Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Filed Against Palm 39
Isn't this a great way to end the week? Fresh off the press came this BusinessWire lawsuit announcement by Artifex Software.
Artifex Software Inc. today announced that it has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Palm, Inc., based on Palm’s unauthorized copying and distribution of one of Artifex’s registered technologies. Artifex is the developer and copyright owner of muPDF, a high-performance PDF rendering engine. Artifex is well-known as the developer of the Ghostscript family of interpreters. muPDF is Artifex’s lightweight PDF interpreter targeted at the PDA and ebook markets. Palm improperly integrated muPDF in the Palm Pre’s “PDF viewer” application without Artifex’s authorization. Palm’s unauthorized copying of Artifex’s copyrighted muPDF is widespread, as Palm has included “PDF viewer” in every Palm Pre unit shipped since the product’s launch in June 2009. [...]
Palm’s own documentation admits including Artifex’s muPDF in Palm’s Pre product as the PDF rendering engine in their PDF viewer application, but Palm neither obtained a commercial license from Artifex nor complied with the terms of the GPL. Palm’s intentional refusal to comply with the terms of the GPL means that Palm willfully copied and distributed muPDF without authorization, and any and all such copies infringe Artifex’s exclusive copyright.
The documentation Artifex is referring to, is this open source information pdf, the same one included on every webOS device, which described their usage of muPDF as under GNU GPL. Palm's open source website includes downloads of the muPDF source, as well as a collection of the modifications Palm has made to is, as part of the GPL compliance.
However it would appear, according to to Artifex, the license requires the application must be licensed under the GNU GPL. This would seem to imply that Palm would need to make the whole pdf browser plugin, and probably the whole pdf viewer application as GPL opensource.
Let's just hope this all gets sorted out quick.
Thanks to Abyssul for the tip
39 Comments
Yep, that's how the Gnu Copyleft open source virus works.
Under the straight GPL license, if you use all or part
of a GPL product in your own commercial or proprietary
product then it must also be made available under the
terms of the GPL.
Means you can still sell it, or give it away or
do whatever you want with it, but you must *also* make
the source available for free. That's not just an
unintended side effect, it is the *goal* of the GPL,
to essentially try to make all software free.
It can make it literally impossible to use some GPL
software if your own product is bound by a
conflicting proprietary copyright.
The only alternative is the LGPL which allows you to
use a GPL'd library, without modifications, in
an otherwise commercial product. Your product
can be proprietary and closed source, but you must
make the LGPL'd library available for free in its
original unmodified form. As soon as you modify the
library, it pretty much takes on the normal GPL rules.
The GPL license only requires that you make available the GPL'd code. Not the entire work. For example if I decide to make a word processing program and use someone else's GPL'd code to be able to view and edit a particular format then I must release the gpl'd code used and modified under gpl. Not the entire word processing program.
Palm appears to have complied with the GPL license since they've release the modified code under GPL.
Your statement isn't really correct.
If you take GPL code and statically link it into your word processor program, the ENTIRE word processor must be released as GPLed code. There is absolutely no contention on this point. The license is very clear on it.
If you dynamically link to a GPL library, however, there is some debate. It hasn't been tested in a court of law yet. The FSF argues that the entire program must be GPLed with dynamic linking. Other people (like Linus Torvalds, who allows dynamically-linked code to be run in the GPLed Linux kernel) disagree.
So in some cases, if you're using a GPLed library, you may get away with only GPLing the library. In other cases, the entire program needs to be GPLed. It just depends on what Palm did with it.
I'm not quite sure why should this become an issue, isn't Palm already doing right by the GPL license by releasing the original source and their modified source right here: http://opensource.palm.com/1.3.1/index.html
Virus? RMS? Is that you? Or are you just drinking Balmer's Kool Aid?
Aside, if Palm is trying to re-license the code, then that is a violation since it's not their code to do so. That's the only thing I see wrong that they are doing, since they have made the code available on their site.
M.
lol....the stupid pdf viewer hardly even works. way to go palm nice way to waste money!
And as one always wonders in these type of situations...what does this ultimately mean?
