OSNews

Maybe they do not 'announce' but show and tell individual companies under non-disclosure agreements?

In any case, my Korean patriotism has just taken quite a bashing...

"Maybe they do not 'announce' but show and tell individual companies under non-disclosure agreements?"

That's exactly what they are doing, and is what they said they would do from the beginning. Announcing to the general public wouldn't do much good from their perspective now would it?

That's exactly what they are doing, and is what they said they would do from the beginning.

If Microsoft actually did something they said they would do, the stress would explode the universe.

Announcing to the general public wouldn't do much good from their perspective now would it?

Since patents are generally available to view (the idea being that if you don't want to violate a patent just make sure you look any patents up you might be violating, to make sure you aren't), what harm would it do?

I'll admit to being pretty cynical about Microsoft-bashing these days, especially as most of it seems to be stuff that was already trite ten years on Usenet.

But I agree, this is pretty damn sketchy. The characterization someone made the Xandros comments was pretty spot-on: "That's a real nice business you got there, something bad could happen to it - so give us money and we'll protect you and your customers."

Hell, I'm starting to believe the conspiracy theories about the SCO nonsense being a "dry-run" for this sort thing. Almost has a feel of "Oh damn, the current government's not going to be around much longer - we better do this stuff now, on the off chance that the next bunch won't let us get away with it."

You are so right. I can't believe LG fell for that without putting up a fight. Someone needs to tell MS to put up or shut up.

I couldn't agree more.
It seems absurd for LG to surrender some of their intellectual property to MS simply because MS make unproven accusations about their patents.

It's completely bonkers. Why don't these businesses stand together? After all - United we stand, devided we fall.

It seems absurd for LG to surrender some of their intellectual property to MS simply because MS make unproven accusations about their patents.

That's my point. All I can think of is that the patent claim actualy *shock gasp horror* holds any water.

That's exactly what I was thinking: what if MS is actually showing these companies what they're talking about ? It would surely bring more credibility to their claims -- if the claims are valid ayways.

On the other hand, what if MS is just somehow getting those companies to agree, in order to get the rest of the IT world thinking just like the above conclusion ?

Things are messy. Really messy, these days... and I can't still find any reliable source about how software patent laws apply here in Brazil. Anyone have a clue?

"

MS pays these companies much more than they give MS in royalties (for now, anyways...) though. You rally have to wonder why they would give up all their patents to a vicious competitor just for a few hundred million though. Perhaps just greedy and thinking in the short term blip on their financial statements?

Edited 2007-06-08 18:33

"All I can think of is that the patent claim actualy *shock gasp horror* holds any water."

You're not trying nearly hard enough.

Being businesses, what's the downside for them agreeing to this deal? None, apart from some "minor GPL problems".

It seems absurd for LG to surrender some of their intellectual property to MS simply because MS make unproven accusations about their patents.

I guess we have to assume that MS has shown them to LG at least.

I had been thinking of making a poll or bet at some site about which additional Linux distributors after Novell and Xandros the community think is most likely to sign similar deals (Linspire? Mandriva? Mepis?), but by now this is turning too unpredictable. What next? Volvo? The Catholic Church? Antarctica? The little smile on babies' faces?

[Edit: minor typo]

Edited 2007-06-08 15:52

I cannot understand why a company of the size of Microsoft can try to shut up to its competition by that kind of dirty legal ways?

If Microsoft has so many resources, so many brilliant developers and engineers, is it so hard for them fighting against Linux in a technical way instead of using FUD and those Al Capone deals?

If Microsoft thinks the community is infringing several software patents, why they do not make them public before expanding the scare?

The thing with a company like Microsoft is that they want to keep their monopoly since competition means less money for them as their shareholders.

I think they are afraid of competition since the only way to deal with them is to roller them out of business. I'm pretty sure they know that Linux IS a great OS and if the server market is anything to go by, the desktop market could go the same way.

I think this is another attempt at laying a brick wall in front of the desktop market with a 'Keep Out' sign on it.

Again, Microsoft is paying LG for access to their intellectual property. They made the CHOICE to agree upon and sign the contract.

"

Now you're making assumptions. I'd only rather deal with what we know. LG executives are big boys, I'm sure they can handle themselves.

