Linux Desktop Org GNOME Foundation Settles Lawsuit With Patent Troll (theregister.co.uk) 29
The GNOME Foundation has settled a US lawsuit brought against it by Rothschild Patent Imaging, complete with an undertaking by the patent assertion entity that it will not sue GNOME for IP infringement again. From a report: In a so-called "walk away" settlement, Rothschild Patent Imaging (RPI) and the open-source body are discontinuing their legal battle that began in October last year. RPI sued for alleged IP infringement of one of its patents by the GNOME photo-organising tool Shotwell, marking the first time a free software project had been targeted in that way. In a statement at the time, the GNOME Foundation said RPI "offered to let us settle for a high five-figure amount, for which they would drop the case", something it said would be "wrong" to do. The open-sourcers thus countersued RPI, aided by lawyers from New York law firm Shearman Sterling who agreed to work on the case for free. Neil McGovern, exec director of the foundation, said in a canned statement today: "I'm exceptionally pleased that we have concluded this case. This will allow us to refocus our attention on creating a free software desktop, and will ensure certainty for all free and open source software in future." GNOME Foundation executive director Neil McGovern has told The Register: "For those asking about payment, I can confirm we paid RPI and Leigh Rothschild a grand total of $0.00 for the settlement."
In all fairness to Rothschild (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
That'll show them.
Unless there are consequences they'll do it again.
It would be a shame if they get ransomwared every week for the rest of the year. That would be wrong, but one must admit there are unsavory characters in every community, so who knows.
Re: In all fairness to Rothschild (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, they might just have realized that some things are not as defenseless as they look.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:In all fairness to Rothschild (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
You should know that this is considered edible in some countries and cultures. Not if taken from human males, of course.
balance in decisions (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
GNOME Foundation executive director Neil McGovern has told The Register: "For those asking about payment, I can confirm we paid RPI and Leigh Rothschild a grand total of $0.00 for the settlement."
The settlement was free-as-in-beer.
Re:They paid too much. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that GNOME had to pay their lawyers. It probably wasn't cheap.
I suppose demanding the head of the CEO of RPI is not legal, is it?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> Except that GNOME had to pay their lawyers. It probably wasn't cheap.
Oh it was cheap. Free, really. There's no "probably" about it.
E
> The open-sourcers thus countersued RPI, aided by lawyers from New York law firm Shearman Sterling who agreed to work on the case for free.
Was their case that weak? (Score:2)
"I can confirm we paid RPI and Leigh Rothschild a grand total of $0.00 for the settlement"
Was their cause of action that weak or did they show their panties and were worried they might be the receiver (instead of the giver) .. If you need context look up goatse in the archive.
Re: (Score:2)
Walk aways are expensive in their own right (Score:5, Interesting)
McGovern also told Brock that the open-source community "managed to raise over $150,000 from over 4,000 individual donors" to fight the case, adding: "One of the strengths of the community is how passionately we care about what we do, and how we rally around each other when there's trouble."
And it's highly likely that the funds contributed were just enough to take care of all of the filings. Patent trolls usually set the dollar amount to something just under the required filing fees. RPI going in more than likely knew GNOME was a 501(c) and would retain legal counsel pro bono, hence the quoted high-five offer from them. So if we take the high end of that, say $90,000. Then $150,000 for the filing doesn't seem too far off the mark. The $90k settlement is way more tempting than $150k filing. Had this been a for-profit, I'm sure the settlement price would have been in the middle-six figured amount. At any rate, I'm pretty sure that that vast majority of that $150k raised had to be spent just to secure the walk away.
Fighting patent trolls in the United States is ridiculous expensive. The American rule for attorney fees is just idiotic. Every other Western country implements the British rule and that's why patent troll cases are mostly an American thing. I don't want to say entirely because there is indeed debate [fordham.edu] about NPEs in patent litigation around the world. But by far and wide America is the home of patent trolling and the difference in the American and British rule is a cornerstone in that difference. I still struggle to find people who can make a convincing argument in favor of the American rule when compared to the need for proper litigation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder, do other countries have ambulance chasers like the US?
I know no country in Europe that has them.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you describing English rule [wikipedia.org] or something else?
It exists in some narrow contexts in some jurisdictions in the US. In New York, Illinois, and California civil cases for consumer protection is under a loser pays system. (I don't recall if it is one-way or two-way). Alaska has a (nearly) universal loser pays system. Oregon uses the system in many areas of litigation. (I don't know the details)
Re:Walk aways are expensive in their own right (Score:5, Informative)
American Rule - both parties to civil actions bear their own attorney costs.
British Rule - the losing party must pay the attorney fees for both parties
It would seem that the British Rule would encourage parties to only file suit if they have a reasonable assurance that they will prevail if it comes to trial. The American Rule would appear to favor bringing more cases to trial.
I could see where it could be argued that the British Rule might reduce the incidence of patent trolls filing frivolous lawsuits. Because they would need to be sure that they will prevail in court. And, they're less likely to file multiple simultaneous cases for fear of losing all of them at once and bankrupting themselves in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if the British system might also, to some degree, "deny justice" to some victims...
If the evidence for a crime were sufficiently hidden or obfuscated, where it might be difficult to prove it beyond a doubt, it might cause someone pause on whether to try to prosecute it, if there's enough chance that you might not be able to 'prove' it enough, and end up having to pay both sides' fees.
With the American system, you'd at lease be able to cause the other some pain financially, at the same relative cost
Re: (Score:2)
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard for criminal cases. The standard for civil cases isn't as stringent.
Re:Walk aways are expensive in their own right (Score:4, Informative)
In other parts of America there are no such provisions. Idaho doesn't, so rich people can sue for libel when they know they will lose [motherjones.com]. California does have anti-SLAPP laws, which can be used to prevent that kind of intimidation lawsuit.
Re: (Score:3)
It depends. There is a significant asymmetry to "proportional" costs.
If I am rich, I can hire an expensive attorney, and sue someone I don't like, knowing they would be on the hook for my attorney fees. Even if I lose, their attorneys would be cheaper anyways, and the system does not affect me in a big negative way. On the other hand, even if the system does not work 1% of the time, the other party would be scared enough not to go ll the way.
It all depends on how much the settlement amount is vs. probabilit
Patent trolls (Score:2)
What you call a patent troll, others call a patent warrior, bravely facing down intellectual property holders with a full arsenal of legal armaments and a bank account full of money. Will no one stand up for the right to claim sole ownership over the intellectual property created by others? Brave patent warriors are here to save us all (or mostly to enrich themselves)!
Re: (Score:3)
What you call a patent troll, others call a patent warrior, bravely facing down intellectual property holders with a full arsenal of legal armaments and a bank account full of money. Will no one stand up for the right to claim sole ownership over the intellectual property created by others? Brave patent warriors are here to save us all (or mostly to enrich themselves)!
You must be new here.
The rule is: If it's Apple or Microsoft that is the Defendant (Respondant), then the Plaintiff is deemed a "Patent Warrior". If it's a Linux Distro, then the Plaintiff is deemed a "Patent Troll". Simple as that!
Hope this helps...