On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din < > nour.moham...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi... >> >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Martijn Dashorst < >> martijn.dasho...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Kevin Kluge <kevin.kl...@citrix.com> >> > wrote: >> > > Citrix is pursuing patents based on prior CloudStack work and expects >> to >> > continue to do >> > > so in the future. Citrix is getting these patents to protect the >> > CloudStack user community. >> > > Consider the case where some other entity states that the use of >> > CloudStack is infringing >> > > on their patents. Citrix could use these patents to fight this entity >> > and defend the >> > > community. An incremental benefit is that if Citrix (or any other >> > CloudStack-friendly >> > > entity) has a patent then that patent cannot be acquired by an >> > unfriendly entity. >> > >> > Anyone with about $15B can buy Citrix, and start wreaking havoc with >> > the patents. See Google with its acquisition of Motorola, or Oracle >> > with its acquisition of Sun (Java?). Or Citrix can sell its patent >> > portfolio to a shell company, keeping a license and let the shell >> > start suing the rest of the world (see Apple, Microsoft etc). There >> > are many avenues to abuse the patents. >> > >> >> I read section 3 of [1], and AFAIU and if the above scenario hold does >> this >> mean that such company X can sue ASF for example ? > > > IANAL either but I can at least gauge this much from the PR side. If a > commercial entity decides to sue the ASF, a highly respected, non-profit > organization (charity), it will be the "mother of all negative PR > campaigns": an instant kiss of death IMHO. Once kissed, you first turn into > an ugly SCO-like toad. Then you die a slow miserable lonely death that > everyone looks forward to. I think any company in their right mind would > consider this PR dimension and the impact that the action will inevitably > have on their image before deciding to litigate against the ASF. > > >> Sorry if it is a stupid >> question but I am no lawyer at all :). >> >> > Not stupid at all and perhaps someone can answer this for the both of us. > > However I presume the worst for safety sake, you can always be litigated > against :-). But the best policy is good citizenship and diplomacy on our > part, which we've done well as a Foundation. That's why we have the respect > in the general community. This is why even if someone has a valid legal > case against us, the PR dimension will most likely thwart litigation. > > Would like to add that it would thwart litigation in favor of a collaborative alternative through engaging the ASF to solve the problem. Because we certainly would not want to be infringing on a valid claim. There are several degrees of freedom available to us to solve valid issues that may arrise but my point is that the PR angle makes these alternatives much more favorable. > -- > Best Regards, > -- Alex > > -- Best Regards, -- Alex
