Dear Red Hat, I know it might have been cheaper and definitely shorter this way, and I know your North American users will think you did it right, but it's NOT right!
REUTERS: Red Hat settles 2 patent lawsuits filed against it. And, of course, «Financial terms of the settlements were not disclosed.»
This is all wrong.
This is all in the line of the most idiotic pattern of the U.S. judicial system.
Someone sues you. Instead of fighting (if you believe you're right) and go to the stage where a judge reaches a verdict, what is the common practice in business?
Financial settlements.
Only the underbrained people (which are plenty of in America, you can tell that by just noticing who their President is, and who their future McCain President will be!) can believe this is a win-win case.
A financial settlement will bury the case on the spot, for some costs that are considered by both parts as "reasonable" under the circumstances: a trial could last forever (because the judicial system is screwed up) and this would incur significant attorney expenses.
But as long as you don't let a judge have a saying on your dispute, and even worse, you agree to pay, the message to the public is this: «Yes, we're guilty, but as a trial can be long and expensive, we accepted to pay some damages to the plaintiff.»
In short, you admit the guilt!
This is not justice in the first place: the financial agreement is a compromise between two parts pressurized by the attorney expensed and by the potential business implications (stock value, customers) of a long public trial. If the plaintiff is entitled to a larger amount of money, he won't get the right sum, and if the defendant is "almost innocent", then why paying?
This is not Microsoft Corp. (with big $$$$$) suing Béranger (who virtually has no real money). This is Firestar Software Inc. and DataTern Inc. (two pieces of shit) suing Red Hat Inc. (a company who aims for a $1bn profit).
What a shame. When you are right, and you do have the money for the attorneys, you should definitely fight until a court says that you are innocent!
If the #1 Linux company doesn't do that, what is the message to the public?
Not a good one, I'm afraid.
Subsequently, if the American moronic Congress would have some common sense, they should pass a law saying that: if a civil / commercial lawsuit is opened, and after some time the Plaintiff is withdrawing it, and if there is evidence that this was due to a financial agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, then both parts should be fined each with half of the sum the Plaintiff was requiring from the Defendant, and the sum should go to the local or federal budget.
This should be a punishment for:
For the Plaintiff: Blackmailing or attempt to blackmail or to force smaller legal entities to pay 'ransom' for false claims — legally, they're still false if not established by a Court, and as long as the guilt was obviously not accepted initially, otherwise the lawsuit were not initiated in the first place!
For the Defendant: Contempt of Court and dismantling the idea of justice: once you denied the guilt and went into a Court, wait for its verdict! Once you pay as part of a financial settlement, you implicitly agree that you can't get a correct verdict in court.
The judicial system was not established as a mean to harass people, but the current U.S. business practice is using the slowness of the justice, combined with the outrageous attorneys' fee, as an easy way of making money.
What a dump.
Evening update: There is now an official Red Hat Press Release: Red Hat Puts Patent Issue to Rest. There is no logical explanation on why, after «Red Hat defended on the basis that its products had not infringed the patent and that the patent was invalid», they stopped defending themselves: «Shortly before the argument, the parties agreed on settlement terms.» (Explanations like "this is common business practice" are just stupid and immoral.)
To make the lost of money... profitable, Red Hat is trying to put things as a "visionary" move: «Like most settlements, this one ends the specific lawsuit between the parties, but it does much more than that. It assures that upstream developers are protected against patent suits by DataTern and Amphion with respect to projects incorporated into Red Hat products. In addition, our distributors, customers, and anyone else who uses Red Hat products are protected with respect to Red Hat products. This broad coverage is a significant benefit to the open source community.»
This sounds pretty more like the Microsoft-Novell patent covenant, except that there is no Microsoft here.
Matt Asay is <censored> enough to praise Red Hat for this "achievement": Red Hat demonstrates the open-source way to quash patent lawsuits. He's terribly enchanted, and the first part of the following text was already bold in the original article: «This is how to do a patent agreement. It's how an open-source friendly company works with patents. Consider it a primer for the rest of us.»
If this is a primer, then we'll all doomed. The open source developers and end users who believe that Red Hat did great with this move are either stupid, or stupid. Tertium non datur.
Next morning update: Who cares if this settlement is GPLv3-compliant? Groklaw does: Red Hat Makes History With Patent Settlement - Compatible with GPLv3. If this is "making history", then the end of the world is around the next corner. No matter how "legally correct" it is, it's absolutely wrong from the ethical and from the motivational standpoint. The actual message is: "don't fight for your rights, don't trust any Court, better pay ransom money when asked."
This is not what I was expecting from Red Hat.
