You reading what you want to be true in that? The Red Hat legal team brought up the fact that two out of the five patents had expired.

Red Hat probably aren't paying squat for them. And releasing even expired patents under a license that grants GPL use of them helps in that MS won't be able to point at two patents and say "Linux is using these patents and hasn't paid for them!!!".

"What's in the deal? Red Hat has secured a covenant from DataTern and its parent company Amphion Innovations - the companies who took over the claimed patents on transfer from Firestar - not to sue Red Hat and community members over possible claims for past infringement. Also, Red Hat and community members are indemnified from losses resulting from claims brought within ten years of June 6, 2008."

Sounds like a Very SMART Deal. Bravo DataTern and Amphion Innovations. I Trust in Global Operating Devices that IT is not Nakedly Sold Short.

this is exactly what is wrong with the US legal system - the looser should pay all costs. thus discouraging frivolous lawsuits.

and the lawyers should be kicking themselves in the ass for not adding "if the patent is overturned in the next x years then...."

You just have to bring a separate law suit .

For crying out loud people, it's "loser" (a noun) not "looser".

Loser: a person or thing that loses or has lost something

Loose: Not firmly or tighly fixed in place

Please.

The patent troll can still challenge the USPTO decision.

Red Hat have got a license for all of the troll's patents, even ones acquired for the next five years.

You forgot the obligatory PH icon. I mean isnt she (a bit) lo(o)ser after her run ins with the law?

/Yeah yeah Ill get my damn coat.

Of course, it's not always easy to decide who is the loser, even after the verdict is announced. I suppose what you really mean is that the party who was being unreasonable and is thus mainly responsible for the case coming to court should pay the costs.

An example to think about: I damage your car accidently. I offer you £100 to pay for the repair. You say: "No way. I want £500." I say: "Bollocks. £100 is already generous." You sue me. The court says I should pay you £70 in damages. Now, who should pay the legal costs? Common sense says you should: although you won your case, you are to blame for us going to court and incurring those costs.

As far as I know, English courts do award costs in a way that roughly agrees with common sense. They expect parties to consult their solicitors and settle out of court unless the case involves an undecided point of law or for some other reason merits the attention of a judge. If you abuse the legal system by bringing an unnecessary case, the judge is not amused.

You wrote: "Did Sun not talk to Red Hat?"

Sun's General Councel wrote: "We also let our friends at Red Hat know early in the litigation of our activities, that we had filed a request with the PTO for reexamination of the patent, and shared copies of the prior art for Red Hat to possibly use it in its defense."