc, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1I don't doubt that, but how about providing sources?
- Kragnerac, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2We'll settle it live.
- supermanKD, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1***** I really gotta start proof reading I meant to say:
There should be a *common sense* Clause in every law... yes I realize why that wouldn't work so ***** off to all the haters - GMorgan, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Out of interest, what's the patent number on that?
- GMorgan, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1It doesn't matter their reasoning. FOSS provides mechanisms whereby we aren't dependent on their reasoning. It's how we can trust corporations, we use legal terms that gives them no option but to behave. It's why dealing with patents is so important. They provide a loop hole out of the GPL.
In any case, Red Hat has always treated FOSS properly and has spent large sums of money to deal with proprietary leaks into FOSS infrastructure. They've played a large part in why we can have a fully free modern OS. - astrotrain, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Once cherished by the Open Community and king of the "screw you Microsoft" mountain... now only to find themselves resorting
to the same level as Microsoft...sue these people, sue that group. Why RedHat why!? - sockpuppets, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Or if he was a clown.
- inactive, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1We don't actually know if they are really doing this for OSS community's sake or for selfish business reasons. I'm not implying that they're doing that, just saying that they could start suing companies over software patents just as any other company does and cover their backs with the "protecting upstream developers" argument. I'm happy they're doing this tho, for the right reasons (the ones they're citing)
- FuzzyCat, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1
Curious... ***** appears as **** if you aren't logged in. - supermanKD, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1That comment would've been better if your username was O'Reilly
- sockpuppets, on 06/13/2008, -5/+3I typed "PENIS", but it was an accident, I thought I was still on youtube.
- JQP123, on 06/13/2008, -4/+1Ballmer was right --- eventually the patent sharks will come after Open Source. This settlement just threw blood in the water --- and I'm pretty sure that Red Hat understood the potential effect so why would they do this?
As counter-intuitative as it may seem at first glance, igniting a patent firestorm around Open Source would most likely only strengthen the Red Hat brand. Sure, it may burn Red Hat some in the short term but it would most likely burn other Open Source vendors a lot more. Who has the resources to not only weather the storm but to emerge even stronger? Answer: Red Hat.
Their actions in this case suggest that Red Hat may be quietly adopting a line from the MS play book. The unspoken message here to corporate clients --- Red Hat will protect you --- other Open Source vendors may not. Who are you going to choose?
- unorthodoxor, on 06/13/2008, -11/+1So true, open source developers, feel free to keep stealing other people ideas.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is