Slashdot Log In
Red Hat Hit With Patent Suit Over JBoss
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:34 AM
from the at-least-it's-not-about-perfume dept.
from the at-least-it's-not-about-perfume dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A small software company is claiming that Red Hat's JBoss open source middleware violates one of its patents and is asking a court to stop Red Hat from distributing the product. Software Tree LLC claims that JBoss infringes on its database patent for 'exchanging data and commands between an object oriented system and a relational system.' Software Tree's partners include Microsoft, and that the suit was filed in Eastern Texas, which is known as a plaintiff's paradise for patent actions."
Related Stories
Submission: Red Hat Hit With Patent Suit Over JBoss by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Civil Procedure Question (Score:4, Interesting)
IANAL, as you may suspect.
Re:Civil Procedure Question (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Civil Procedure Question (Score:5, Funny)
They can, because RedHat is selling/offering their software in that state.
Note to self: When I start selling my software, refuse to sell it in Texas.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
If the company you are suing is incorporated in one state, and you, the plaintiff, is in another - can you sue in a third state that has no party resident within it
I think it depends on where "they" (is "they" the company suing or being sued? Or both?) do business, not just where they're incorporated. If my company is based in Delaware and yours is based in California, and we meet in Kansas to actually do business, why wouldn't we be able to use the Kansas courts if one of us got ripped off? That would be where the supposed ripping-off actually happened.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As always: IANAL, but I do remember the class in business law I took... For whatever that's worth.
The statement that stuck with me in that class is, you go after them wherever they do their business. If they're based in New York, you go to New York cause that's the state that would have to most jurisdiction and ability to uphold whatever the ruling is.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
These are Federal courts, so it's easier to cherry pick ... it's all in the USA after all.
Untied States Patent (Score:4, Funny)
Untied States Patent #078957284370958240976548037689725, Method and Apparatus for Initiating a Loud Communication Between a Liberal and a Conservative:
The Liberal says, "The government should pay for it!" The Conservative says, "Throw grandma down the stairs and out into the street!" A loud communication thus begins between the two.
I am going to sue every liberal and conservative in the country and seek an injunction to prevent them from talking to each other unless they pay me royalties.
LOL marketing speak (Score:5, Funny)
According to its Web site, Software Tree specializes in "providing superior software infrastructure that shifts the application/database integration paradigm."
Well if nothing else they've definitely got the marketing speak down.
Re:LOL marketing speak (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's from that "Office Space" movie, where Marty had to go back in time and use the Schwartz to prevent President Lincoln from being assassinated by Lee Harvey Wallbanger.
Cheers!
Re:LOL marketing speak (Score:5, Informative)
Really? I was thinking it was from Idiocracy [imdb.com]. Though, they were both written and directed by Mike Judge, I don't recall "electrolytes" being used in that film.
In Idiocracy, the future is dumb and they replaced all forms of water (except the toilet) with Gateraid(tm) like product and frequently promote it as better because it has "electrolytes". Including watering plants with it. Which happens to be destroying the crop population and no one can figure out why... except Luke Wilson, smartest man in the world. =P
Happily bought this film for $6 for my show of support. =)
Parent
Re:LOL marketing speak (Score:4, Informative)
No, the narration explains that he wasn't smart enough (or, more accurately, educated enough) to figure out/know why. He just had a different tradition, one from an average ~105 IQ society instead of the miserable future.
Rather amusingly, Idiocracy is itself a dumbed-down and toned-down adaptation of the short story "The Marching Morons" (1951): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons [wikipedia.org], which I recommend reading.
Parent
Fishy (Score:5, Informative)
From the Fscking Patent:
O RLY? They honestly want us to believe that they invented O/R mapping? Then what is this ACM paper from 1996?
Object-relational mapping by Scott Amber [acm.org]
Either somebody didn't do their homework and their patent is going to fall under a weight of prior art, or they're just plain patent trolls. Given that they waited until 2009 (9 years after the patent was issued!), I'm leaning toward the latter.
Re:Fishy (Score:5, Informative)
ObjectStore [wikipedia.org] came out in 1988. The version that we used back in 1998 definitely performed this mapping for C++ code. I don't know if it counts as prior art because I can't remember how it handled the schemata for the mapping.
Parent
Re:Fishy (Score:5, Informative)
ObjectStore is NOT ORM. It is an OODBMS. Probably not quite what you want for prior art.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then you might know of a product called PowerTier [internet.com], later renamed to DataXtend CE [progress.com]. That was an ORM for C++ and Java from Persistence, which was also acquired by Progress. We started using that at version 5 or 6 around 2000/2001 time frame.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Enterprise Objects is now bundled with Apple's Xcode as part of WebObjects. It's kind of ironic that Apple encourages WebObjects/EOF developers to deploy their applications on the JBoss application server, which also comes pre-installed on Mac OS X Server.
