“This week, Microsoft laid out the next chapter in their plans regarding patents and open source Linux software, by going public with the claim that Linux infringes on some 235 of their software patents. The first chapter in this story began back in November of last year, when Microsoft entered into a agreement with Novell. These events, in my opinion, form the most important dynamic today as to the future success of Linux. How will all of this affect open source software and Linux? What should the open source community do? And… What will Linspire do?”
No…
I agree
The answer is: No
There is a business side that not everyone appreciates. Linux distros are large companies that can’t afford to be sued into the ground, or lose business over uncertainties.
Linspire, for instance, is going to fight and ignore patents just like everyone else. But he implies at the end that Linspire will develop a contingency plan — a distro that cuts out patent infringements. Read the Linspire letter for more information.
So the answer to the question “Will it hobble Linux?” is probably actually “Yes,” even if it just means developing a backup plan while normal business goes on.
No, I still see the answer as “no”.
MS needs to detail what patents are infringing so they can be examined to be suitable and if so, the infringing software is given a chance to rid itself of MS’s supposed IP.
Otherwise this is extortion and should be handled like any criminal case. I really hope this hurts Microsoft’s anti-trust/monopoly cases. It’s time the company is broken up. This is getting to be ridiculous.
exactly, thas all MS is trying to do with this is hurt linux by spreading rumor. MS doesnt want this in the courts as they know it would hurt them more then linux.
Same commercial technic by Microsoft for years, that’s FUD
If Microsoft stand by Bill Hilf’s claim that Linux is in 2007, then why are they arguing about patents?
Sounds to me like Redmond are cluting at yet more straws….
Edited 2007-05-15 13:30
“
Damn-it – I meant: Bill Hilf’s claim that Linux is dead in 2007 (re: the article posted a few days earlier).
Didn’t spot my typo until after it was too late to edit
I wish someone had a patent on FUD and clutching at straws.
The patents MS claims are infringed are the kinds of patents that highlight the often absurd world of software patents. While a specific piece of code that performs a specific function such as compression should be patentable, allowing someone to patent something as vague as a windowed menu system is beyond stupid. Of couse, MS will sieze any opportunity to spread FUD, no matter how absurd their claims turn out to be.
Lets see- Microsoft=SCO or SCO=Microsoft?
can’t make up my mind. Compromise, MiSCOsoft, there you go!
penguin7009
Besides putting a (unverified) number on how many of their patents MS *thinks* are being infringed by various FOSS projects, there is absolutely nothing new here.
The reality is that almost any non-trivial software written today will be covered by some US patent or other. With the recent changes for the test for obviousness mandated by the US supreme court it is not even clear how many of the patents currently held by the likes of MS would actually stand up to a court challenge anyway.
Basically, this recent ‘revelation’ does nothing except stir the same old FUD pot MS has had bubbling for ages now and avoids letting the issue sink back into the media oblivion. In some respects a giant patent war might in the long run be a _good_ thing as chances are, with so many patent portfolios stacked against each other, that the only result would be to further hilite the absurd system the US has going and give further ammo to anti-software patent movements around the world.
One example is the patented FAT filesystem. It is very easy to think of and implement FAT and I think it’s much harder to think of a filesystem that works worse than FAT.
Still, FAT is inside the Linux kernel, as it is the only filesystem Windows can read and write, besides NTFS, which is obfuscated and for sure even more patented.
It is only there for interoperability to Windows. Perhaps now anybody gets the idea of what is the big benefit of MS’s patents.
FAT is used by a lot of devices with removeable storage, flash cards, cameras etc. so it’s not just about Windows operability, unlike NTFS.
AFAIK though, MS doesn’t actually hold the patent on FAT itself, they hold it on their implementation that allows long filenames. Whether that should even be patentable is the question.
All these devices use FAT to be read-/writeable by windows, it’s the same reason after all.
The patent was nullified in Germany:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/86102
I believe the patent for the FAT file system has been overturned by the USPTO recently (if I’m not going delusional).
Also, as PJ would say, patents don’t trump anti trust laws. If Microsoft tries to abuse its patents to stop the competition, this will more than likely be viewed as anti competitive and monopolistic behaviour – this of course providing Bushie Jr doesn’t interfere.
Dave
Besides vfat and NTFS, is there anything in linux that is patented by MS?
