First patent infringement lawsuit filed against Linux (Red Hat & Novell)

[Forlong]

I guess you already heard about it: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071011205044141
They are suing them for providing virtual desktops.

What do you think? Is that particularly bad news for Compiz, since David Reveman's paycheck comes from Novell?

[plun]

I guess you already heard about it: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071011205044141
They are suing them for providing virtual desktops.

What do you think? Is that particularly bad news for Compiz, since David Reveman's paycheck comes from Novell?

Nope... this is an internal US lawyer problem ..... if I was a software company
I moved out from US....Silicon Valley and Redmond > next Detroit...

MarkS was interviewed about Ballmer and MS
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS6358901134.html

:)

[NoSkill]

But this is silly isn't it? RH and Novell (and others) are distributing packages which make up a distro. They don't actually do the coding (other than patching, bug-fixes, etc.).

Shouldn't they be going after Xorg or, indirectly, Microsoft/Gnome/KDE and other windowed desktop managers? What about the graphics card manufacturers for providing more than one display from a graphics card?

Why wait 20 years to bring this up? What a waste of energy :mad:

[Forlong]

But this is silly isn't it? RH and Novell (and others) are distributing packages which make up a distro. They don't actually do the coding (other than patching, bug-fixes, etc.).
The problem is: they're selling it.
Shouldn't they be going after Xorg or, indirectly, Microsoft/Gnome/KDE and other windowed desktop managers?
Windows doesn't provide virtual desktops (at least not by default) and GNOME/KDE are making no profit with their products.

They already sued Apple and Apple paid them.
What about the graphics card manufacturers for providing more than one display from a graphics card?
That's not the same. This is about having multiple desktops on the same display.
Why wait 20 years to bring this up? What a waste of energy :mad:
Because the company in question is a patent troll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll) and they purchased the patent only now.

[NoSkill]

The problem is: they're selling it.
Ahh, right!
Windows doesn't provide virtual desktops (at least not by default) and GNOME/KDE are making no profit with their products.
Good point ;)

Makes you wonder if Bullmer & Co. isn't encouraging it though, eh? He just hates the Open Source concept and code of ethics.
They already sued Apple and Apple paid them.
:rolleyes:
That's not the same. This is about having multiple desktops on the same display.
Ooo, ooo, I better patent that one :D
Because the company in question is a patent troll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll) and they purchased the patent only now.
It's just sickening how low people will go :rolleyes:

[tuxido devito]

One question:

How virtual are virtual desktops in Linux. It just a feature provided by X. It doesn't need a workarround because it's part of the environment itself. Anyways since I live in europe (and software patents are not valid in europe) I really don't think this is gonna be a problem for me. If the law in the U.S. forbids the use of virtual desktop in Linux systems websites will provide an "europe version" wich has al the features. This version will still be able to download for U.S. citizens. Linux mint has already a certain construction.


Why is there a Light Edition and a Full Edition?

Linux Mint respects the GPL and it also respects the copyrights and licenses of the proprietary software it distributes. However it uses technologies that have been patented in some parts of the World. Most countries do not recognize the legitimacy of software patents so for most of our users this is not a problem. But if you're unlucky and you live in a country where software patents are legally enforcable, you need a version of Linux Mint which is free of patented technologies, and this is what the Light Edition is about.