Official website for Linux User & Developer

The litigation business – The Free Software Column

by Richard Hillesley

SCO’s action against IBM and others failed, but reflects a fashion in the technology industries – not restricted to SCO – for replacing innovation and business with teams of lawyers and threats of litigation, says Richard Hillesley

Recently Groklaw revealed the unsurprising news that the sco Group is seeking to renew its hopeless and unrelenting legal fray with IBM.

SCO’s original claim was that IBM and others had copied “substantial System V code” into the Linux kernel. SCO had bought some of the rights to System V UNIX from Novell prior to its purchase by Caldera Systems, a Linux company, and its re-formation as The SCO Group. The deal had been intended to open up SCO’s extensive business channels to Caldera OpenLinux. But instead, the newly formed SCO Group decided to take the plunge into the world of litigation. SCO sued not only IBM, but two firms, Autozone and DaimlerChrysler, that used Linux internally, and sent notice to all Fortune 500 and Global 2000 companies that “Linux infringes on our UNIX intellectual property and other rights.” As a result, many companies declined to use Linux, which resulted in IBM and Red Hat countersuing SCO.

The SCO Group’s actions failed, but reflect a fashion in the technology industries for threats of litigation around patents, copyrights and trademarks. Sadly, the structure of laws surrounding ‘intellectual property’ and the short-termism of business culture during the last 30 years has made litigation an attractive way of doing business. Big money can be made for a relatively small outlay. There are many firms for whom possession of ‘intellectual property’ has become the primary objective of trading. Classic examples of companies pursuing profits based on the ‘ownership’ of ideas include Forgent Networks Inc and NTP Inc.

In 2004, Forgent Networks Inc threatened legal action against 44 businesses that used JPEG digital image compression – a technology that had been in use by thousands of companies since the 1980s. The original patent dated from 1987 and was purchased by Forgent in 1997.

In 2000, NTP Inc, a Virginia-based company with few assets other than 50 US patents, notified Research In Motion, the manufacturer of the BlackBerry, that its wireless email infringed a mobile email patent owned by NTP. RIM faced the choice of shutting down its network or handing over millions of dollars. RIM chose to pay a toll to NTP of $612.5 million.

Copyrights and patents were supposed to protect the rights of the creator. Copyright was conferred for a limited time to the original creator of a work of scholarship or art. Patent rights belonged to the originator of an idea or concept and were only granted – again, for a limited time – after strenuous tests of originality and appropriateness had been met. They would only be conferred on inventions that were entirely original, were not obvious, and had the potential to radically transform the way things were done.

Over the last 30 years the bar has dropped, and patents are issued for trivial and obvious inventions. Patents can be disputed, but the cost of doing so is prohibitive. Ownership has been conferred not on individuals, creators or inventors, but on the corporations that employ them, and ownership is traded between firms. As a consequence, companies have come into existence that have no purpose other than to claim new patents, or to purchase moribund patents and chase them through the courts for their own profit. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The prime example of such a company is Intellectual Ventures (IV), founded by Nathan Myhrvold, who was once Microsoft’s chief technology officer, with the sole objective of collecting patents and licensing them to others.

In many cases, the cost of contesting a patent, searching for prior art and the recruitment of lawyers, is prohibitive and a distraction, so a settlement is made without recourse to the law and the validity of the patent is never contested.

Owning your own patents as a bargaining chip is no defence against a troll. Far from encouraging openness and the spread of ideas, the cumulative effect of the patent industry is to stifle innovation – and to limit technological exploration to those who can afford a roomful of lawyers.

If the SCO Group had continued to pursue its primary business, of producing Linux- and UNIX-based software, it may have continued to thrive. As it transpired, SCO didn’t own the requisite rights to System V UNIX, and failed to demonstrate that there was any copied code in the Linux kernel. Litigation didn’t pay, but SCO did impede the progress of Linux.

Tags: , ,
  • Tell a Friend
  • Follow our Twitter to find out about all the latest Linux news, reviews, previews, interviews, features and a whole more.
    • Pingback: Reminder of Patent Lawsuits From Proxy Entities | Techrights()

    • Bob_Robert

      Back when the scope and duration of “Intellectual Property”, the same abuses existed, but only on a limited scale. Now, since Patent can cover anything, and Copyright is forever, the abuses are not just obvious, they’re pervasive.

      Abolish them. Copyright and Patent must go. Monopoly is a bad thing, we’re all told over and over, and Copyright and Patent are nothing more than government granted monopolies.

    • Jonathan

      I disagree. I think copyright does have it’s place, perhaps less significantly so online where the cost of distribution is so much lower. However, I would argue against allowing the transfer of copyright or patents, and limiting the ownership of copyright and patents solely to individuals. I would even agree with abolishing the majority of patents, although patents on products that cost significant capital to develop make sense.

      Copyright in the hands of corporations, on the other hand, lead to unreasonable control by the RIAA, or the lock in of artists to a single label, without any ability to change, because to do so would be to lose ownership of the content. On the other hand, I can’t say that that is the ultimate solution either, because some products, notably movies, are created primarily by corporations, if not entirely. Still, I am not an expert, but I think abolishing all copyrights and patents is going a little too far. How would medicine exist without some way of recovering investments? Why would most artists produce what they do if anybody can just copy what they’ve done and make the money with impunity? Corporations would do that, if there was no copyright. Still, the line is hard to draw.

    • Bob_Robert

      I assure you, this has been hashed out endlessly before. Tech companies, pharma, all candidly say that litigation costs them more than Copyright and Patent gain.

      You might be interested in “Against Intellectual Monopoly”

      And for another perspective, “Against Intellectual Property”

      Good luck.