Edited 2007-05-15 14:02
I’m sure that Linux probably does violate patents held by other companies, but I honestly think it’s more a failure of the patent system than failure of the developers.
The US really does need to reform it’s patent system. It seems to me that we spend a lot of time in the court system invalidating patents that shouldn’t have been granted in the first place. Then you have companies who sole job is to buy and sue over patents.
It’s my opinion that software patents don’t drive innovation, but rather hold innovation back.
As for Microsoft and it’s 235 patents. Put up or shut up. Personally I would pay them a dime until the judge told me to after all appeals were exhausted.
Stupid typos.
Personally I wouldn’t pay them a dime until the judge told me to after all appeals were exhausted.
“Microsoft, by distributing SLES (SUSE Linux Enterprise Server) certificates to customers such as Dell, as part of the Novell/Microsoft partnership, may have just placed any IP they might or might not have in Linux, under the GPL. ”
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS6670466370.html
if not we always have the open invention network http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/
“Microsoft, by distributing SLES (SUSE Linux Enterprise Server) certificates to customers such as Dell, as part of the Novell/Microsoft partnership, may have just placed any IP they might or might not have in Linux, under the GPL. ”
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS6670466370.html
if not we always have the open invention network http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/
Yes the OIN is important as it provides a method to counterattack or even go over to the offensive against MS. IBM and the other member companies, by donating patents to the OIN, get around their cross licensing agreements with MS.
The OIN is in a position to threaten serious harm to MS unless MS takes out free licenses to the OIN owned patents under their normal terms. Which will require an undertaking by MS not to use their own patents against Linux and other open source software.
As Jim Zemlin, Executive Director of the Linux Foundation said:
“If you use Windows, Solaris, [IBM’s] AIX or any similar operating system, you have the same patent infringement risk as using Linux. Microsoft should be careful of what it starts because it doesn’t know where it will end,”
Two can play the protection racket game.
Edited 2007-05-15 17:25
Note the additional link at the end of the article, which points to a blog entry re: Linspire’s view of things. Short summary: 1. Fight/resist 2. Work around 3. ?
Who cares, does anyone use Linspire?
It is my firm belief that in addition to dispensing FUD (an acronym which I try to use *only* when it is really what I mean) it is also Microsoft’s goal do divide the community. Their plan seems to be having some effect wrt Novell. But it is so very refreshing to see that there have been no anti-Linspire posts so far. Perhaps a common threat will have the reverse effect from what MS intended and bring us closer together?
I’d enjoy seeing yet another anti-Linux strategy backfire on Microsoft.
There is nothing quite so satisfying to watch as a confounded bully.
Microsoft tried to fight open source by funding SCO. They paid SCO for dummy, non-existent services and “IP” . The whole idea was for SCO to use the money to sustain itself while it shakes down Linux vendors and users. That idea has gone down in flames, SCO is virtually bankrupt and Microsoft cannot find another way to pass them money under the table.
My challenge to Microsoft: Bring it on and let us have another court battle. Bring it on and let the European commission see in real time what your competitors have been crying about for nearly 2 decades. Bring it on, show us the code and open a Pandora’s box of stolen intellectual property you have accumulated over the years.
Variations on a theme, my boy! Variations on a theme!
If this doesn’t work, expect “Bride of SCO” and “SCO Meets the Werewolf”.
Can’t wait to see Melinda with that flashy zig in her hair! 😉
you know, how do you launch a complaint against microsoft for this? i know some people registered complaints with the states and then states sued microsoft. how can i do that? They are blackmailing companies with this. and i think it should stop.
The day MS officially tries to sue “linux” they ask to be doss-ed into oblivion.
That’d bring down the whole internet. MSFT probably has a whole bunch of bandwidth, so DDOSing them wouldn’t do much to them specifically.
most people get the ms websites from cache servers
This sounds plain stupid to me. Microsoft did well spreading FUD about Linux infringing its patents. What they are doing now is steering directly towards the final patent showdown between all major companies, which nobody will win (or, maybe, everybody…)
Linux doesn’t happen in some geeks’ rooms anymore. It has backing by IBM, who will inevitably pull their own patent portfolio, and the battle begins.
There must be more to it – the brains behind MS just can’t be *that* stupid.
There must be more to it – the brains behind MS just can’t be *that* stupid.
DRM is the future.
Steve Ballmer
Google’s not a real company. It’s a house of cards.