1) Palm will shell out $$$'s to meet the licensing fees required for them to use the PDF code on all Pre's.
2) Palm will release the code for their PDF viewer to the GPL. (shouldn't be a big deal?)
3) Palm will recode the PDF viewer and release it to all Pre's in a 1.3.x update?
Most likely #2.
yeah lol.. Not like the pdf viewer works all the time...
sounds like a lot of $$$$ palm needs to be investing in the future development of web OS which is absolutely necessary right now.
I guess they can just postpone future updates!
quite stupid on Palm's part.
as for the effect over all i'm curious to what the plaintiff asked for. Possibly could be satisfied with merely removing the pdf application which could be quite easy.
But i'm sure they'd have to pay the copyright fees
Yeah, kinda depressing in general that Palm's likely to get some bad publicity outta the whole deal. Hope they get something worked out soon.
Easy solution is to comply by releasing it, and then maybe abandon it and start over from scratch. Problem solved.
Oh brother, Artitfex announces a lawsuit and everyone immediately declares Palm guilty as charged. Maybe we wait for Palm's response or I guess you think they will just cave in without a defense.
Palm has not paid for the commercial version.
They released it *with* the GPL license file describing
their intention to use it under the terms of the GPL,
but have not released their modifications as required
by the GPL. It really could not be any more clear cut.
Whatever their intentions were or are now, they're violating
the terms of the license. Personally, I don't care,
as I'm not a great fan of the GPL virus, but Palm
put themselves in this situation.
Palm does make both the original and modified source code available on their open source website ( http://opensource.palm.com/1.3.1/index.html) as the article points out.
Was wondering whe the first webos lawsuit will happen. Dang guys this sorts happens on a day to day basis and it couldn't happen to a most troubled app in the first place. Moving one, Palm will fix this fast since they have ALOT of exp with lawsuits.
My idea to shut them up is remove this buggy app and lets get that full blown documents to go app with pdf viewer a go now!
this is the first thing that palm has stolen since......well since a couple months ago when they stole itunes and multi touch gesturing from apple.
Quite the innovative company palm is huh?
I know, don't feed the troll, but I can't help myself.....
How exactly did Palm "steal" iTunes? They stole the source code? They distribute it? That's a pretty silly allegation. All they did is make their USB device pretend it was an Apple device so that iTunes would sync to it. Hardly *stealing*.
And you think that Apple created multi-touch? They created one of the first mass market devices that uses multi-touch, but it's not as if they created the technology or idea, nor did any of the original research in the early 80's.
Like everyone else, they (Apple) built their GUI upon great ideas of their own creation as well as great ideas of others' creation. Palm did the same. Again, nothing "stolen."
Yup, the same as Apple did when it stole the Macintosh technology from Xerox!
Boy, what's that expression, people in glass houses shouldn't through the first stone.
Or was that, the pot calling the kettle black!
Rob
nobody tells the whole story...
"Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product"
where is the "stealing" part? Xerox GAVE IT to them
can you say the same about Apple giving iTunes to Palm?
Yes, the Pre/iTunes shenanigans were petty on Palm's part. But enabling a device to sync with iTunes hardly rises to the level of "stealing." Is Firefox's or Chrome's ability to import bookmarks from Internet Explorer and interact seamlessly with Windows stealing? I didn't think so. You make it sound like Palm took pieces of iTunes and started selling it as their own product, or claimed iTunes as their own. They didn't, so there's no need to exaggerate.
The comment above about multi-touch doesn't even warrant a response. Neither company invented it, but Palm has at least as much (if not more) claim to multi-touch technology as Apple does (as was demonstrated in an article Pre|Central linked to months ago).
honestly: i dont give a damn about feature stealing, they at least copied it, they didnt use the same code/HW like apple so its all about patenting, and thats not my concern
but making your device work in someone else's ecosystem is something completely different, thats just plain steal
its like if Apple used palm's hotsync without palm's knowledge just because they dont have their own solution, does that sound fair?
