RedHat's Patent Suit Settlement: Ill-Gotten Gain

khess 0 262 Views

RedHat settles its patent infringement lawsuit filed by Firestar Software and DataTern in Federal Court for an undisclosed amount. Part of the settlement that RedHat made was made on behalf of the Open Source Community--indemnifying users and its customers from future infringement suits by said parties.

RedHat's corporate opinion is that software patents spoil innovation and hinder new developments. Their opininon has not kept them out of the courtroom for patent infringement suits however. They are currently still involved in a patent suit with IP Innovations over 3 of its user interface patents.

Patent infringement is serious business and can reel in some major money for the damaged party's often near-empty coffers. I hate lawsuits and if a person or company has been truly damaged by an infringement; they are certainly due compensation for those damages. Many times, however, such lawsuits (and lawsuits in general) are usually just a desperate attempt at filling those coffers with ill-gotten gain.

If it were truly the principle of the thing or to truly seek justice, lawsuits would be aimed at whomever violated the patents, copyrights, or whatever--not just aimed at those with deep pockets. The fact that such suits are always aimed at deep-pocketed companies like RedHat, IBM, and Novell informs me otherwise. For once, I'd like to see some lawsuits launched against a non-profit organization that has no money just to send a message to offenders and not for any monetary gain.

I'll be here holding my breath till it happens.

Dani AI

Generated

raises the core frustration clearly: the economics of patent enforcement often steer claimants toward visible, well-funded distributors rather than toward the technical merits of a dispute. That dynamic explains why settlements happen even when infringement is arguable, and why discussion of principle alone rarely resolves business risk.

Two legal distinctions matter for open-source projects and their users. A patent license is permission to practice a claimed invention; a covenant not to sue or an indemnity is a contractual promise to defend or cover damages if a claim arises. Open-source licenses vary on this front: some include an explicit patent grant, others do not. License choice, contributor agreements, and any downstream contractual commitments materially change who bears litigation risk.

Practical levers that reduce exposure are straightforward and concrete. Project maintainers can adopt licenses with clear patent language, require contributor agreements or developer-origin declarations that clarify patent intent, and publish a patent policy. Companies distributing or integrating OSS can negotiate patent protections in supplier contracts, preserve clear provenance and contribution records, consider defensive alliances or prior-art pools, and evaluate insurance where exposure is significant.

A final caution: patent law is jurisdiction-specific and fact-sensitive. Nothing here is legal advice. For commercial distribution or high-risk deployments, aligning license choice, contractual protections, and corporate policy with legal counsel is the reliable way to translate community principles into manageable business risk.

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.

Edit Preview