Steve Ballmer
I don’t know what a monopoly is until somebody tells me.
Steve Ballmer
I have four words for you: I love this company, yeah!
Steve Ballmer
Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches.
Steve Ballmer
Most people still steal music.
Steve Ballmer
The number one benefit of information technology is that it empowers people to do what they want to do. It lets people be creative. It lets people be productive. It lets people learn things they didn’t think they could learn before, and so in a sense it is all about potential.
Steve Ballmer
We will make our products work out of the box.
Steve Ballmer
What we’ve gone through in the last several years has caused some people to question ‘Can we trust Microsoft?’
Steve Ballmer
Having read these sentences by Mr Ballmer, he can only be one of these two things: stupid or bad.
I have already chosen one.
Maybe Microsoft is so scared of the success of the iPhone that their ultimate goal is to get the patents nulled so they can make their own phone, or at least get an idea of how the end-to-end solution is put together.
And then we will see how many companies violates those patents, and how many patents could stand in a court.
This is only FUD
With these patent threats/FUD, MS is essentially admitting that Linux is, indeed, vastly superior, and that Vista sucks major big time and Vista ticks off customers to no end.
And MS is very very very worried about Dell selling consumer PCs and Notebooks with Ubuntu pre-installed, with HP likely to follow with it’s own consumer Linux offering.
MS is also very very very very worried about many states’ initiatives to standardize on ODF, thus breaking the MS Office file format lock-in.
Yup, MS is still making money hand over fist, and has a huge war chest.
But they are indeed announcing to the world, with these patent threats, that they are worried about their empire eventually, inevitably, crumbling.
And, of course, they are announcing to the world that they are incapable of out innovating the open source world – they can only use vague patent threats to compete.
It is indeed getting ridiculous. MS does need to be broken up. But then again, they are trying awfully hard to shoot themselves in the foot.
Really, the only people who don’t openly, publicly hate MS are MS employees, and the most ridiculous of fanbois/shills.
With these patent threats/FUD, MS is essentially admitting that Linux is, indeed, vastly superior, and that Vista sucks major big time and Vista ticks off customers to no end.
Huh? Project much? MS isn’t saying any such thing. It’s saying that Linux infringes on their intellectual property and they are mulling over their options.
And MS is very very very worried about Dell selling consumer PCs and Notebooks with Ubuntu pre-installed, with HP likely to follow with it’s own consumer Linux offering.
I seriously doubt it. The last time Dell tried to sell desktop Linux, it was a dismal failure.
MS is also very very very very worried about many states’ initiatives to standardize on ODF, thus breaking the MS Office file format lock-in.
Few states are actually funding initiatives to move to ODF. Massachusetts took a look at the price tag of conversion and decided not to fund the boondoggle; especially in light of the fact that free DOC readers and DOC-to-ODF converters exist.
Yup, MS is still making money hand over fist, and has a huge war chest.
Their revenue is larger than the GDP of many small countries.
But they are indeed announcing to the world, with these patent threats, that they are worried about their empire eventually, inevitably, crumbling.
Only the paranoid survive. Not many tech companies survive as long as MS.
And, of course, they are announcing to the world that they are incapable of out innovating the open source world – they can only use vague patent threats to compete.
You have that backwards. If the open source world needs to infringe on pre-existing patents from Microsoft then, clearly, MS is out-innovating you.
It is indeed getting ridiculous.
I see nothing ridiculous about a company fighting unfair competition. You guys scream like stuck pigs whenever MS supposedly violates other peoples’ (ie. Eolas) patents/copyrights/trademarks. Hypcrisy, much?
MS does need to be broken up.
That would only create a hydra. It wouldn’t change the dynamic of Windows v Linux or Office v OO.
But then again, they are trying awfully hard to shoot themselves in the foot.
The ones “trying awfullyy hard to shoot themselves in the foot” are those who copy other peoples’ technology in the so-called name of “freedom”. Yeah, freedom from responsibility, that is.
Really, the only people who don’t openly, publicly hate MS are MS employees, and the most ridiculous of fanbois/shills.
Wrong, nice try. Read this. Microsoft is #12 on Forbe’s Most Admired Companies list. Many people here won’t admit it — but they’d die to work for them.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/mostadmired/2007/top20/index…
But they are indeed announcing to the world, with these patent threats, that they are worried about their empire eventually, inevitably, crumbling.
