Yep, it was the backend... standard JVM crash. Gotta luv Java.

Actually, the error message means that Apache 2.0.63 is working fine; it's the backend, which is likely running Tomcat, which is having problems... and that could be for various reasons.

What these trolls depend upon is a growing list of high-profile companies who settle these lawsuits. If you are a large company, even a settlement of $100k is cheaper than the work involved in actually "fighting" the suit, and so companies pay these "nuisance lawsuits" while making sure that whatever agreement they sign makes it clear that settlement doesn't imply that they *believe* the suit (or patent) has merit.

Which is fine for the troll... they get $$ plus are able to say "Look at all these big companies who paid. If they paid us, you can bet you're going to have to", misleading people into thinking that the settlements somehow provide some measure of "validity" to their claims.

They need the big splash settlements to obtain the big payouts: lots of settlements by smaller companies.

BTW: I also wrote the orig post that this is a reply to.

I'd like to respond to 2 lines from the original article:

"""OSI, which is more grounded in software, tends to take a conservative approach to trademarks and legal discussions, which makes communication difficult, Seidle said. But OSHWA does not want trademark or legal battles with anyone, Seidle said"

Our (OSI's) approach to trademarks is not a "conservative" one, but one required by simple trademark law. One might almost say, with equal validity, that OSI and the FSF approach to copyrights and licensing is a "conservative" one, as in being an approach that allows licensing to actually *mean* something. As an extreme example, allowing the use of a trademark "whilly-nilly", with no conditions or restraints, and no unacceptable uses, is certainly not conservative, but it also results in a worthless and, more important, meaningless trademark. If the trademark can be used on anything, then what does it actually mean? How does it relate any "message" to the end-user?

And secondly, OSI does not want trademark or legal battles with anyone else... Seidle certainly is not implying that OSI does, but some may misinterpret the statement to imply otherwise.