Re:TopLink (Score:5, Informative)
Software Tree claims that Oracle has infringed the '776 Patent through products including the Oracle TopLink.
"Defendant has actual knowledge of the '776 Patent, and actual knowledge that the Oracle product known as Oracle TopLink product, and all other Oracle products that include TopLink, infringe the '776 Patent," the original complaint states.
Parent
Yay for selective quoting! (Score:5, Informative)
"Software Tree's partners include Microsoft, IBM, Borland, and Sun"
Fixed that for you.
Re:Yay for selective quoting! (Score:5, Informative)
Good catch. On top of that, as long as a company meets a few small requirements for developing on a Windows platform, they can become a Microsoft partner. It is not some secret club that goes around suing OSS companies on behalf of Microsoft.
Parent
Re:Yay for selective quoting! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Yay for selective quoting! (Score:5, Insightful)
Only their website doesn't even mention Microsoft as a partner. IBM, Borland, Sun and Oracle are mentioned as partners, though, with contact details.
What was the intention of mentioning Microsoft and leaving out those partners? Is Microsoft a business partner at all?
I hate software patents. But summaries like this blatantly trying to skew facts to weasel in hints of a grand Microsoft conspiracy does the fight against software patents disservice.
What a crook. Bad! I had to look twice because I fully expected this to be a "kdawson". Not this time, though.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What a crook. Bad! I had to look twice because I fully expected this to be a "kdawson". Not this time, though.
I'd put money down that the "anonymous reader" that wrote the summary was actually kdawson.
Re:Yay for selective quoting! (Score:5, Informative)
What was the intention of mentioning Microsoft and leaving out those partners? Is Microsoft a business partner at all?
It's on the company info [softwaretree.com] page:
"Software Tree is an ISV partner with Microsoft."
Of course, all you have to do to get that status is to write software that works on Windows, and most shops that develop Windows software and sell it are registered MS ISV partners.
Of course, the guys are also:
"Software Tree is an IBM Solution Developer Program partner."
"Software Tree is a technology partner with Borland."
Parent
East Texas (Score:3, Insightful)
East Texas is a hell hole.
Patent mentioned in article (Score:5, Informative)
6,163,776
Link to US PTO United States Patent: 6,163,776 [uspto.gov]
Wasn't Bilski supposed to have stopped these??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wasn't Bilski supposed to have stopped these??? (Score:4, Funny)
No, that was simply the fevered hope of many open source criminals who seek to profit off the hard work and innovation of others.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
No, that was simply the fevered hope of many open source criminals who seek to profit off the hard work and innovation of others.
Like those programmers who work hard for open source projects?
Falcon
Re:Wasn't Bilski supposed to have stopped these??? (Score:5, Insightful)
it's closed source DMCA protected software. There's no way law abiding programmers could see the source code and most of the key developers in these cases have too little time to reverse engineer other people's products.
In short a person "skilled in the art" saw some trade magazine article about a products general function and recreated it without looking... that's pretty much the definition of "general knowledge" as applied to patents.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Indirectly, one might argue that the patent should be invalid because of its nature, i.e. it never
Woahh... (Score:2, Interesting)
So... If I understand correctly : every OO program that talk with a relational database is guilty?...
no more comments...
Prior art? BO vs. Cognos (Score:5, Informative)
"exchanging data and commands between an object oriented system and a relational system."
This sounds familiar... hmmm.... ah.
Business Objects' United States patent number 5,555,403 entitled "Relational Database Access System Using Semantically Dynamic Objects." [patentstorm.us]
Fight fire with fire...
Re:Prior art? BO vs. Cognos (Score:5, Interesting)
Furthermore... they seem to be trying to patent what TopLink [oracle.com] was already doing prior to 1996 [wikipedia.org].
For those who care, TopLink has now been opensourced as EclipseLink [eclipse.org]
Parent
No ORM? In 1998? Yeah, right. (Score:4, Informative)
In the patent application (dated 1998) they stated:
One problem existing in the art is that there are no systems and methods to bridge the gap between the programming paradigm used for object-oriented systems and the programming paradigm used for relational systems.
(from here on in you know there's going to be no prior art submitted that does exactly that, when in fact there was plenty.)
Liar liar pants on fire. [google.co.uk]
More ORM patents? (Score:2)
Another ORM patent? They were hit with one of these back in 2006. http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/30/0451221 [slashdot.org]
After a quick glance through the patent (applied for in 1998) I fail to see how the claims differ from previous published work, but the claims are many, and the patent is long.