Only the paranoid survive. Not many tech companies survive as long as MS.
Only the paranoid, eh? So innovators should just keep their ideas to themselves or someone else might nick their idea and patent it before they can come up with the funds?
Of course not many tech companies survive as long as Microsoft, because Microsoft makes it their business to take out the competition. I bet if you went back far enough, there probably aren’t a whole lot of Microsoft’s products that weren’t at some point or another developed by someone else then bought out or squashed by Microsoft.
Wrong, nice try. Read this. Microsoft is #12 on Forbe’s Most Admired Companies list. Many people here won’t admit it — but they’d die to work for them.
If I recall correctly, there was a Forbes article stating that they thought Windows Vista sucked as well. Of course Microsoft is rated high as most admired in Forbes. After all, it’s a business magazine, not a tech magazine and Microsoft is a very successful business. It’s just not a very ‘nice’ business. Just like I’ve always said, Bill Gates has the actual computer skills of a turd, but he has a great and very shrewd business mind.
If Microsoft would stop thinking so hard on how to squash the competition, and didn’t need so much money for their lawyers, maybe they could actually program some decent software. As it is, we still have a “start” menu that doesn’t have a standard way for software to categorize itself (you know, like actually have a “Internet” or “Games” menu, then actually list the programs in those categories properly. Instead we get “Program Files -> Company Name -> Program Name” or “Program Files -> Program Name” or sometimes even “Program Files -> Publisher’s Name -> Developer’s Name -> Program Name”
It’s an utter mess and the usability still pisses me off from time to time, and I’ve been using Windows since ’95.
Only the paranoid, eh? So innovators should just keep their ideas to themselves or someone else might nick their idea and patent it before they can come up with the funds?
Yeah, it’s called a trade secret — and many companies such as Coca-Cola have been very successful with such a strategy.
Of course not many tech companies survive as long as Microsoft, because Microsoft makes it their business to take out the competition.
That’s the nature of competition: Someone wins and someone loses.
I bet if you went back far enough, there probably aren’t a whole lot of Microsoft’s products that weren’t at some point or another developed by someone else then bought out or squashed by Microsoft.
One of the advantages of arriving second is that the first mover has already invested heavily in an approach that works. But that doesn’t automatically translate into success for the second mover. I can’t count the number of things that Microsoft has undertaken — in the interest of dislodging an entrenched competitor — that have fallen flat. Examples: Live Search v Google, Zune v iPod, etc. But there are an equal number of things that MS has done second that have been better than the original: Excel v Lotus 123, Word v WordPerfect, etc.
If I recall correctly, there was a Forbes article stating that they thought Windows Vista sucked as well.
Don’t try to change the subject. We were talking about public opinion of MS as a company. I could care less what one reviewer has to say about one specific MS product.
It’s just not a very ‘nice’ business.
Business isn’t nice. It’s dog-eat-dog.
Just like I’ve always said, Bill Gates has the actual computer skills of a turd, but he has a great and very shrewd business mind.
The situation is reversed with you: You have the business mind of a turd.
If Microsoft would stop thinking so hard on how to squash the competition, and didn’t need so much money for their lawyers, maybe they could actually program some decent software.
Maybe, if you would take a business course or two, you’d understand that squashing the competition is what businesses DO.
As it is, we still have a “start” menu that doesn’t have a standard way for software to categorize itself (you know, like actually have a “Internet” or “Games” menu, then actually list the programs in those categories properly.
So, modify it, yourself. Sheez.
It’s an utter mess and the usability still pisses me off from time to time, and I’ve been using Windows since ’95.
See above. And see a therapist. Carrying around anger for more than a decade isn’t healthy.
Can you really claim that none of the open source developers ever looked at any Microsoft program and borrowed ideas about GUIs, functionality and features?
The start button in Gnome/KDE is an example of how open source copied Microsoft while making fun of MS for being stupid to have the start button be used for shutdown.
Then there’s people who decry Microsoft about violating patents in the EOLAS or the MP3 encoding case yet they have no qualms about violating these same patents.
We use microsoft codec packs in Mplayer, we use NDISwrapper to run our wireless chips, we use wine loader to load up microsoft DLLs to run windows apps….don’t you think that somewhere there’s a case of patent infringement going on?