"""
Why don't these businesses stand together? After all - United we stand, devided we fall.
"""

Corporations are whores.

And cooperation to achieve a common goal has always never been their strong suit. It seems like the history of this industry has been one deal after another, with corporations pledging to work together to achieve some goal... but the goal is rarely achieved before they lapse back into their back-stabbing ways and the whole thing falls apart and is forgotten.

That's one of the things that scares Microsoft so much about the GPL. It's been more effective than anything in this industry at getting at least some companies effectively cooperating each other, in at least some areas, in a meaningful and long term way.

It's hard for Microsoft to sell their software as "rocket science" in the presence of examples of how a little cooperation between players can turn "rocket science" into "garden variety".

I'm afraid that it is up to us. Keep a list of those companies who enter into these deals. Do not buy from them and discourage others from doing so. Send those companies a courteous note explaining *what* you are doing and *why* you are doing it. Send a note to your new suppliers informing them of why you are switching to them.

Our wallets and our keyboards are the most effective weapons that we have in this important fight. I only hope that we can wield them effectively and that they are enough.

not that i am giving microsoft the benefit of the doubt but, I doubt we know whats going on in the backround of this. microsoft might not have made what pattents avalible publicly. but they did give a number of how many. meaning they probly know(assuming its not all BS). and given that they k know it wouldnt be hard for them to show companies like LG and so on. reasons for not publicaly anouncing all of them could be anywhere from being lazy, or not wanting to start an all out pattent holocaust. That would not go well at all for MS espcialy prior to the EU courts making there decision in september. I am sure a pattent war where MS would be the bad guy sparking from that would hurt them in those respects...

You're missing my point. Linux is a product that LG uses. Microsoft can no more sue them for using that product than GM can sue me for driving a Toyota, regardless of the number of infringing patents.

It's as if people have abandoned reason purely out of fear. This is the textbook definition of extortion.

But if GM had shown to Toyota just such a potential infringement, and a recall of said Toyota model were a result of an actual infringement of parts or mechanical processes, GM might have just pulled you up...;-)

By the way, I am not defending Microsoft, just analyzing this analogy.

I am guessing that LG's stakes are these: providing low-cost Linux-driven mobile phones to the mass Chinese market, and avoiding any interference along the way.

Maybe some of MS's hardware patents hold water. But since all the Linux products/companies involved in these deals have said in public that MS did not show them any patents, then I don't know why they are including Linux in the deals! (except for MS's purposes, which are to block GPLv3)

Edited 2007-06-08 19:25

Xandros and Novell both compete in the same area as Microsoft, and both can benefit from interoperability with Microsoft products.

(Yet another) something that should make you hoot with laughter if you know anything about the history of Linux. Linux developers have paid attention to "interoperability with Microsoft" since day one - it's Microsoft that has historically gone to great lengths to make sure anyone - not just Linux users - who wants to interoperate with them has to continually pay catch-up.

Could it be that the patents actually hold any water?

Again, events in the wider world provide a clue. (A) The US is the only jurisdiction that matters that currently allows software patents, (B) The Supreme Court of the United States recently cast down on the validity of the vast majority of software patents. Therefore, until they are proven otherwise I would say that any claims made by anyone on any software patent granted in the US are suspect, until proven otherwise. And that's without factoring in the Microsoft (lack of) credibility factor.

I really don't understand where you get these "catch-up" ideas. Windows interoperates with old versions of itself. If the Samba folks (or the OOo or any other group that tries to interoperate with microsoft's stuff) made their software correctly, it would just behave as an old protocol version and do the right thing, just as Office and Windows does.

I think OSS users need to realize that OSS devs are frankly not that interested in becoming compatible with Microsoft. It's not fun and requires a high level of skill, so it's just one of those things that doesn't get done. Microsoft could do it when they needed to because money is an even better motivator than fun.

I really don't understand where you get these "catch-up" ideas. Windows interoperates with old versions of itself. If the Samba folks (or the OOo or any other group that tries to interoperate with microsoft's stuff) made their software correctly, it would just behave as an old protocol version and do the right thing, just as Office and Windows does.

I really don't understand where you get these ideas. Windows and/or Microsoft's Windows programs often don't interoperate with old versions of themselves - Vista drivers, programs, and Word 97 anyone?

