Talking of patents, hasn't The SCO Group Inc. consistently has said Sun does not have the rights under its contracts to open-source Solaris. So, how does Sun propose to open-source Solaris 10?

PS: I want 15 cents from anyone that reads my last comment out loud. Seriously, I'll sue your *** if you don't send me money now!

I just got a patent on the audibale frequency pattern produced by linear occiliscopic filters using cross parabolic scopular programming algorithms, created when someone utters the word "Kodak".

I am now suing Kodak for 15 cents for every time they answer their phone. They claim my use of the patent is an underhanded abuse and money grab! They will pay for my stupidity!!

Datastalker has hit the nail in the head.

In North America (America and Canada), the way to pursue the American\Canadian dream used to be to build something or provide a service, work hard and do it better than the other guy. The quality of the product or service one provided would determine whether one succeed.

At that time, people who wanted to "get in on the action" would invest in your endeavour. For a small investment, they could share in the profits. It was a passive thing - stockholders were along for the ride, they didn't drive the bus.

Enter accountants whose only concerns are "profit centers", "cost centers", and the bottom line.

Now companies no longer make their money providing products or sevices, they make it by selling stock, and the driving force is not innovation or quality, but "Maximizing Stockholder Value", which seems to be accomplished by cutting costs, producing cheaply, and forcing stock price higher by any means possible, including frivolous lawsuits, patent grabbing, outright deception, etc.

Maybe it's time someone in this part of the world started a company where the quality of its products and\or services were the focus, not whether you can sell your stock for more, whether you can manipulate the courts to stifle competition, or whether you can save a few bucks by sending the work to Bangalore...

I'm an advocate for open source and the sharing of ideas that make this world a better place to both live and work. I truly believe that two people can have the same idea and formulate the same type of solution. The question then becomes "Whose idea was it in the first place?" In our world it would seem to be the person who makes it to the patent office first.

Kodak "happened" to acquire these patents from Wang. Bottom line, the idea and the solution behind them weren't theirs to begin with. Kodak stands to reap fruit from trees they didn't plant.

We all need to grow up a little a share like good boys and girls. If money is the only thing that drives our creativity (or pursuit of someone elses patents) then, as a society, we have much deeper issues.

Isn't "one program calling another program for help" the whole idea behind object oriented programming? And even before object oriented programming was defined, one program calling another program can be found in almost any operating system or complex application.

Unfortunately, IMO it will take some software companies being litigated out of existence before the patent laws change. Like healthcare in America, changes to law are ALWAYS a reaction to something being really out of whack.

Think about how long it has taken for Americans to get a clue about how bad things like McDonalds food are for your health. Our healthcare system reacts to things, like people having a heart attack, instead of the person taking preventative measures (exercise, diet) before the heart attack happens.

It's going to take several major software companies having legal "heart attacks" because of software patents before the rest of the industry gets a clue and quits dining at the trough of patents and IP.

Kodak is yet another company that has been bleeding badly, and thus turns to litigation to survive. Hopefully soon a judge and the judges above them will get a clue and realize software patents are ridiculous, and should not be allowed to survive.

I don't see how patents have fostered software innovation in the US; copyrights seem to be sufficient protection for that. On the other hand, where is the *evidence* that patents have choked-off software innovation? What developer did not pursue an idea for fear of a patent-infringement lawsuit?

If we're going to argue against patents, then let's see the evidence that they actually choked-off innovation.

Given that this lawsuit is a threat to Sun, Microsoft and IBM, anybody want to take bets on how long Kodak will prevail?

If Kodak owns a patent which describes a way for a piece of software to "ask for help" from another application, then aren't technologies like RPC and CORBA at risk?

It seems that today, companies don't produce products, they produce lawsuits, and that's how they get their money. How long can this continue?

Furthermore, since $1.06B is about 1/3 of Sun's cash on hand, what will that mean for Sun? It's 7% of their total value, so this can't be good for them.

In the end, it's only the lawyers who win.

Software is the only thing in the world that can be patented, copyrighted, and be a trade secret at the same time (because source code in usually not revealed). That definitely makes it different, and that sort of multi-level IP protection is excessive.

This epitomizes the case against software patents. They are too open to abuse. The purpose of patents is to encourage inovation, I do not think this is the case with software ones. The vast majority of software is written by employees of non-software companies for those companies. Software patents are irrelevant there. Copyright performs as good a protection where needed regarding software as ever is required.
Even if you think patents are a good thing (as I do), there is no room for Software Patents. The only people they benefit are the Lawyer IP-Land-Grabbers. The vast amount of the proffessionals in the industry I know are against them (includiong me).