For years open source people have played roughshod with microsoft programs – copying look and feel to completely reverse engineering them and microsoft has looked the other way. For years we’ve been needling microsoft and Bill as the borg and evil empire and we’re now getting our panties in a twist because finally Microsoft decides to do somthing about it?.
If we truely didn’t copy microsoft why does Linux not look like MacOS or IBM’s Mainframe OS or AmigaOS?
Well that is the same as saying MS stole the whole GUI idea from Apple who stole it from Xerox etc.
I mean MS as done the same stuff.
The reason why people decry MS is because at this point MS has soooooo much money and people who can look into patent issues they don’t have the same excuse as a guy up late at night hacking.
MS is just worried that they have no future growth! Other countries and governments are learning that they need to break ties with MS because being tied to MS is the same as being tied to the US government. Have a problem with the US government and you may loose access to MS. (Plus who knows what kind of spy software is in Windows)
Anyway, I am sure there are tons of people out there just itching to sue MS for their theft. MS needs to pay up also!
The difference between the above cases of MS copying and Linux is that MS ended up paying Apple, Digital, and Xerox for their patents. They may not have paid before implementing it, but in all cases lawsuits were brought and the question was decided legally. Usually the decision involved a payment and everyone moved on.
Linux, on the other hand, has not faced such lawsuits. Microsoft knows how to compete with a business entity and as much as possible they want to force Linux into the mold of competitors they can handle. That’s why they’re giving relatively favorable deals to companies like Novell and that’s why they were making offers to Red Hat. It is also in the interest of these Linux companies like Linspire to also be a part of this game (they’d like users to be forced to go to them and pay for their linux).
It’s all a purely rational choice on the part of Microsoft. It might be a evil, but it’s not really a sign of their decline or anything. It’s just a sign that they believe that “Only the Paranoid Survive.”
It’s just a sign that they believe that “Only the Paranoid Survive.”
That’s more something you expect to hear from OpenBSD.
It’s a title of a book by Andrew Grove, a former Chairman of Intel. They failed to heed it with AMD and almost lost it all a couple years ago.
It might be a evil
Murder is evil. Rape is evil. Software industry controversies and dealings aren’t evil. People who think otherwise simply lack a perspective on reality.
So which patented inventions did all these nasty rip-off FOSS people violate when copying the start button et al? And can those patents stand up in court as non-obvious and without prior art? Or is this just more FUD.
.
.
.
.
A: its juts more FUD.
If we truely didn’t copy microsoft why does Linux not look like MacOS or IBM’s Mainframe OS or AmigaOS?
There have been window managers patterned after classic MacOS, the Amiga Workbench, NextStep, and many other desktops. Windows is a logical look-and-feel to copy, but it’s hardly the only one available for Linux.
The fact that certain distribution makers choose to use a Windows-like desktop is not a “Linux” issue, but rather an issue to take up with those distro makers.
Can you really claim that none of the open source developers ever looked at any Microsoft program and borrowed ideas about GUIs, functionality and features?
The start button in Gnome/KDE is an example of how open source copied Microsoft while making fun of MS for being stupid to have the start button be used for shutdown.
First of all, it’s not “Start” button in GNOME. And do you really claim that patenting the idea of having a clickable button that show up a menu of installed apps is something that should be patented so no one else could do anything similar? And yes, quite frankly, I do think GNOME devs et al have been looking at different OS’es and been trying to implement any good ideas in their own way, but should that be illegal or wrong? IMHO that’s a big NO. Besides, MS has been doing the same thing..You didn’t know they’ve been copying stuff from Apple, for example?
If we truely didn’t copy microsoft why does Linux not look like MacOS or IBM’s Mainframe OS or AmigaOS?
I think GNOME looks more like Mac OS than Windows.
For years open source people have played roughshod with microsoft programs – copying look and feel to completely reverse engineering them and microsoft has looked the other way. For years we’ve been needling microsoft and Bill as the borg and evil empire and we’re now getting our panties in a twist because finally Microsoft decides to do somthing about it?.
This is again hypocrisy: how can you claim open-source has only been copying stuff from Microsoft? Or that Microsoft hasn’t been copying from someone else? You can be sure they’ve too been copying stuff from the open-source world. And yes, they’ve patented stuff they didn’t invent. And no, Microsoft has been trying to cause harm to Linux and other alternative OS’es for years, you should know that. Microsoft still isn’t doing anything more than spreading FUD, you know that? They’re not going to actually reveal any of those patents, nor will they ever take this to court. That’d just backfire and they’d all go down under, and they know that.