Next morning re-update: It got on LWN too. And here's a comment concluding this way: «If so, then this is very impressive, and adds to my respect for Red Hat.»
Getting protection through a financial agreement is not freedom! It's 100% like when you buy "protection" from the Mafia. Freedom is when a Court says you're not guilty.
I don't understand how people can be so immoral to consider this patent agreement as a good thing.
One more day later:
Slashdot: Red Hat Makes a GPL-Compatible Patent Deal.
Mark Webbink: No Longer Quiet - Red Hat and the Patent Settlement. «Red Hat disposed of the claims in a fiscally responsible manner given the cost of patent litigation.»
Greg DeKoenigsberg: Raleigh Legal.
In both cases, people are grateful to Red Hat. As if, yielding to extortion (just because a judge might be "crazy enough to rule against us") is a good thing.
This stinks. And what stinks the most is that people are congratulating Red Hat for this non-ethical under-achievement. It's all for the best, I know. But it stinks.
10 comments> Of course, there is Ron Paul...
Ron Paul has such mixed views that almost everyone will agree with 50% of what he says and disagree with 50% at the same time. He can't win.
> settling is so commonplace in the US that people do not ASSUME guilt when they hear something is settled
This is exactly because it's so commonplace that people LOST their reason and can't think normally anymore.
> They simply assume someone's a pussy for not standing up against a money-hungry plantiff.
So blackmailing is legalized, huh? It's like paying protection taxes to the Mafia, right?
Americans have always criticized the citizens of the former 'Soviet block' for not overthrowing the communist regimes, yet they're so pussy that they didn't do anything to reform the system that makes the justice unlikely to happen!
One more time: when it's not "Microsoft vs. Béranger", but "2 Nobody Inc. vs. Red Hat", paying means exactly that: assuming guilt!
It's the fault of the American people if it's so dumb not to realize that.
Consequently, there is no doubt that McCain will win :-)
This is the people you have built out there, under the most "grandiose" Constitution under the sun.
Also, they lack any sense of justice (and of ethics, and of morals, and you claim "In God We Trust" on every bill), they can only think in terms of "what's cheaper".
Oops, I used "you" and "they" interchangeably :-)
http://hircus.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/patents-to-settle-or-not-to-settle/
Software patents, and arguably patents in general, need to go away, and this is certainly not setting the right precedent. However, as I argue in my blog, this is not as bad as the MS-Novell settlement: it *does* cover more people (upstream developers of any project used by Red Hat, regardless of wherever else their projects are used).
Yes, it does cover more people indeed. It's broader and non-exclusive.
But it's still giving the wrong message. If Red Hat can't fight, who is supposed to?
"But it's still giving the wrong message. If Red Hat can't fight, who is supposed to?"
Red Hat does fight as you are well aware.
http://www.press.redhat.com/2008/04/07/red-hat-asks-federal-court-to-limit-patents-on-software/
http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html
http://www.redhat.com/truthhappens/public_policy/
http://www.redhat.com/magazine/014dec05/features/oin/
In this case, fighting against one patent might eventually overthrow that specific patent. Now Red Hat's settlement effectively excludes these organizations from ever filing a lawsuit for any of their patents against any of these technologies regardless of whether it is specific to this piece of software or not. Not just for itself but upstream software as well as derivatives even if they are included by competing vendors which is historically never been done so far.
Ideally, every such lawsuit would result in the patent getting overthrown. Unfortunately the legal system in U.S is heavily biased towards the patent holder and Red Hat is picking the battles it fights. Instead of fighting this phenomenon on a per suit basis, it is better to do it on a more global basis through public policy reform which is what Red Hat is attempting to do for quite a long time now with success in some areas (European patent laws didn't pass through for example).
> In this case, fighting against one patent might eventually overthrow that specific patent.
As a principle, it wasn't "just" a fight against a specific patent, it was a DEFENSE to an ACCUSATION of infringement (or whatever the legal claims were). When you BELIEVE you are RIGHT, you should not YIELD to the unfounded claims!
The "generic" and generous RH fight against patents is a completely different issue.
----------
Let's switch it to another plan, maybe you'll understand better:
Let's say we have a pastor fighting against premarital sex and the like.
And say there is a 17-y.o. girl accusing him of rape. In many places of the world, the plaintiff can withdrawn the accusations in case she reaches a deal with the defendant -- so a criminal case can be dismissed.
Now let's say that the said pastor choses *not* to continue to pay his attorneys to prove him innocent, but instead he negotiates a financial settlement with the girl's lawyer to pay her $1mn for she to withdraw the accusations and to sign a document that she will never accuse anybody of rape.
