And the irony of it all is I'm on a first name basis with both litigants. I sold Matt Katzer my old 24" helix (he's been to my layout several times) in the late 90s, and I first met Bob "Jake" Jacobsen in 2004 at the NMRA National when I let it slip that I could program in Java ...

Both sides are losers here, in that instead of putting their considerable talents into new products that could advance DCC and computer interface, they had to wrangle for a long time in court.  The wasted creativity can't ever really be recaptured, and from everything I've read, both sides are very creative and very interested in furtherin gthe model railroad hobby.

I really don't know many of the details of this but such suits often cause more trouble than they are worth in the long run as far as progress is concerned. Too bad people just can't work together instead of this way.

Irv

I don't agree that this suit was more trouble than it was worth, or that both sides are losers.  In fact, I believe that Jacobsen's willingness to defend DecodePro is of great benefit to me - and everyone else who uses, or even considers using, DCC.   And there is a thread on MRH that discusses this (JMRI wins major ruling in Federal Court).  I have followed this case for several years on the JMRI web site.  I believe Jacobsen - and the entire DCC aspect of the hobby as well as the F/OSS community - was victimized by Katzer.  Sometimes a person has to make a stand to protect himself, as Jacobsen did here.  Following the entire case is a real nail biter of a story, especially as all parties seem to be at the mercy of the judge, who didn't understand what he was dealing with and who was forced to reconsider his rulings by the appellate courts.  And there were acts of desperation by the losing side as their position became more and more clearly in the wrong.  Bottom line, it was worth it in this case.

I know people in the open source software arena that watched this with great interest.  It really was a test of the open source licensing model in a court of law, and in my opinion, the right outcome was reached.  I won't pretend to know all the details of the case, but from what I've read, this was an individual trying to take someone else's hard work and not only profit from it, but then further prevent the person from contributing their hard work to the general public.  I'm glad this resolution came down the way it did.  In my view, its a win for all of us who use JMRI for free, and in the much broader sense, a win for open source development.

I know people in the open source software arena that watched this with great interest.  It really was a test of the open source licensing model in a court of law, and in my opinion, the right outcome was reached.  I won't pretend to know all the details of the case, but from what I've read, this was an individual trying to take someone else's hard work and not only profit from it, but then further prevent the person from contributing their hard work to the general public.  I'm glad this resolution came down the way it did.  In my view, its a win for all of us who use JMRI for free, and in the much broader sense, a win for open source development.

Dave

Yes, I agree the right verdict was delivered.  I understand that the patent filed by the defendants company will be struck from the records too.  This is justice working as it should, IMO.

But really - if Katz had used his considerable energies and money to develop new innovative products, instead of taking what wasn't (apparently) legally his, and Jacobsen hadn't had to spend tons of time and money defending his product - what else could they have introduced?  What new and highly useful innovation in JMRI did we miss out on because someone decided to appropraite what wasn't his?  These are fair, valid questions, and I am not at all convinced that they shouldn't be asked.

As to the decision and its helpfulness for open source coders - you are all correct that Jacobsen did a huge thing, and he has indeed made it tons easier for a lot of folks.

The NMRA was also involved in the lawsuit because Katz attempted to take the NMRA standards for dcc and claim it as his own property via his patent that has since been disallowed.  In effect this was not about Katz versus JMRI, but about Katz versus the entire dcc industry.  His original claim was that all dcc systems were infringements on his patent, and therefore all manufacturers of dcc equipment should immediately cease and desist from manufacturer of dcc products and pay him damages.

......Not just for standing up for what they thought was right but for the whole JMRI program.  I really can't believe that everyone is not using this as simple as it makes things.

Having said that, you do know that all that free software costs money - overhead, computer costs, and yes lawsuits.  How about sending them a little money to ease their burden. There is a little gray box on the right side of their home page that says "Support this Project".  Why not take a minute and send them a couple of bucks $1, $3, $5, $10 or whatever you can send would help them out.. so they can help you

Steve

In effect this was not about Katz versus JMRI, but about Katz versus the entire dcc industry.  His original claim was that all dcc systems were infringements on his patent, and therefore all manufacturers of dcc equipment should immediately cease and desist from manufacturer of dcc products and pay him damages.

I had forgotten that part of it. While I can't claim to know all the details it sure seems like Katz got exactly what he was entitled to, nothing.  Was he ordered to pay damages to JMRI and the DCC industry?  If not, then perhaps he should have been so ordered by the courts?