Gnome has several original things in it. I used to hate it, but now I consider it a brilliant example of user-friendly human interface. If the Gnome project took anything from Windows, it just made it better.
Now, the Windows desktop is anything but particularly sophisticated. For example, the Start button is much like a contextual or pull-down menu, with the difference it pops up by clicking on a button. If anybody has ever simply played with a RAD environment they will soon realise that there’s no choice but to choose a button à la Windows if a panel is used as task/program bar: a tickable box, a combo box or a radio button would be nonsensical choices for the purpose. Ever seen the OS/2 Warp 3 Launch Pad (repackaged as Quick Launch by MS)? It enabled me to create several Start-button-like drawers in it, with the difference using captions would make them awkward and ugly. I really wonder what they may have patented. Perhaps the infinite nested submenus that give me a headache.
One last word about the Windowish Start button about its position. It can only be placed at the left-hand side, just because we’re culturally accustomed to that. Were we used to writing from right to left like the peoples who use Semitic alphabets and their derivatives, the button would be placed at our right on the screen and the menus would open leftwards. I’d say there’s little creativity in Windows and MS has been inventing the wheel again and again for a while when not surreptitiously borrowing from others.
I also wonder if it was their windowing system they might imply they had secured by patent. In fact they did license their Windows 3.x windowing-system to third parties to develop their applications. The BIOS in my old Compaq Presario booted into a modified DOS 6 and loaded a Windows 3.x look-alike environment. I’m sure Compaq paid quite a few bucks to give their customers such familiar interface. Yet the fact is my C/C++ handbook contained an advanced programming section about building one’s own windowing-system and the basic code in it relied neither on UNIX nor on Windows.
As for the DOS FAT file-system mentioned in other postings, Richard A. Burgess published the code to create a clone file-sytem for those who wanted to create their own OS and it’s been there for over 10 years.
Edited 2007-05-15 22:10
OR they would get sued themselves in retaliation. A lot of companies now have stakes in Open Source – IBM, Sun, RedHat, etc. Also 235 patents are not all Linux related. MS claims some patents are violated by software like OpenOffice.
http://www.osgeek.blogspot.com
Edited 2007-05-15 16:46
allowing someone to patent something as vague as a windowed menu system is beyond stupid
You can patent that, how stupid. That is like a stove company having a patant on cooking food. MS needs to grow up.
If they had a real case, they would take it to court. Plus, what are the patents OSS uses without permission?
Edited 2007-05-15 17:56
allowing someone to patent something as vague as a windowed menu system is beyond stupid
Did you know that Creative patented playlists for MP3s and Apple paid up? This is a case not involving microsoft
Now do you want to tell me that Linux should be immune?
The despots at MS should show us these mythical patents or stop whining. Imbecilic FUD will not stop Linux from taking marketshare from the software dictatorship.
Large companies just exchange huge sums of money. It’s an endless circular flow somehow. The ones who get regularly screwed are the home users who have to fork out the money they have to work several days to make.
MS is working two angles, first this spreads big time FUD about Linux based operating systems. This will help scare customers right back to windows.
The second angle is knowing that they can’t beat linux, they are now going to try and get a piece of every linux distribution sold and/or used.
I’ll give MS one thing, they have balls and aren’t afraid of putting it all on the line.
I hope they lose.
/* I’ll give MS one thing, they have balls and aren’t afraid of putting it all on the line. */
of course they have balls they get all that testicular fortitude from the 50+ billion dollars laying around they can use to flood the top linux distros wih legal battles.But i don’t think they will sue any linux users and distro because they don’t want their hurt their PR they have with companies.
Edited 2007-05-16 02:55
choice choice choice choice choice…..
Edited 2007-05-15 19:25
wow, newsflash – Kevin Carmony wants to pay the extortion money and claim it is CHOICE, everything is about CHOICE. He seems to claim that patents and proprietary software/drivers is the same type of choice. Is anything not choice?
Maybe someone can help me with this question.
How can a closed source Microsoft say that an open source Linux infringes patents ? I mean, Microsoft can easely look at the linux code but who can check Microsofts code if it’s true ?
