Re: large page patch (fwd) (fwd)

[Rob Landley <landley@trommello.org>]

On Tuesday 13 August 2002 01:59 pm, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > Having a license that explicitly states that people who
> > > contribute and use Linux shouldn't sue you over it might
> > > prevent some problems.
> >
> > The thing is, if you own the patent, and you sneaked the code into the
> > kernel, you will almost certainly be laughed out of court for trying to
> > enforce it.
>
> Apparently not everybody agrees on this:
>
> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-884681.html

This is just a case of IBM's left hand not knowing what the right hand is 
doing.  An official representative of IBM gave statements to the committee 
that their contributions were unencumbered.  If he honestly was acting in his 
capacity as a representative of IBM, and had the authority to make that 
statement, then that statement IS permission equivalent to a royalty-free 
license to use the patent.

Going through court to prove this could, of course, take years and millions 
of dollars, and nobody's going to use the standard until it's resolved, which 
is why everybody's groaning that big blue is being either evil or really 
really stupid by not just giving in on this one.

It's a PR black eye for IBM ("We're big, we're blue, we're dumb") but doesn't 
change the nature of the legal arguments...

Any time ANYBODY sues you, no matter how frivolous, it could easily be long 
and exensive.  That's why you countersue for damages and get them to pay your 
costs for the trial if you win, plus punitive damages, plus pain and 
suffering, plus a stupidity tax, plus...)

This topic's wandering a bit far afield.  CC: list trimmed...

Rob