NeXTStep Dbase, Enterprise Object Frameworks (Score:4, Interesting)
NeXT, now Apple has patents on this stuff predating this with DBKit.
bad mojo. very bad mojo. (Score:2, Insightful)
do these people ever think, what will the public perception about their own products, website, whatever software they produced and will produce in future, be in the underground scene ? after they do this stunt ?
i mean, this is basically like raising a flag saying 'im an enemy of open source, come, get me'. EVEN if you are not.
underground scene doesnt hesitate from taking down fbi, cia, nasa, whatever web sites, and they produce a lot more viruses, trojans to hamper the companies perceived as 'evil'.
this eve
Re: (Score:2)
Crack down on forum shopping (Score:5, Insightful)
That court, and all federal courts, should start rejecting all suits from or against companies where neither party's main presence is in this court's jurisdiction.
Unless one of the party's principal business is in the Eastern District, the court should say "have you tried the courts where you and the defendant are principally located first?" and accept only cases where
1) those courts rejected the case for whatever reason and
2) the case would not be rejected if the companies were located in the Eastern District of Texas.
This would allow limited forum shopping in cases where "local" courts dismissed the case out of hand, but would not allow shopping just to get a more favorable jury or judge.
In the alternative, simply dismiss all cases that aren't the principle address of either party. However, that might take an act of Congress.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Patent Litigation Venue: "A party shall not manufacture venue by assignment, incorporation, or otherwise to invoke the venue of a specific district court." Venue is only proper were (a) defendant is incorporated; (b) defendant has its principle place of business; (c) where the defendant is permanently located and has committed substantial acts of infringement; or (d) where the plaintiff resides if the plaintiff is a nonprofit or individual inventor. The court should transfer venue to avoid evidentiary burdens when transfer can be accomplished without causing undue hardship to the plaintiff."
(From Patently-O [patentlyo.com])
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
(a) ... defendant... (b) ... defendant... (c) ...defendant... or (d) where the plaintiff resides if the plaintiff is a nonprofit or individual inventor.
Or, otherwise translated, you must sue the defendant in their home jurisdiction, and multiple defendants in multiple jurisdictions, unless we think that you're a sympathetic plaintiff, in which case you can sue in your home jurisdiction like every other Federal plaintiff bringing a claim against private party (assuming that there is personal jurisdiction).
On
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure that would help. All of the patent trolls would simply re-incorporate in East Texas.
Why doesn't this threaten everyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is copyrights and trade secrets. In "steel and stone" patents, product difference are quite apparent, arguing that your product does something different, or even "different enough" is relatively easy as you can point to the parts and demonstrate the actions to the judge. Often a company pays a small fee, then goes back with a "different enough" design to satisfy the judge that infringement is not occurring, then everybody moves on.
With software, it's never about the "parts" or the source code,
Shut down the "plaintiff's paradise" (Score:3, Interesting)
Why stop there... (Score:2)
</sarcasm>
By the way, the GPL is not an EULA and cannot dictate terms of usage, only distribution!
Anyway, I assume you're joking, because the GPL is all about giving users freedom, not protecting yourself from being sued...
A Trend, TomTom, RedHat Guitiarez (Score:4, Insightful)
In spite of what Rob Endele has said this is enemy action, "Once is coincedence
The US legal system, as I have said before, needs to brace up and get its act together on vexatious corporate litigation and to adopt the 'Costs in cause' rule so small defendants with a strong case will always defend. I look to senior academic lawyers, and the appelate benches of the Federal Appeal Circuit and the Supreme Court, which does not require legislation or a specific case but can be delt with by practice direction, to take a lead on this.
Those responsible for business competitiveness, especially in the EU need to do more. At minimum re-opening the M$ anti-trust investigations which I hope TomTom press for, from the Netherands. The State Attorneys and US Justice Department should also re-open the Anti-Trust suit compliance issue, especially after the discovered and proven complicity of M$ in the meritless SCO litigation.
The EU should also raise this as a WTO issue. Indeed the rational reaction is to say to US "We will hold all enforcement and co-operation on IP issues until you have reformed your broken Patent and Copyright systems" and stand firmly against term extension as the rest of the world needs the innovation effect of time limited IP rights. We should no-longer tolerate the East Texas fiasco and put as much back pressure on the US to end this legal corruption, which is, by no-means, too strong a description.
This can be effected by amicus-curia briefs by Commerce and Justice and by making it clear to these judges that all their decisions will be appealed until they resign or retire. They have done enough damage.
And no, after the Economic Crisis largely created by US corporate malfeasance, greed and lack of transperency the rest of the world needs to say 'enough' loudly, and refuse to toady or further pander to the economic nonsense, from the lunatic right, in Washington, which has done so much to damage the world economy.
All your database are belong to us.... (Score:2)
Set us up the patent.