• 

• Linux Foundation Legal

  The Linux Foundation's legal program provides the Linux ecosystem with important information on licenses, standards and patent issues, reducing confusion and fostering further innovation and adoption of Linux.

• Categories

  • Legal

• Archives

  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • September 2007

• Subscribe RSS

Why did perennial litigant Rambus, Inc. settle with the European Commission?

Certainly the most watched standards-related legal conflict of the decade involves the participation of memory technology vendor Rambus, Inc. in a working group hosted by standards developer Joint Electron Device Engineering Council (JEDEC) in the early 1990s. The fame (or notoriety) of the conflict arises in part from the importance of the conduct at issue (did Rambus set a “patent trap” for implementers of the standard that emerged from the working group?), and in part from the seemingly endless string of law suits that resulted from that conduct some fifteen years ago.

Most of these suits were brought by Rambus against vendors that refused to pay royalties when they implemented the standard, but these suits almost always resulted in vigorous counterclaims against Rambus, brought by those same implementers. And investigations into Rambus’s conduct were also brought by both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the United States, and by the European Commission in Europe. A separate string of cases related to alleged price fixing and other improper conduct by other vendors that participated in the same working group, which ended in record settlement amounts being paid by those vendors to the regulators.

In the course of these many suits and appeals, Rambus has sometimes won, and sometimes lost. But in every case, whenever it has lost, it has fought on - sometimes through multiple levels of appeal - until it ultimately prevailed.

That is, until now. On June 11, Rambus and the European Commission announced that they had reached tentative agreement on a settlement of the investigation of Rambus opened by the EC in August of 2007. In form, the settlement agreed is similar to the (later overturned) restrictions levied upon Rambus by the FTC - Rambus has agreed to forward-looking caps on the amount of licensing royalties that it will be permitted to charge for the right to implement the JEDEC standard in question.

But why, you may ask, has Rambus finally decided to settle rather than fight on in a case that involves the same conduct that it has so vigorously defended before? That is indeed an excellent question, and I’ll try and answer it as best I can in this entry.

Read the rest here

Popularity: 6% [?]

I am a avid, lifelong, read of newspapers in general, and of the New York Times in particular. And I’m a staunch believer in the essential role of an independent press in a modern democracy. I’m also the owner of a Web site that serves over a million page views a month, some of which display short extracts of news articles, with links back to the full text. On occasion those links lead back to stories appearing at the Web site of the Times.

So why am I trying to kill my beloved Times and its worthy brethren?

Well, in fact I’m not. The real causes of newspaper distress are the diversion of ad dollars from print to on-line placements, and a plunge in the rates being paid for those same ads. The latter results in part from the ever-increasing supply of ad-ready Web pages, and the development by Google of technology that allows inexpensive ads to be targeted at the pages most likely to generate sales. That’s not the way some newspaper owners and journalists see it, though. They would like to charge Google, and even small “aggregators” like me, for the privilege of driving traffic back to their own ad-bearing Web sites.

If you think that sounds backwards, you’re right.

Read the rest here

Popularity: 20% [?]

Before Linux.com went dark late last year, it was one of the most visited open source news aggregation and discussion sites. As you may recall, word got this March that the Linux Foundation had taken Linux.com over, and was committed to making it bigger, better and richer than before. Further to that goal, it set up “Ideaforge,” to tap the developer and user communities to learn what they in an on-line resource to make the Linux ecosystem more successful and satisfying for all involved.

After months of effort behind the scenes, and some pretty impressive Web design, the Linux Foundation delivered on that promise last night. What you’ll find there is something that’s different from anything that’s ever existed before - an interactive, growing, feature and content rich resource that can help you hone your skills, find a job, assemble a Linux-based system, and, of course, access the most up to date news, blogs and ideas about open source software in general, and Linux in particular. What it’s all about can be summed up in just six words: For the community, by the community. And if you read this blog, that includes you.

Read the rest here

Popularity: 22% [?]

Any old standards hand forced to choose the single most disputed issue in standard setting over the past decade would likely respond with a deceivingly simple question: “What does it mean to be an ‘open standard?’” A similar debate rages in the open source community between those that believe that some licenses (e.g., the BSD, MIT and Apache licenses) are “open enough,” while others would respond with an emphatic Hell No! (or less printable words to similar effect).

That’s not too surprising, because the question of what “open” means subsumes almost every other categorical question that information and communications technology (ICT) standards and open source folk are likely to disagree over, whether they be economic (should a vendor be able to be implement a standard free of charge, or in free and open source software (FOSS) licensed under a version of the General Public License (GPL)); systemic (are standards adopted by ISO/IEC JTC 1 “better” than those that are not); or procedural (must the economic and other terms upon which a necessary patent claim can be licensed be disclosed early in the development process)?

The reason why this background level of disagreement is relevant today is because the Obama Administration has pledged itself to use technology to bring an “unprecedented” level of transparency and interaction in government to the people. If that’s going to happen, though, it means that the platforms that the new administration adopts to provide open government will have to be open as well. Which brings us at last to the question of just what, exactly, “open” should mean, when it comes to “open government.”

Read the rest here

Popularity: 32% [?]

It’s said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I guess being the kind of organization that people love to leak news about might be the next. That seems to be the case with the Linux Foundation, which for the second time in a matter of weeks has seen an enterprising reporter scoop the opposition (and our own internal planning) by releasing a story ahead of our planned schedule. Who knew that an open source foundation could attract paparazzi?

