4 ms·

During all those years Groklie never once criticized IBM for any of its wrongdoings. In connection with IBM's software patent threat letter to TurboHercules, Gr

During all those years Groklie never once criticized IBM for any of its wrongdoings. In connection with IBM's software patent threat letter to TurboHercules, Groklie even said in a headline that IBM was "free to sue the pants off TurboHercules". Seriously, which free software advocate would ever cheer a patent aggressor on?

wtallis 16y ago
In the article you refer to[1], it is shown that IBM was not the aggressor, as TurboHercules filed the first complaint, and the "threat letter" was merely IBM calling their bluff: "Your suggestion that TurboHercules was unaware that IBM has intellectual property rights in this area is surprising." Furthermore, the letter was a response to a request that IBM identify any intellectual property TurboHercules infringed. Your refusal to take those facts into account is far more damning than PJ's belief that IBM's patent pledge did not cover TurboHercules. [1][http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20100408153953613 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20100408153953...]
- FlorianMueller 16y ago
  You are wrong about IBM not having been the aggressor. Here's a documentation of the entire correspondence: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/04/turbohercules-entire-correspondence.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/04/turbohercules-entire... TurboHercules didn't make a "request" to IBM as a "bluff". Instead, IBM threatened TurboHercules with a previous letter. Also, TurboHercules never attacked IBM with patents (I guess TurboHercules doesn't even own any patents). All that TurboHercules did later was to lodge an antitrust complaint with the European Commission. However, lodging a complaint with a regulator is not an act of aggression. Regulatory agencies will only take action if a company's conduct is suspected of being anticompetitive and unlawful. The European Commission launched an investigation in July: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/07/european-commission-launches-antitrust.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/07/european-commission-... That would not have happened if there weren't serious concerns over what IBM is doing. The outcome of the in-depth investigation remains to be seen, but the European Commission doesn't launch such investigations unless there's at least a strong indication of possible wrongdoing.
  - nl 16y ago
    lodging a complaint with a regulator is not an act of aggression. Regulatory agencies will only take action if a company's conduct is suspected of being anticompetitive and unlawful. Wow.. that's an interesting spin. The cynic in me wants to say "lodging a lawsuit is not an act of aggression. Courts will only take action if a company's conduct is proved to be unlawful."
    - FlorianMueller 16y ago
      Contrary to my statement being "an interesting spin", your statement displays a total lack of understanding for antitrust law and patent law. Worse than that, you don't even seem to understand that antitrust regulators aren't courts of law. If you sue someone over patent infringement allegations, and as long as you satisfy some basic criteria (such as "Rule 11"), there will be a lawsuit. It's a given that the court will hear your case. Period. And it's only because you as the patent holder want to assert your rights, regardless of whether that particular case is good or bad for the economy at large, and for society. By contrast, an antitrust complaint like the one TurboHercules brought against IBM (many months after the initial - even if then not yet totally specific - patent infringement threat) is lodged with a regulatory agency that doesn't have an obligation to follow up. They can always say there's no public interest in what you complain about. In that case, you could try to bring an antitrust lawsuit, and then you just satisfy some basic criteria and a court will hear the case. But if you ask an antitrust regulator to act, the regulatory agency will look at your complaint and its merits, and will compare it to other complaints and their merits, and will then decide to pursue only the most important issues, i.e., the ones that the economy at large, and society, have the greatest benefit from. Depending on the jurisdiction, the antitrust regulator will either have to go to court at some point (unless a case is settled before) or, such as in the EU's case, the regulator may be in a position to impose remedies and fines, but all of that will be subject to review by a court of law if the affected company appeals.
      - nl 16y ago
        I understand perfectly well. Complaining to an antitrust regulator is analogous to making a police complaint. The police may or may not do anything, in which case you can always file a civil lawsuit. Trying to present making a complaint as some kind of innocent move is misleading at best.

wtallis 16y ago

In the article you refer to[1], it is shown that IBM was not the aggressor, as TurboHercules filed the first complaint, and the "threat letter" was merely IBM calling their bluff: "Your suggestion that TurboHercules was unaware that IBM has intellectual property rights in this area is surprising." Furthermore, the letter was a response to a request that IBM identify any intellectual property TurboHercules infringed. Your refusal to take those facts into account is far more damning than PJ's belief that IBM's patent pledge did not cover TurboHercules. [1][http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20100408153953613 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20100408153953...]

FlorianMueller 16y ago
You are wrong about IBM not having been the aggressor. Here's a documentation of the entire correspondence: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/04/turbohercules-entire-correspondence.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/04/turbohercules-entire... TurboHercules didn't make a "request" to IBM as a "bluff". Instead, IBM threatened TurboHercules with a previous letter. Also, TurboHercules never attacked IBM with patents (I guess TurboHercules doesn't even own any patents). All that TurboHercules did later was to lodge an antitrust complaint with the European Commission. However, lodging a complaint with a regulator is not an act of aggression. Regulatory agencies will only take action if a company's conduct is suspected of being anticompetitive and unlawful. The European Commission launched an investigation in July: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/07/european-commission-launches-antitrust.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/07/european-commission-... That would not have happened if there weren't serious concerns over what IBM is doing. The outcome of the in-depth investigation remains to be seen, but the European Commission doesn't launch such investigations unless there's at least a strong indication of possible wrongdoing.
- nl 16y ago
  lodging a complaint with a regulator is not an act of aggression. Regulatory agencies will only take action if a company's conduct is suspected of being anticompetitive and unlawful. Wow.. that's an interesting spin. The cynic in me wants to say "lodging a lawsuit is not an act of aggression. Courts will only take action if a company's conduct is proved to be unlawful."
  - FlorianMueller 16y ago
    Contrary to my statement being "an interesting spin", your statement displays a total lack of understanding for antitrust law and patent law. Worse than that, you don't even seem to understand that antitrust regulators aren't courts of law. If you sue someone over patent infringement allegations, and as long as you satisfy some basic criteria (such as "Rule 11"), there will be a lawsuit. It's a given that the court will hear your case. Period. And it's only because you as the patent holder want to assert your rights, regardless of whether that particular case is good or bad for the economy at large, and for society. By contrast, an antitrust complaint like the one TurboHercules brought against IBM (many months after the initial - even if then not yet totally specific - patent infringement threat) is lodged with a regulatory agency that doesn't have an obligation to follow up. They can always say there's no public interest in what you complain about. In that case, you could try to bring an antitrust lawsuit, and then you just satisfy some basic criteria and a court will hear the case. But if you ask an antitrust regulator to act, the regulatory agency will look at your complaint and its merits, and will compare it to other complaints and their merits, and will then decide to pursue only the most important issues, i.e., the ones that the economy at large, and society, have the greatest benefit from. Depending on the jurisdiction, the antitrust regulator will either have to go to court at some point (unless a case is settled before) or, such as in the EU's case, the regulator may be in a position to impose remedies and fines, but all of that will be subject to review by a court of law if the affected company appeals.
    - nl 16y ago
      I understand perfectly well. Complaining to an antitrust regulator is analogous to making a police complaint. The police may or may not do anything, in which case you can always file a civil lawsuit. Trying to present making a complaint as some kind of innocent move is misleading at best.