As Jeremy Allison stated in court, if Microsoft released the specs to it's "Common" "Internet" "Filesystem", or simply stopped continually changing it, Samba would just behave correctly and do the right thing, just as Office and Windows do.

I think you need to realise that OSS devs are frankly very interested in becoming compatible with Microsoft. It's not fun and requires a high-level of skill because Microsoft are always making gratuitous changes, so it's just one of those things that doesn't get done quickly. (Jeremy Allison himself said that Linux should be looking to create a directory service which uses a database instead of lists.) Microsoft could do it when they needed to because, er, our protocols are open, theirs and aren't and they are, er, theirs.

For a "Platform Agnostic" you seem ready to give Microsoft a helluva lot of credit they don't deserve. Maybe you should ditch platform-agnostic for platform-knowledgeable.

That's a poor analogy. In this case, Microsoft is not threatening LG, but in fact promising, under contract, to not sue them and also paying them for access to some of their intellectual property.

The way you make it out to be, LG would be paying Microsoft, which is simply not true.

No, the point of the story is nobody's paying anybody. If any software is exchanged (such as with Novell), it's just incidental. The key is the signed contract and the supposed "protection" being offered.

No, Microsoft is paying LG for access to their intellectual property. That's one of the terms of the agreement. And the "supposed" protection is not supposed. It's protection under law. They are not making LG pay them for this protection.

Again, the point of what I am saying is _YES_ there may be an exchange of IP, Software, assets, etc, but I believe they are incidental to what is really happening. What is happening is the old protection racket - my parents lived through it in the 40's and 50's with a small store. And yes, the protection is real. Microsoft will not come after LG, Novell, Xandros, etc - just like the "boys" would not come after my parents if they singed. What I feel is wrong is the whole threat itself. Microsoft is using trumped-up Patent threats in order to secure its territory. The goal is two have two classes of Linux vendors - those with "protection" and those without. This divides the Linux world. As for the threat being real, I do not know. For the purposes of what is happening, it doesn't matter. It is the "threat of a threat" that matters. It is a "protection" racket.

The GPL makes it "supposed" protection. Especially in the case of MS's deals, because they hardly cover anything! Read "Excluded Products" like office applications, servers, business applications, financial applications, client-servers, WINE, samba, etc in their SEC filing.

http://www.secinfo.com/dsvrp.uc2x.6.htm#1stPage

That's why Novell and Xandros and (we don't know yet) probably LGe offer protection to their Linux customers, to get around section 7 of the GPL.

I believe they all indemnify each other's companies and cross-license, but they can't do that with Linux products because of the GPL, so they offer "supposed" protection to customers.

Edited 2007-06-08 18:41

You don't know that's how it went down. The fact that there are other parts of the deal (money from MS to LG and intellectual rights) hurt the argument even.

Not really. If it was only a matter of MS buying intellectual rights from LG, they wouldn't have included the "patent amnesty" clause. This part of the deal is clearly meant to give weight to MS's patent ploy against Linux and FOSS.

It's FUD, pure and simple.

Uhh, but it is...actually. Threats...promises...what's the difference, the end result? Microsoft is benefiting, albeit freely, from LG's IP. That would be akin to being paid for items/services they don't own (ie. protection money).

You really need to watch some mob shows to see how this thing is done properly.

Threats and promises are quite different actually. Microsoft is benefiting from LG's IP by PAYING FOR IT.

but the big winner may be Microsoft because...

I'm sure that what Microsoft wants. But there's another issue alluded to in the article. Microsoft may be racing to get ahead of GPL3. So maybe it's Microsoft that has the "Sword of Damocles" (PLan's analogy) hanging over its head.

MS is not "racing to get ahead of GPL3".

MS _adores_ GPL3, it _wants_ GPL3 as soon as possible and it wants GPL3 to be as exclusionary as possible.

Then it can turn to businesses and say, "C'mon, you don't want to use software that is licences under GPL3 do you? Why that gives those smelly longhairs the right to all your code, invalidates all you patents and Stallman will come in at night and rape the company cat".

MS couldn't give a twopenny shit about what happens to Novell, Xandros etc. after GPL3 - they're just so much toilet paper.

