1. 58
  1.  

  2. 17

    Just donated $100 for that specifically. I really do profoundly hate software patents as an institution.

    1. 7

      Spurred on by your comment, donated $25!

      1. 4

        Donated as well. This “business model” is nothing less than extortion.

        1. 3

          Fiiiine enters payment info. This case could turn out to be a motivational one for other projects who will fight the same trolls.

          1. 1

            Good work. I have donated also.

    2. 4

      Patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9936086B2/en

      A system and method for distributing at least one digital photographic image is presented, the system and method comprising at least one capturing device and at least one receiving device disposed in a communicative relation with one another via at least one wireless network. In particular, the capturing device is structured to capture the at least one digital photographic image via, for example, a capture assembly, whereas the receiving device is cooperatively structured to receive the digital photographic image via, for example, the at least one wireless network. In addition, the capturing device(s) and receiving device(s) may be disposed in a selectively paired relationship via one or more common pre-defined pairing criteria. Further, the at least one digital photographic image may be filtered via at least one pre-defined transfer criteria disposed on the capturing device and/or receiving device.

      Some more background: https://itsfoss.com/shotwell-lawsuit/

      1. 3

        It’s the first time a free software project has been targeted in this way

        This is what I find weird.

        Look at ffmpeg, and all free software ever written to support patent-encumbered formats: Usually, it is only the distributors of the software that have to pay. Which is why most distros choose not to distribute it (or put it in a different repo, served from a country with suitable patent laws that elite users can enable at their own risk of patent infringement). Which is why it basically took Fedora 20 years to support mp3.

        1. 2

          This isn’t a format case - the troll asserts that the application itself violates their patent. It’s not that Shotwell can generate an image that’s patent-encumbered, it’s that it handles images at all.

          As to why they believe there’s money to be made from extorting FLOSS projects, that’s on them. It could be a strategic choice to “shut down” Shotwell or derivatives.

          1. 2

            the application itself violates their patent

            Same with a format case. I see no distinction.

            (To clarify, patents are never specifically about an application, just a stupidly general description of “method and apparatus”, and whoever implements the last piece of that puzzle by def infringes it. That’s how software patents work: There are basically no pure software patents, because a computer is always included, as in this case.)

            1. 2

              Yeah well IANAL, we’ll see how this shakes out.

        2. 2

          What exactly does the counter-claim involve? The post doesn’t go into detail.

          1. 5

            You don’t lay out your entire legal strategy before you’ve had a chance to use it.

            1. 2

              That makes sense, I didn’t give it much thought