US Judge Forbids Motorola From Using German Injunction Against Microsoft

Here's an interesting development in the legal battle between Microsoft and Motorola in Germany that we discussed recently. It seems that Microsoft is worried that the German court might award Motorola an injunction against it, and so has asked a US judge to stop Motorola from using it in that case -- and he agreed: 

On Techdirt.

Will Free Software Licences Be Derailed?

Upholding licences is crucial to the success of free software, so potentially, this looks really bad news:

Open-source software and the licenses that govern it suffered a serious setback in a San Francisco District Court earlier this month, following a preliminary decision that could effectively deprive open source licensors from being able to get a court injunction to stop the violation of the terms of their license going forward.

Although the judge's analysis is superficially worrying for the way he interprets the licence, there is an important fact in this particular situation, which has already involved tussles over software patents:

At issue was model train software code that Jacobsen and some other open source developers wrote, called the Java Model Railroad Interface, or JMRI, which is licensed under the Open Source Initiative approved Artistic License.

Now the Artistic Licence, originally drawn up by Larry Wall for Perl - and whose name was chosen purely for the pun it allowed - is a notoriously loose licence. IANAL, but it seems to me that the problem the judge has with granting an injunction against the model train software company is that the Artistic Licence simply gives, well, too much licence.

I may be wrong, but I think the far more demanding GNU GPL would avoid this problem - another good reason for choosing a more rigorous licence. We shall see whether I am right....

Fight! Fight! Fight!

It is a truth universally acknowlegded that there is only one thing more stupid than content producers suing little people with nothing in their piggy bank for alleged copyright infringement, and that is content producers suing someone with billions of dollars in their piggy-bank for alleged copyright infringement:

Viacom Inc. today announced that it has sued YouTube and Google in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for massive intentional copyright infringement of Viacom’s entertainment properties. The suit seeks more than $1 billion in damages, as well as an injunction prohibiting Google and YouTube from further copyright infringement. The complaint contends that almost 160,000 unauthorized clips of Viacom’s programming have been available on YouTube and that these clips had been viewed more than 1.5 billion times.

Faster, Google. Kill! Kill!