D&C GLug - Home Page

[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]

[LUG] Model Railwats - Katzer v JMRI Open Source dispute

 

Hi

I am not a legal beaver, and I am aware that what happens in the US does not really 
effect us much.  However I have included in full Bobs letter on the subject.  (I 
never realised it got as far as the BBC News).

All the best

Peter L-J


Bob reports...

I am very, very happy to report that the final papers have been
signed, and the dispute with Matt Katzer about JMRI software and
patents, copyrights, domain names, etc, is now over.

I haven't written much about this on JMRIusers before (*1, *2) because
I wanted the list to concentrate on software and trains, rather than
on disputes. I think now is a good time to make one last post, hoping
to draw a line under things so that all involved can get back to model
railroading. For those who haven't been following it, there's a
summary (*3) and complete history (*4) available on the web. You can
see the complete "docket", the record of legal documents filed (*5).
There's also a very interesting, though somewhat long, list of
articles published about the case (*6), which gives you an impression
of how much attention this generated outside model railroading.

For those of you not familiar with all this, back in 2004 Matt Katzer
started a series of inappropriate and illegal actions against JMRI. It
became a long list of things, culminating in his lawyer trying to get
me fired from my day job. This ended up in Federal Court, where it
went back and forth for almost four years. Along the way, we forced
Matt to destroy two of his ill-gotten patents, made some important
legal precedents for other free and open-source projects (*7 *8), and
got our decoderpro.com and jmri.org domain names back.

This required a _huge_ legal effort, involving extensive formal legal
work, coordination with other parts of the larger free and open source
community, and the work of a large number of volunteers. Victoria K
Hall orchestrated all of this, wrote legal brief after legal brief,
and deserves a large amount of credit for keeping Katzer at bay for
long enough for the legal system to understand the issues, thereby
finally defeating him. That defeat become inevitable with the Court's
"Summary Judgement" ruling of last December, which ruled that Katzer
had illegally taken JMRI decoder definitions, had illegally removed
author names and copyright notices from them, and had illegally cyber-
squatted on our decoderpro.com name. It also found that Katzer's
counter-suit for $6M (not a typo) against me was an inequitable
"litigation tactic", and dismissed it. More information on that is
available at (9).

The next step was to be a trial in June to determine whether Katzer
did these things deliberately. We were very likely to win that, but
nothing in the legal system is ever certain. It was going to be
expensive, and take a lot of time and effort from people who were
voluntarily helping. If something went wrong, appeals would take
longer, and involve even more work and expense. It wasn't clear that
I could ask the work of them in good conscience, and it wasn't clear
that I would be able to afford the costs which had to be paid up
front. Court reporters, transcripts, brief printing, etc, are
extremely expensive. I didn't want Katzer to know it for strategic
reasons, but I'd already had to take out two mortgages to pay costs.
Since he was threatening my livelihood, I really didn't have a lot of
choice whether to do that or not, but I wasn't sure whether I could
successfully go back to the bank again.

It was time to think about settling the case, because in addition to
lowering risk and effort, this could actually do something that a
trial could not: It could prevent Matt from trying to assert his
patents against anybody else. Due to some prior legal maneuvering,
Matt had gotten his patent actions removed from the Court case, though
at the cost of the destruction of two of his patents. His patent
misuse was not covered in the summary judgement ruling. It wouldn't be
included at trial. To address those patents, we'd have to appeal that
ruling, win the appeal, and then go back and go through the whole
process again. On the other hand, we might be able to reach a
settlement agreement that covered patents, and also applied that
coverage to everybody, not just me. That was an important goal to
reach.

It took time and a lot of work, but in the end we were able to
accomplish this. Again, a huge amount of credit goes to Victoria Hall
and her colleague David McGowan for making this happen. You can read
the entire settlement agreement here (10), along with some longer
commentary on the details, but basically Matt has said that he
"releases" all JMRI users and developers of liability for anything
that might have happened in the past, or will happen for the next 18
months. In addition, he's also said in Court that there are no
features of JMRI that infringe his patents, including the ones that
started all this back in 2004; any future dispute will start with him
having admitted that fact.

It's certainly true the 18 months from now is not forever. It's my
hope that Matt is serious when he says that he wants to get back to
model railroading and software writing, rather than being involved in
legal actions. I think that would be great, because everybody gains
when people write better software for model railroading. I hope he's
able to get back to running a business that makes his customers
happy. But, if something like this dispute ever comes up again, we
have established a very strong record of law and facts with which to
defend it. Even better, the settlement agreement includes a "loser
pays" term for any future disputes. Matt has been paying his lawyers,
and he's had to pay $100k toward our costs (which, like the punch line
of a bad joke, _almost_ covers my costs; I'll still be $21K in the
hole after he pays off in 18 months). The hope is that "loser pays"
and the high cost he's paid now will weigh heavily in his decision
should he ever consider attacking again in the future.

All in all, this is a good outcome, and it wouldn't have been possible
without the work of a lot of talented, generous and determined people.
I owe all of you a lot. Thank you.

And with that, I'm going to pack three filing cabinets of papers into
boxes, stick them in the attic just in case, put this all behind me,
and go back to writing code. There's this bug that I've been looking
forward to working on...

Bob


1) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jmriusers/message/20372

2) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jmriusers/message/17824

3) http://jmri.org/k/summary.shtml

4) http://jmri.org/k/History.shtml

5) http://jmri.org/k/docket/index.shtml

6) http://jmri.org/k/news.shtml

7)
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3775446/Bruce+Perens:+A+Big+Ch\
ange+for+Open+Source.htm

8)
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/features/article.php/3866316/Bruce-Perens-Insid\
e-Open-Sources-Historic-Victory

9) http://jmri.org/k/Recent.shtml#2009-12-10

10) http://jmri.org/k/Recent.shtml#2010-02-17

--
Bob Jacobsen
jacobsen@xxxxxxxxxxxx +1-510-486-7355 fax +1-510-643-8497 AIM, Skype
JacobsenRG


-- 
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html