I believe ur on the wrong website homeboy, try to google iphone and stay there
i guess you are right, it is forbidden to point out flaws of Palm Pre and not to mention *GASP* mistakes made by it's creators
im glad i stopped using palm after owning Tungsten T3 (great device for its time btw), palm community became flooded with blind fanboys and kids
but making your device work in someone else's ecosystem is something completely different, thats just plain steal
Absolutely. I mean, if there were aftermarket radios that worked in any old car, or if it were possible to buy a 3rd party garage door clicker that works with any company's hardware, or if I could buy replacement parts for my car from someone other than the OEM, if any of these things were true, then you wouldn't have a point. However ... oh ... wait. All of these things are true.
There is no guarantee in a free market that people cannot interoperate with your hardware or software, and it is not morally nor legally wrong to try to do so. This is just business. To listen to the way you put things, if I make a device of any sort (let's say, an automobile or a garage door opener), then I have the moral and legal right to be the only player in that ecosystem. And that's just silly. Both types of companies have tried to outlaw the 3rd party market and both have failed in the courts every time. Why is software somehow magically different from physical devices in this regard?
I think Palm was stupid to use iTunes itself rather than roll their own solution, and I'm glad only that minimal time was wasted in that effort. But it's certainly not immoral, nor illegal, to try to do so.
If Apple used Palm's hotsync, I find it hard to imagine that Palm would really care. They wouldn't support it, so support calls would have to go to Apple, which is fair. If someone called Apple to complain, "my Palm Pre won't sync using iTunes," Apple has the absolute right to say, "That's your problem. Call Palm. We never designed it to work that way."
But to say that Palm was stealing is going into Apple fanboy mode and is suggesting that Apple has legal or moral rights that they just don't have.
"its like if Apple used palm's hotsync without palm's knowledge just because they dont have their own solution, does that sound fair?"
It does to me. There's nothing wrong with building a product that performs the necessary actions to interact with other products. I like my devices and software applications to work well together, and would prefer to not have to use two different pieces of software to sync music to my iPod and my Pre. I think that both companies benefitted from this relationship-- Palm may have gotten more sales because of iTunes compatibility, and Apple got free advertising from Palm (and maybe even more iTunes users). Perhaps it wasn't the ideal relationship, but it was working. And now users are the only ones caught in between.
Maybe I'm just a silly person for saying it, but I think it's about time for Apple to grow up and realize that playing well with others is a key social skill that they're sorely lacking. And this is coming from a Mac fan and previous iPhone user who owns plenty of Mac hardware, so there really isn't any anti-Apple bias in my opinion.
You know Xerox DID sue Apple in 1989 over copyright infringement, right?
Since WebOS updates are mandatory, Palm can fix this better than almost any other company can. All they have to do is change their application to comply with the terms of the license, one way or another, and then include that in an update. Viola, within a few weeks, all active WebOS devices no longer have any infringing code running on them.
Or just license the software and they don't have to make any changes at all. But I don't know how expensive the license is.
I wonder why the lawsuit rather than first talking to Palm to try to work it out. (Or maybe there were talks that we will find out about later?)
Keep in mind that GPL lawsuits, at least in the US, keep getting resolved out of court. Until at least one GPL lawsuit is actually decided by a court in the US, we can only speculate at how a US court will enforce the terms of the GPL. What seems clear cut to us may seem very different to lawyers. (IANAL, obviously.)
I was about to post wondering why they didn't use one of the BSD-like or LGPL-covered PDF libraries.... and then I discovered there are none. It looks like developers of free PDF software want something back for their work, whether it's money or a contribution back to the software commons.
The one Palm did choose, Artifex, is dual-licensed. Normally, in such a situation, if you first distribute it under the GPL you don't get the option to switch to the proprietary license later, e.g. the Qt toolkit:
http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing/licensing#qt-commercial-license
And I'd love for more of WebOS to become free software. I would bet that Artifex will be happy to take the money and let Palm keep their source closed, though.
Those who compare the GPL-licensed software to a virus are being disingenuous, since you have to intentionally add that code to your software and then distribute it in order to be subject to its restrictions. If Palm had downloaded a (hypothetical) ARM Linux version of Acrobat Reader and rebadged it as their own PDF viewer in violation of Adobe's proprietary license, Adobe would certainly be doing the same thing Artifex is doing now, and Palm would not have the option of simply relicensing their own source to comply; they'd probably be facing an injunction on Pre sales until they came to some agreement with Adobe.
