[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
A On 2/26/10, Peter Lloyd-Jones <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 > -- 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