I still don't think the portrayal of these events as stemming from patent issues is realistic. First of all, that Acacia Research lawsuit concerned some 1980s Xerox patents "that protect computer GUIs that span multiple work sites and that allow users to access icons remotely."[1] How would changing the GNOME UI to remove a Start-button-like menu protect Linux distributors from such litigation?
That lawsuit was filed in October 2007, and would be accurately described as patent troll litigation. While it did not have Microsoft as a party, nor did it claim infringement of Microsoft's IP, that article does note that only days before Ballmer had warned that Linux vendors could face similar patent troll litigation as Microsoft had faced in the past and that the patent troll had hired a senior Microsoft IP manager.
While this would have surely prompted some warranted speculation in the community, was it - or the threat of direct M$ litigation - the impetus for reworking the GNOME 3 Shell and building Ubuntu Unity?
GNOME 3 was announced in summer 2008, and at least this one in-depth articles I could find makes no mention of any patent litigation connection.[2] Instead, it notes that the progress towards the "audacious reinvention of the desktop with completely new interaction paradigms" had started already in 2005 with a concept called ToPaZ. Mind you that's well before the whole Acacia Research lawsuit.
GNOME 3 was released in April 2011. Ubuntu Unity was an alternative version of GNOME 3's Shell. Its development forked in the advanced stages of GNOME 3, in late 2010. The cited reason was "tension over design issues" between Canonical's and GNOME's designers.[3] Nothing seems to again hint that Ubuntu would have taken this step to shield itself from patent trolls or Microsoft.
Maybe the reason why nobody can remember this is because it did not happen? We're talking about events well over a decade old after all. There could have been speculation at the time that it was all connected to this lawsuit, but I don't think Canonical and Red Hat would have really done it for that reason. Software patents are terrible because any non-trivial piece of code almost surely infringes on some patent, and defending against patent suits is expensive. Surely these companies would have realized that even if the desktop UI was changed not to supposedly infringe on one patent, there would soon be another troll claiming infringement on another patent?
I still don't think the portrayal of these events as stemming from patent issues is realistic. First of all, that Acacia Research lawsuit concerned some 1980s Xerox patents "that protect computer GUIs that span multiple work sites and that allow users to access icons remotely."[1] How would changing the GNOME UI to remove a Start-button-like menu protect Linux distributors from such litigation?
That lawsuit was filed in October 2007, and would be accurately described as patent troll litigation. While it did not have Microsoft as a party, nor did it claim infringement of Microsoft's IP, that article does note that only days before Ballmer had warned that Linux vendors could face similar patent troll litigation as Microsoft had faced in the past and that the patent troll had hired a senior Microsoft IP manager.
While this would have surely prompted some warranted speculation in the community, was it - or the threat of direct M$ litigation - the impetus for reworking the GNOME 3 Shell and building Ubuntu Unity?
GNOME 3 was announced in summer 2008, and at least this one in-depth articles I could find makes no mention of any patent litigation connection.[2] Instead, it notes that the progress towards the "audacious reinvention of the desktop with completely new interaction paradigms" had started already in 2005 with a concept called ToPaZ. Mind you that's well before the whole Acacia Research lawsuit.
GNOME 3 was released in April 2011. Ubuntu Unity was an alternative version of GNOME 3's Shell. Its development forked in the advanced stages of GNOME 3, in late 2010. The cited reason was "tension over design issues" between Canonical's and GNOME's designers.[3] Nothing seems to again hint that Ubuntu would have taken this step to shield itself from patent trolls or Microsoft.
Maybe the reason why nobody can remember this is because it did not happen? We're talking about events well over a decade old after all. There could have been speculation at the time that it was all connected to this lawsuit, but I don't think Canonical and Red Hat would have really done it for that reason. Software patents are terrible because any non-trivial piece of code almost surely infringes on some patent, and defending against patent suits is expensive. Surely these companies would have realized that even if the desktop UI was changed not to supposedly infringe on one patent, there would soon be another troll claiming infringement on another patent?
[1]: https://www.zdnet.com/article/red-hat-novell-win-verdict-in-...
[2]: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/07/gnome...
[3]: https://www.pcworld.com/article/504223/article-3057.html & https://www.pcworld.com/article/504253/is_unity_the_right_in...
P.S. Here is one of the patents cited in the Acacia Research lawsuit: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5072412A/en