- How to make new stuff from your piles of obsolete tech
- Why your computer sucks
- 10 recession-proof IT skills
- Juniper execs share network vision
- 9-year-old plots his fifth Microsoft certification
Open-source software companies are missing out on a relatively inexpensive way to fight concerns about patent liability, according to an attorney who spoke at an open-source conference in San Francisco this week.
More open-source companies should be asking the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office to re-examine patents that may pose a threat to them, as a cheaper, sometimes more suitable alternative to waging a patent lawsuit, said Van Lindberg, an attorney with Haynes and Boone LLP, who spoke at Infoworld's Open Source Business Conference in San Francisco.
Fears about patent litigation have plagued both open-source companies and their customers, and stem from patent trolls as well as competitors. Microsoft, for example, has claimed that Linux may violate hundreds of its patents. It is currently suing GPS maker TomTom, partly over TomTom's use of the Linux kernel in its products.
Filing a re-examination request involves arguing to the USPTO that a patent should not have been granted in the first place, often because the technology was too obvious or because prior art, or previous examples of the technology, existed. Some open-source groups are using this method already, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation with its Patent Busting Project. But the strategy is underutilized by the open-source community, Lindberg said.
"This is not a widely used technique among open-source companies, but commercial (proprietary) companies have become very enamored of it," he said.
Enterprises that depend heavily on open-source software might also benefit from requesting re-examination of patents that could impinge on it, Lindberg added.
The number of re-examination requests has jumped sharply since about 2004, he said, in large part because of a court decision, in KSR v. Teleflex, that lowered the bar for showing that a technology was too obvious to be patented. Many of the requests have been filed by proprietary software companies.
Going to court over a patent typically costs US$1 million to $4 million, Lindberg said, while filing this type of re-examination request costs $50,000 to $100,000, depending on the complexity of the claim. That's still a tidy sum for a small company, but one that could be divided among several concerned parties.
Filing for a re-examination may be the only option for some companies, since some open-source licenses include a clause that revokes the license if the holder files a patent suit. A re-examination request can be filed anonymously in some cases, and it can be a handy bargaining chip for open-source companies that don't have patents of their own.
A request can be used in patent negotiations even if it is only prepared and not filed. "You can say to a company, license me your technology on fair and reasonable terms or I'll submit your patent for re-examination," Lindberg said. It is also less likely to aggravate the open-source community, which tends to frown on companies that litigate over patents.
Greg Olsen, who developed the open-source program SendMail and founded the company of the same name, said Lindberg makes a good point.
Partner Content
www.bmc.com
Gartner 2009 Magic Quadrant for Job Scheduling
Gartner has positioned BMC CONTROL-M in the Leaders Quadrant of their "2009 Magic Quadrant for Job Scheduling." The report assesses the ability to execute and completeness of vision of key vendors in the marketplace. Read a full copy today, courtesy of BMC Software.
Download whitepaper
Dell's SMART Approach to Workload Automation
Read a compelling case study by EMA, Inc. to learn how Dell uses BMC CONTROL-M to cut cost and increase productivity with workload automation.
Download whitepaper
Workload Automation Cost Savings 2 Minute Video
A major computer manufacturer uses BMC CONTROL-M and just four people to schedule and run over 85,000 jobs every month. By switching to BMC CONTROL-M, they more than quadrupled the workload without adding a single staff member. See how in this 2-minute video overview.
Go to video
Comment