4 ms·

Did Gnome get back the lawsuit costs? Did the troll had to pay fines? The article reads like they just agreed to stop trolling.

mcherm 6y ago
Nope. They just had to agree to stop trolling open source projects with patents they already own. They can still troll non-OSI-licensed projects with those patents and can still troll open source projects with new invalid patents. We could stop issuing invalid patents (I'm not holding my breath), develop a legal defense fund to do this again (thus maybe scaring off future trolls) as the article suggests, or change the law. If we change the law we could do something minimal like the article suggests (eg: allow proof the code being sued over predates the patent to be presented at the summary judgment stage) OR (my favorite) something bigger like eliminating software patents entirely.
- z3t4 6y ago
  Or just stop doing software patterns. I live in a country where there is no software patterns, and I dont miss them.
  - lolinder 6y ago
    The patent office has largely stopped granting software patents, from what I've gathered, or they're at least being more careful. So we're just waiting for the existing ones to expire.
    - derf_ 6y ago
      As someone who files patents (and then gives away royalty-free licenses to them), this has not been my experience.
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      Fwiw, USPTO, EPO, WIPO, and probably OAPI and ARIPO (not sure about these two), and whoever else, grant patents for software. Outside USA the rules are stricter; and business methods usually aren't allowed. The EPC ("European" patents) allows software patents with a 'technical effect'.
- nl 6y ago
  > They just had to agree to stop trolling open source projects with patents they already own. That's not what this analysis says. To quote the linked article: The ultimate agreement reached, as you can read, does just that: gives a perpetual covenant not to sue any project under an OSI approved open source licence for any patent naming Leigh Rothschild as the inventor (i.e. the settlement terms go far beyond the initial patent claim and effectively free all of open source from any future litigation by Rothschild). So it protects against any future patents from this "inventor" too.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  >We could stop issuing invalid patents // This is akin to "we could stop making software with bugs" in a situation where some programmers are actively seeking programmes with bugs. In theory, maybe, in practice you need to lower your standards below perfect.

mcherm 6y ago

Nope. They just had to agree to stop trolling open source projects with patents they already own. They can still troll non-OSI-licensed projects with those patents and can still troll open source projects with new invalid patents. We could stop issuing invalid patents (I'm not holding my breath), develop a legal defense fund to do this again (thus maybe scaring off future trolls) as the article suggests, or change the law. If we change the law we could do something minimal like the article suggests (eg: allow proof the code being sued over predates the patent to be presented at the summary judgment stage) OR (my favorite) something bigger like eliminating software patents entirely.

z3t4 6y ago
Or just stop doing software patterns. I live in a country where there is no software patterns, and I dont miss them.
- lolinder 6y ago
  The patent office has largely stopped granting software patents, from what I've gathered, or they're at least being more careful. So we're just waiting for the existing ones to expire.
  - derf_ 6y ago
    As someone who files patents (and then gives away royalty-free licenses to them), this has not been my experience.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    Fwiw, USPTO, EPO, WIPO, and probably OAPI and ARIPO (not sure about these two), and whoever else, grant patents for software. Outside USA the rules are stricter; and business methods usually aren't allowed. The EPC ("European" patents) allows software patents with a 'technical effect'.
nl 6y ago
> They just had to agree to stop trolling open source projects with patents they already own. That's not what this analysis says. To quote the linked article: The ultimate agreement reached, as you can read, does just that: gives a perpetual covenant not to sue any project under an OSI approved open source licence for any patent naming Leigh Rothschild as the inventor (i.e. the settlement terms go far beyond the initial patent claim and effectively free all of open source from any future litigation by Rothschild). So it protects against any future patents from this "inventor" too.
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
>We could stop issuing invalid patents // This is akin to "we could stop making software with bugs" in a situation where some programmers are actively seeking programmes with bugs. In theory, maybe, in practice you need to lower your standards below perfect.