Last time, it was Steven Vaughn-Nichols announcing our acquisition of the Linux.com site, and this time it’s the New York Times (no less) announcing a day ahead of time the fact that the Linux Foundation has taken over stewardship of Intel’s Linux-based Moblin mobile operating system. If you’ve been following the mobile space for awhile, this is news worth noting, on which more below.

Read the rest here

Popularity: 35% [?]

It would be an understatement to say that Microsoft’s patent suit against Dutch GPS vendor company TomTom has been closely watched. Why? Because Microsoft alleges that several of the patents at issue are infringed by TomTom’s implementation of the Linux kernel. In this first month of the dispute, the most urgent question has been this: will TomTom fight or fold?

Now we have the answer: TomTom has decided to fight - and perhaps fight hard. Yesterday, it brought its own suit against Microsoft in a Virginia court, alleging that Microsoft is guilty of infringing several of TomTom’s own patents.

The question that many Linux supporters are now asking is this: is this good news for Linux, or bad? The answer, I believe, is that it is good news. By fighting, TomTom will focus attention on Microsoft’s (at best) schizophrenic strategy relating to open source software.

Read the rest here

Popularity: 40% [?]

Economic downturns have a tendency to accelerate emerging technologies, boost the adoption of effective solutions, and punish solutions that are not cost competitive or that are out of synch with industry trends.

So begins a new white paper from research analyst IDC. History supports the logic of the statement, but applying the same logic to predict the future is a dangerous game. Having good starting data can help considerably in that regard, though, and that’s what makes this report interesting. Its title is Linux Adoption in a Global Recession, and it marshalls some impressive data to predict that Linux will be a significant gainer, while others are punished by the current global meltdown.

The report bases its conclusion that Linux is well-positioned to be among the winners by observing that: “Linux users are clearly satisfied about their choice to deploy Linux, and during trying economic times, the potential for those same customers to ramp up their deployment of Linux isstrong. ” In other words, unlike the last recession, in which the free OS had to establish itself in environments where it had never been before (its market share increased dramatically), this time it need only increase its beachhead among existing users in order to post impressive gains. IDC predicts that it will quite well with new, missionary sales as well, however, promising that this time around, its competitive position should be greatly strengthened as well as broadened - including on the desktop.

The rest of the story is here

Popularity: 40% [?]

The headline act, if you will, was announced this morning for the third annual Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit, and it promises to be an interesting show: the Foundation’s Jim Zemlin, Microsoft’s Sam Ramji, and Sun’s Ian Murdock, each giving their respective futures on the future of the operating system they represent - and, I expect, the others’ as well.

Jim will moderate the exchange, which will be held on the first day (May of this year’s Summit, which will be held in San Francisco. As with previous Collaboration Summits, there is no fee to attend, but attendance is by confirmation only, as the size is limited to a few hundred to maximize the interactivity of this annual gathering of the elite of the Linux clan.

While the OS debate provides the most provocative portion of the program, the rest will provide a great deal of substance - and, who knows, perhaps a few surprises as well.

Read the rest of the story here

Popularity: 42% [?]

The number of standard setting organizations (SSOs) from which specifications have been drawn to create Electronic Health Records (EHRs) are legion, due to the complex nature of these goal. Some of the standards utilized are generic, and common to any sophisticated Internet-enabled commercial system. Others are specific to science, but usable generally in paper as well as information technology (IT) based health care systems. Only a few SSOs, however, have taken up the challenge of developing the major components essential and unique to EHRs. One of the oldest and most important is Health Level 7, more commonly referred to as HL7.

HL7 has been at the center of global EHR development since 1987, as well as a key player in the more recent U.S. efforts to design and implement a national EHR system by 2014, a commitment made by President George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address in January of 2004.

With the Obama Administration’s pledge to meet that commitment, and to direct massive amounts of funding towards ensuring its success, it is critical that the standards needed to support this ambitious goal are not only available, but the right tools for the job as well.

In this interview, HL7 CEO Charles Jaffe, M.D. shares his perspective on what’s been accomplished, what remains to be done, and where the critical decisions that will lead to success or failure in creating a national EHR system must be made.

Read the interview here

Popularity: 46% [?]

Here in New England, where I practice law and have been representing startups for thirty years, we have a mixed blessing. On the plus side, we have great universities, like MIT and Harvard, with professors and students that come up with great inventions that new companies can be formed to commercialize. We also have lots of folks that have done it before, that can act as mentors and role models. Those same successful entrepreneurs start more companies, and also act as angel investors for first timers. It’s not quite as vibrant as Silicon Valley, but we always come in second on all meaningul measures - numbers of new companies formed and funded, and so on.

On the negative side, we’ve got a lot of venture capital firms that call the Route 128 area home. If that sounds like a strange statement to make, you might want to read my most recent column for Mass High Tech, which tells you why you might be better off launching a new startup in Omaha, Nebraska than in Cambridge, Mass.

Read the Complete Story

Popularity: 51% [?]

• Andy Updegrove

  

  Andy Updegrove is a partner and founder of Gesmer Updegrove LLP, a Boston-based technology law firm, and has represented and helped structure more than 80 worldwide standard setting, open source, promotional and advocacy consortia over the past 20 years. He has also represented hundreds of both emerging as well as established technology companies, and is the founder and editor of both the popular website http://www.consortiuminfo.org and the widely-read Standards Blog

• Karen Copenhaver

  

  Karen Copenhaver is a partner in Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP ‘s Business & Technology practice focusing on technology transfer and licensing of intellectual property with a specific emphasis on open source business models. Most recently, Copenhaver was executive vice president and general counsel at Black Duck Software, Inc.