Now, no matter we have a priest with a clear criminal record, it was *NOT* because (a) a court decided so; (b) the accusations were withdrawn "just like that". No, they were withdrawn as part of a financial settlement and of some money PAID by the priest to the girl!
And you're telling me to TRUST this priest that he has NOT raped the girl?!??!
You lack any sense of logic altogether then. But maybe this happens to people living in the US...
"As a principle, it wasn't "just" a fight against a specific patent, it was a DEFENSE to an ACCUSATION of infringement "
As a principle, the counter claim clearly did show prior art.
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/FirestarRedHatAnsto3rdcomplaint.pdf
There is just no way patent holders would have agreed to the terms they did if they thought they had a chance of winning the lawsuit.
Greg Dek has a good post on that.
http://gregdek.livejournal.com/30097.html
Your analogy doesn't work especially legally since patents are usually filed in very abstract terms and btw silly attacks on people based on where they live seems rather racist which I have been getting on atleast one of my blog posts not that I am even in U.S as people assume.
"The "generic" and generous RH fight against patents is a completely different issue."
I see it as pretty related to understand the complete perspective. Your choices may vary.
> the counter claim clearly did show prior art.
Then, *why* was Red Hat so pussy to stop fighting in court?
> Greg Dek has a good post on that.
I cited Greg's post. Greg's post sucks. Red Hat's behavior sucks. Corporate behavior -- with no sense of ethics, justice, morals, and NO COMMON SENSE. Plus, all the Red Hat guys acting as a bunch of *buntu excited mob, praising what Red Hat "obtained" by PAYING RANSOM.
This is sick. This is Red Hat shitting in its own cake.
> Your analogy doesn't work especially legally since patents are usually filed in very abstract terms
This is why Red Hat can pay lawyers, and this is why courts of law exist on planet Earth: to decide in such disputes. Good judges, bad judges, good judicial systems, bad judicial systems, it doesn't matter: what matters is that you WON'T change ANYTHING if you actually agree to pay, because it's more convenient than to fight for YOUR RIGHTS!
> silly attacks on people based on where they live seems rather racist
You need a dictionary. Since when telling of a group as "living in the U.S." is a racist statement?
> not that I am even in U.S
No, but you have the mindset of a Red Hat employee (I don't care if you are one or not), and the Red Hat corporate spirit is tainted with the idiotic and immoral American spirit.
"The Stupid Americans (TM)" are going in court *not* for an act of Justice, and not for getting moral or financial reparation; they go there as if it were a sports game, and when they win they think: "yay! we won! our lawyers were better!" Is it about WHO was morally and/or legally entitled to win the case? No, it's only about whose lawyer was more skilled!
The judicial system in the U.S. is less fair than the bad judicial systems in the communist countries. It's a hypocrisy, and it's even worse: the PEOPLE don't expect to find justice there! The people don't trust the justice, they don't fight for justice, they don't do anything. (Maybe they're busy with computer games.)
And, finally: you don't "have" to be loyal to Red Hat! Your brains and your moral spirit is *yours*, and you have to use them when judging a fact! Simply licking Red Hat's ass UNCONDITIONALLY is like licking the ass of Joseph Staline.
I always said that communism could have been much better implemented in the United States: "The Stupid Americans (TM)" are willing to lick someone's ass, they don't use their mind, they can be easily manipulated to believe they live in a democracy and, most important, they DON'T MAKE REVOLUTIONS (they can't even change the worst constitution of the planet).
Since you have resorted to all sorts of name calling instead of having a civil conversation, I am off this debate. Good luck. Oh btw, racism in a dictionary I looked up is defined as prejudice against people based on attributes such as race, caste, region or colour. Rural racism talks in detail about racism based on region for example:
http://www.federationpress.com.au/bookstor/book.asp?isbn=9781843920564
"The book will appeal to a wide audience of *academics*, students and practitioners with an interest in contemporary debates surrounding racism, rurality, identity and community."
How about a book for *regular* people, and about ethics and following the justice in times when the rule is to pay ransom in order to get some peace of mind?
Comments are closed, complaints to info@.
You intend to bring in criticism of who may or may not become our next president. How irrelevant.
I would be saying this whether you mentioned the dipshit, run-of-the-mill, NOT-special Obama or the "I guess he'll do because US citizens don't have much choice" McCain.
Of course, there is Ron Paul...
On topic, I agree that our legal system, as well as most others, has an enormous amount of counter-productive, money-stealing, opportunist procedures that make it what it is.
I will say, however, that settling is so commonplace in the US that people do not ASSUME guilt when they hear something is settled. They simply assume someone's a pussy for not standing up against a money-hungry plantiff.