And GPL3 will fragment the Linux codebase into two incompatible halves, to the disadvantage of developers and folks trying to keep their licences in line. That'll suit MS down to the ground.

Oh no sirree, LS is crazy for GPL3, and all these shenanigans are designed to provoke the FSF to release GPL3 as soon as possible and make it as tight as possible.

And GPL3 will fragment the Linux codebase into two incompatible halves,...

Unfortunately, that is a possibility. And maybe you are right that MS is expecting it to happen. So maybe their current actions are simply intended to goad infighting amongst the principals of free software, whom they no-doubt view in they way you have depicted Richard Stallman.

But I am hopeful that whatever Microsoft thinks, expects and wants will be held at arm's length and not be allowed to affect the course of free software.

"""
And GPL3 will fragment the Linux codebase into two incompatible halves, to the disadvantage of developers and folks trying to keep their licences in line.
"""

That was a real danger, and my main objection to GPLv3 last year. However, as of draft 3, the FSF really seemed to start listening to the criticisms and took action to address them instead of just blithely claiming that the critics didn't understand the license.

I believe that we have averted most of the damage that might have been done.

It will still cause some needless license fragmentation. But I think that the danger has been reduced from the "catastrophic" variety to the "damned nuisance" variety.

As things stand, the advantages may actually outweigh the disadvantages, in the long term.

Good analysis, but Novell and Xandros have both stated in the press that Microsoft did not show them patents in Linux. Do we believe them or not? I don't know. Can an NDA compel them to lie?

Humourously, Xandros' CEO also spoke to a reporter with an MS person on the line, said he wasn't sure if they had any patents, then hung up and phoned back and said Linux wasn't infringing on patents.
http://redmondmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=8654

"Within a half-hour of the end of the interview, Typaldos left a voice message for this reporter in which he said, "I wanted to make it very clear that your question about 'Do I think that Linux is infringing on Microsoft patents'? The answer is a categorical no. The answer is no.""

http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/4008
http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/community_open_letter.html
"We disagree with the recent statements made by Microsoft on the topic of Linux and patents. Importantly, our agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property. When we entered the patent cooperation agreement with Microsoft, Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents."

Microsoft on patent specifics (very much BS): http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/24/microsoft_novell_patents/
" First you get everyone riled claiming open source and Linux infringe on your patents, then you won't detail those patents. Why? The paperwork.

Yes, Microsoft cited administrative overhead for not detailing the 235 Microsoft patents its chief legal counsel recently told Fortune exist in Linux and open source.

Microsoft patents attorney Jim Markwith told OSBC it would be "impossible" for Redmond's bureaucrats to respond to the volume of responses that would result from disclosure. Also, apparently, it's ungentlemanly to name names.

"Most people who are familiar with patents know it's not standard operating procedure to list the patents," Markwith said. "The response of that would be administratively impossible to keep up with." Far better to rattle sabers instead."

Edited 2007-06-08 18:48

Why should someone talk about patents under NDA? Patents are published, for everyone to see.

I'd like to avoid being pessimistic, but this is scary ...

I think Microsoft wants you to be scared. But I suspect Microsoft is scared.

They used to just ignore all GNU and Linux and BSD as worthless bother. Now they know for sure there is a very real threat. They see the handwriting on the wall. They are slashing and punching like a dying man. Maybe.

This is simply what happens when capitalism is allowed to run unchecked by any federal agencies.

Microsoft represents the worst kind of monopoly, and the most corrupt form of capitalism.

There's a conspiracy theory that this is one reason why nVidia and ATI don't open specifications. They both used to have somewhat open drivers, apparently, before signing up with Microsoft on various ventures (eg., Xbox).

That's what DRM is about too, like Peter Gutmann's excellent "Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection" states, since hardware implementing DRM everywhere as MS would love can't be open.

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

(google cache here since it doesn't seem to be loading right now: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:dU1lF0ao8cMJ:www.cs.auckland.ac...

Edited 2007-06-08 18:19

People also patent things so someone else doesn't go and patent it them sue them. It's a sad state of affairs but it is the reality.

"Fact is that Microsoft does hold UNIX patents."

Where is that a fact? Isn't UNIX from the 70s and any patents now long expired, since they're supposed to only last 20 years? (although I don't th