4 ms·

Oracle is extremely aggressive about IP enforcement - and just because you haven't heard about it in court, doesn't mean that it isn't happening. Ninety-nine pe

by VanL 15y ago

Oracle is extremely aggressive about IP enforcement - and just because you haven't heard about it in court, doesn't mean that it isn't happening. Ninety-nine percent of these issues are settled quietly. I have been on the other side of licensing discussions twice this year alone. It is not just patents - they are actively trying to monetize their IP, including changing license terms (see the evolution of the license for the JDK/JRE download, particularly the "Definitions" and "Commercial Features" sections), modifying support structures (see the modification of MySQL or OpenSolaris support prices and terms) to drive more revenue from what they bought from Sun. I understand why they are doing this - Larry Ellison being a billionaire and all - and I am not calling them a troll (unlike, say, Intellectual Ventures). Nevertheless, I would not shake Larry Ellison's hand without checking my pockets afterward to see if I had just incurred a licensing fee. As to your question: There is a substantial difference in value between a patent family that is closed and a patent family that is open. An open family can have continuations that contain claims specifically modified to read on work-arounds, whereas a closed family can only be interpreted to read on work-arounds through broader claim interpretation or the doctrine of equivalents.

6ren 15y ago
Thanks. "Recent activities" sounded like you were referring to something public (e.g. there'd been recent stories on HN about it) - but now it sounds private. We may differ in the following, but I think it's reasonable to enforce your IP if you created it and use it. As an uISV, it's important to me that customers pay for it (although I'd find it unpleasant to pursue infringing customers). Changing the license terms for future versions seems reasonable. And changing support terms even more so since it's a contractual agreement. Everybody complains about Oracle licensing terms (of their own products, eg RDB), but everybody pays. I think they must be getting value for money. Personally, I was (and am) unhappy with what Oracle is doing to Java - but I think it's reasonable. It was inevitable that they'd alter licensing terms in accordance with profitability. Oracle is a software company, unlike Sun which was a hardware company. And perhaps, pragmatically, that's for the best: Sun never made money from Java's success; now they are gone. Oracle's stewardship might be more realistic and sustainable. And a corporate steward seems important for mainstream adoption (though python, ruby etc seem to be doing OK without it). Thanks for answer on continuations. I'd heard of them used for submarine patents, to defer issuance, but I'm shocked that the US allows new subject matter to be added and get the benefit of the original priority date! That should be a separate invention IMHO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application#Continuation-in-part http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application#C...
- seanp2k 15y ago
  >"I think they must be getting value for money." That, or they're just locked into an Oracle product that Oracle can change the price on whenever it wants. Ever try migrating Oracle Database <-> anything else? They have most customers over a barrel.

by VanL 15y ago

6ren 15y ago

Thanks. "Recent activities" sounded like you were referring to something public (e.g. there'd been recent stories on HN about it) - but now it sounds private. We may differ in the following, but I think it's reasonable to enforce your IP if you created it and use it. As an uISV, it's important to me that customers pay for it (although I'd find it unpleasant to pursue infringing customers). Changing the license terms for future versions seems reasonable. And changing support terms even more so since it's a contractual agreement. Everybody complains about Oracle licensing terms (of their own products, eg RDB), but everybody pays. I think they must be getting value for money. Personally, I was (and am) unhappy with what Oracle is doing to Java - but I think it's reasonable. It was inevitable that they'd alter licensing terms in accordance with profitability. Oracle is a software company, unlike Sun which was a hardware company. And perhaps, pragmatically, that's for the best: Sun never made money from Java's success; now they are gone. Oracle's stewardship might be more realistic and sustainable. And a corporate steward seems important for mainstream adoption (though python, ruby etc seem to be doing OK without it). Thanks for answer on continuations. I'd heard of them used for submarine patents, to defer issuance, but I'm shocked that the US allows new subject matter to be added and get the benefit of the original priority date! That should be a separate invention IMHO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application#Continuation-in-part http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application#C...

seanp2k 15y ago
>"I think they must be getting value for money." That, or they're just locked into an Oracle product that Oracle can change the price on whenever it wants. Ever try migrating Oracle Database <-> anything else? They have most customers over a barrel.