Bottomley: Lessons from the GNOME Patent Troll Incident
([Briefs] Sep 3, 2020 18:55 UTC (Thu) (corbet))
- Reference: 0000830549
- News link: https://lwn.net/Articles/830549
- Source link:
James Bottomley got a copy of the patent-suit settlement between the GNOME Foundation and Leigh Rothschild and has [1]posted an analysis . " Although the agreement achieves its aim, to rid all of Open Source of the Rothschild menace, it also contains several clauses which are suboptimal, but which had to be included to get a speedy resolution. In particular, Clause 10 forbids the GNOME foundation or its affiliates from publishing the agreement, which has caused much angst in open source circles about how watertight the agreement actually was. Secondly Clause 11 prohibits GNOME or its affiliates from pursuing any further invalidity challenges to any Rothschild patents leaving Rothschild free to pursue any non open source targets. Fortunately the effect of clause 10 is now mitigated by me publishing the agreement and the effect of clause 11 by the fact that the Open Invention Network is now pursuing IPR invalidity actions against the Rothschild patents. "
[1] https://blog.hansenpartnership.com/lessons-from-the-gnome-patent-troll-incident/
[1] https://blog.hansenpartnership.com/lessons-from-the-gnome-patent-troll-incident/
Bottomley: Lessons from the GNOME Patent Troll Incident
Interesting hack to reveal the settlement. If it's actually legit, did Rothschild not see the loophole?
Regarding community defense: isn't there some friendly tech person with a spare billion dollars who can simply declare "I will fund the defense against all patent-troll lawsuits, apply within"? Seems to me that making such a statement, and then backing it up as often as necessary, would exert a massive deterrent effect without actually having to spend a huge amount of money in the end, probably.
Bottomley: Lessons from the GNOME Patent Troll Incident
Interesting hack to reveal the settlement. If it's actually legit, did Rothschild not see the loophole?
Regarding community defense: isn't there some friendly tech person with a spare billion dollars who can simply declare "I will fund the defense against all patent-troll lawsuits, apply within"? Seems to me that making such a statement, and then backing it up as often as necessary, would exert a massive deterrent effect without actually having to spend a huge amount of money in the end, probably.
Bottomley: Lessons from the GNOME Patent Troll Incident
> Interesting hack to reveal the settlement. If it's actually legit, did Rothschild not see the loophole?
It's probably not that they couldn't see the loophole, but that neither a court nor a settlement can bind non-parties to the agreement or decision. What I can't tell is if his reasoning on why he was able to get the document is correct (I haven't read it yet). So if Rothschild tried to put in a clause to try to bind non-parties, then it would likely cause issues with the settlement itself being valid.
Bottomley: Lessons from the GNOME Patent Troll Incident
> Interesting hack to reveal the settlement. If it's actually legit, did Rothschild not see the loophole?
It's probably not that they couldn't see the loophole, but that neither a court nor a settlement can bind non-parties to the agreement or decision. What I can't tell is if his reasoning on why he was able to get the document is correct (I haven't read it yet). So if Rothschild tried to put in a clause to try to bind non-parties, then it would likely cause issues with the settlement itself being valid.