One thing I notice about the FAQ on Artifex' site is that they think they can enforce the GPL on software merely installed by the same installer or shipped on the same hardware. While I have no legal background, this seems pretty optimistic to me. The Free Software Foundation refers to this in their own documents as "mere aggregation", the GPL is specifically not intended to cover usage cases like that, and those who license their software under the GPL aren't allowed to impose additional restrictions on users of that software.
So this is not cut and dried (to my knowledge no one on any of the Palm fansites has actually logged into their Pre and figured out where muPDF and what's linked against muPDF ends, and the rest of WebOS begins), but I would bet Artifex will make it cheaper for Palm to make this go away while still keeping their code proprietary than to go to court over it.
One thing I notice about the FAQ on Artifex' site is that they think they can enforce the GPL on software merely installed by the same installer or shipped on the same hardware. While I have no legal background, this seems pretty optimistic to me.
+1. This is a really good point, and it could be called wildly optimistic of Artifex. Artifex truly deserves their license and copyrights to be enforced, but this may not mean what they think or hope it means.
However, as I pointed out above, since I don't believe there's any definitive test of the GPL in court in the US, yet, we could all argue all day about how it can or should or will be interpreted, but until a court has decided a GPL case, we don't really know. I predict that like just about all GPL lawsuits worldwide, this one will get settled out of court. I won't predict how because I don't have any idea how. :)
I hope it gets sorted out. I actually use the PDF viewer a lot for my work emails.
That PDF viewer is complete crap. It horrible, Palm should release the code and get this over with.
I can't stand how crappy the PDF viewer is.
"...Palm should release the code and get this over with."
Didn't you read above where Robert points out that Palm has in fact, released the original source and their patched/modified source, geez: http://opensource.palm.com/1.3.1/index.html
I don't read everyone's comment.
"Didn't you read above where Robert points out that Palm has in fact, released the original source and their patched/modified source, geez"
Oh calm down, I'm so sorry that I actually have a life and don't read every comment. LOL @ the word geez. What you so defensive for?
Couldn't just comment and say they released it without showing mindless frustration, like I disrespected your girl friend?
Palm obviously cut corners trying to reduce the time to market for the Pre. This device was meant to save their ass, and later this month we'll know if it did. The different firmware versions, App Catalog issues, and open, but really closed source code, only add to the controversy and means more marketing.
Enter the Closed Fist Inc. (formerly known as Palm)
I am usually the first to dismiss charges of copyright infringement as examples of what is wrong with the copyright and legal system. After their shenanigans with iTunes, however, Palm has lost the benefit of the doubt. They have shown themselves to be exactly the type of company that would use someone else's proprietary property and pretend innocence when they get caught. They are the kind of school kid who will steal your lunch and get you in trouble when you try to take it back. Now, they will have very few allies in the media who will give them an automatic pass. Just one of the little consequences of their rogue behavior.
I find it very disturbing how little people understand about copyright/left laws in general, and even how much less they are willing to go research something before making a ridiculous comment.
Palm has been all but willing to comply with any GPL related licesning issues that the developer community has brought to them _politely_ , including those involving the camera interface plugins and headers necessary for building native Luna services.
There is a lot about this situation we just don't know.
Here is a quote from the GNU organization (referring to software licensed under GPL):
"if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL"
I admit this is a slight oversimplification, but it was _designed_ to be simple. You release the original, you release the modification, you release the necessary proprietary libraries to compile the derivitive.
I'm not at a location at the moment where I can look through the modifications, but the worst case scenero in this situation is Palm needs to release some headers, and honestly, the opensource group at Palm has done a very good job handling requests in the past.
I don't know much about copyright laws but I do know a lot about the legal system and somebody taking you to court means $$$$$$ which is a big deal to a company like palm who is trying to fend off bankruptcy, and who desperately needs to focus their finances towards their OS that they are banking on and fast!