Given Oracle's recent activities, I would guess that Ksplice's patent applicatio...

6ren · on July 22, 2011

> Given Oracle's recent activities

What do you mean? Sure, Oracle is an aggressive company, but they are clearly doing business, and not a non-practicing patent troll. Even in suing Google over Java in Android, they not only use Java but are the center of its development. Sun itself sued [Microsoft] over Java.

This acquisition makes sense to them, since linux is a key part of their vertical offering. If no one else can offer it (because patented), it makes even more sense.

I agree that their IP department would analyze the patent for value in other areas - but how could that be the "real prize", when its final form and very existence is unknown?

That said, hot swapping code has been around for a while e.g. a PhD supervisor of mine had another student working in it around 2005, and these are dated 2009. They might very well have a new technique, applied in a specific area, but would be necessarily limited by prior art.

---

QUESTION: how much value would this patent application be worth as part of this acquisition?

Clearly, it depends on the base value of the company; the contribution of the technology (e.g. acquisitions also acquire customers and talent); the competitive advantage of blocking it (e.g. do customers care about this - is it an important factor in purchasing decisions?); how well this patent blocks it; and how likely it is to be granted in a useful form.

VanL · on July 22, 2011

Oracle is extremely aggressive about IP enforcement - and just because you haven't heard about it in court, doesn't mean that it isn't happening. Ninety-nine percent of these issues are settled quietly. I have been on the other side of licensing discussions twice this year alone.

It is not just patents - they are actively trying to monetize their IP, including changing license terms (see the evolution of the license for the JDK/JRE download, particularly the "Definitions" and "Commercial Features" sections), modifying support structures (see the modification of MySQL or OpenSolaris support prices and terms) to drive more revenue from what they bought from Sun.

I understand why they are doing this - Larry Ellison being a billionaire and all - and I am not calling them a troll (unlike, say, Intellectual Ventures).

Nevertheless, I would not shake Larry Ellison's hand without checking my pockets afterward to see if I had just incurred a licensing fee.

As to your question: There is a substantial difference in value between a patent family that is closed and a patent family that is open. An open family can have continuations that contain claims specifically modified to read on work-arounds, whereas a closed family can only be interpreted to read on work-arounds through broader claim interpretation or the doctrine of equivalents.

6ren · on July 22, 2011

Thanks. "Recent activities" sounded like you were referring to something public (e.g. there'd been recent stories on HN about it) - but now it sounds private.

We may differ in the following, but I think it's reasonable to enforce your IP if you created it and use it. As an uISV, it's important to me that customers pay for it (although I'd find it unpleasant to pursue infringing customers). Changing the license terms for future versions seems reasonable. And changing support terms even more so since it's a contractual agreement. Everybody complains about Oracle licensing terms (of their own products, eg RDB), but everybody pays. I think they must be getting value for money.

Personally, I was (and am) unhappy with what Oracle is doing to Java - but I think it's reasonable. It was inevitable that they'd alter licensing terms in accordance with profitability. Oracle is a software company, unlike Sun which was a hardware company. And perhaps, pragmatically, that's for the best: Sun never made money from Java's success; now they are gone. Oracle's stewardship might be more realistic and sustainable. And a corporate steward seems important for mainstream adoption (though python, ruby etc seem to be doing OK without it).

Thanks for answer on continuations. I'd heard of them used for submarine patents, to defer issuance, but I'm shocked that the US allows new subject matter to be added and get the benefit of the original priority date! That should be a separate invention IMHO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_patent_application#C...