On Sat, October 13, 2007 12:13 pm, DJA wrote: > Lan Barnes wrote: >> On Sat, October 13, 2007 11:10 am, Bob La Quey wrote: >>> Companies called IP Innovation and Technology Licensing Corporation >>> sued Red Hat and Novell on Tuesday, claiming the top Linux sellers' >>> software products infringe U.S. patent 5,072,412, "User interface with >>> multiple workspaces for sharing display system objects," and two >>> identically named patents. >>> >>> http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9796868-39.html?tag=nefd.blgs >>> >>> BobLQ >>> >>> >> >> Between prior art and the bloody obvious, I can't see even the present >> corporatist courts upholding this. >> >> How do patents like that get approved? Nemind, I know :-( > > The Groklaw article > (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071011205044141) shows that > two Microsoft executives, Jonathan Taub (former Microsoft Director of > Strategic Alliances for the Mobile and Embedded Devices) and Brad > Brunell (held a number of management positions at Microsoft, including > General Manager, Intellectual Property Licensing) were "hired" by IP > Innovation. Taub was hired as President, Brunell as Senior Vice President. > > This looks to be a thinly disguised proxy attack by M$ with the purpose > of killing Linux vendors by death of a thousand cuts. M$ can attack > Linux distributors and users by leveraging minor patents which are not > owned by M$ itself. If such patents are found to be infringed during the > battles, Microsoft can merely pay (or already are paying - or have an > "Understanding" with the proxy attacker) to license their own use. If > they're thrown out, everyone, including M$ gain. > > But Redhat and Novell (and others further down the road) lose for having > to defend against such patent claims, legitimate or not. There's also an > advantage to fighting patent wars by proxy using a Holding Company: the > attacker can't be counter-attacked with counter suits claiming use of > the defenders' patents, because the attacker produces no products or > services. This assures that big patent holders like IBM are of little to > no use as allies. > >
Assuming that these dots could be connected in a court, I wonder if a counter charge of barratry might get a hearing? BCC'd to my 2 lawyer aquaintances. -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