Because it doesn’t have to be the same code (that would be covered by copyright). It just has to do the same thing in the manner described by the claims of the patent.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=aCUfAAAAEBAJ&dq=taskbar
Did you know that Creative patented playlists for MP3s and Apple paid up? This is a case not involving microsoft
I heard about that one. It is crazy how confusing this whole software patent system has become. It takes a team of lawyers and a year of research before you can add new features to products anymore. I used to think software patents were okay since they protected a small company’s design from being copied exactly. It seems like the way software patents are being used though is leading to rediculous situations where a company like Adobe had to change their tabs in Windows since someone else had a patent on tabs. Wow, does this system need some serious reform. Kind of makes me glad to be out of software development now. Such an ugly mess.
Redmond, WA (AP) – Microsoft Corp. earlier today distributed a press release describing a new initiative from CEO Steve Ballmer designed to improve relations with the Linux and Open Source Communities.
“My ‘Anger Management Sponsor’ and our ‘Vice President of Facilities’ have shown me the pleasure of taking a gentler approach to problem solving. It has become clear to me that throwing chairs is entirely counter-productive,”
Mr. Ballmer continued after he took a sip of water and leaned back in his new upholstered captains chair. “I have found a pasttime that is much easier on the furniture, and only slightly elevates my blood pressure. Some of the children of our Legal Department Staff have shown me how to make paper airplanes. These young geniuses invented a safe method that allows the airplanes to stick gently to surfaces using bubble gum. By the way, I enjoyed the gum part som much I’ve directed our staff to invent a new bubble gum named after our ‘Vista’ screensaver, ‘Bubbles’. I heard that ‘Bazooka Joe’ is for sale.”
Mr. Ballmer smiled and leaned forward on his desk, “At any rate, I dove head first into my new hobby, and I now have 235 ‘Microsoft Paper Airforce Command’ models ready for launch! This is a new begining for our company, and I am anxious to see which direction the winds will take us.”
After the interview, Mr. Ballmer invited us to look in Microsofts soon to be released new product line of re-furbished office furniture.
Edited 2007-05-16 00:26
CAVEAT: For purposes of disclosure, I hold a number of patents.
As competition intensifies between open source and commercial vendors, companies such as Microsoft will increasingly utilize patents to gain leverage over their competitors. I don’t think that patents will hobble Linux — but they will certainly take their toll on how Linux is developed and distributed. For example, even if Linux doesn’t infringe on all 235 patents owned by Microsoft, there’s some degree of likelihood that it probably does, at least, infringe on some subset. Even Richard Stallman seems to acknowledge this (although it’s difficult to tell whether Stallman is trying to use fear of patent litigation as a means of pushing his own initiatives ie. GPLv3, etc — nor is his basis for making such statements clear). So, my inclination is to split the difference and assume that SOME are infringed. So, what does that mean for Linux? Well, I think the answer to that question depends on a variety of factors.
First, what is Microsoft’s motivation in filing suit? Who would it file suit against? After all, there is no single entity that is named “Linux”. In my opinion, this whole debate is over patent royalty payments. Microsoft isn’t targeting users; although, its saber-rattling would certainly cause you to think that. No, what Microsoft wants is for commercial Linux vendors to license its patents (and possibly cross-license patents that MS wants) and provide leverage for interoperability. It’s tired of its commercial Linux competitors riding on the coattails of the Linux community and slowing its product sales growth. Microsoft knows that, without the commercial Linux promoters such as Red Hat, IBM, etc, Linux would not be where it is today. So, in effect, it’s going after the Linux food chain by focusing on the pyramid predators.
Second, Microsoft would need to disclose which of its patents are infringed and then identify the code that infringes. This has some interesting implications for Microsoft. It can’t simply allow its developers to troll through the Linux sources without possibly tainting their future dev work. This might leave MS (advertently or inadvertently) vulnerable to copyright infringement. So, it would probably have to employ an outsider contractor to do the work.
Third, the Linux community would need to evaluate the supposedly infringing code and decide whether they want to fight the infringement claim or simply change the source code to utilize a different design pattern. A claim could be invalidated by prior art, or if it’s sufficiently obvious to anyone skilled in the art that it doesn’t warrant patent protection. My guess, though, is that the Linux community would do both: they would simultaneously fight any attempt to label its code as infringing and also offer up a code alternative. But, as someone who has followed patent litigation in recent years, I find that it’s very difficult to predict the outcome of these kinds of cases. Courts generally don’t like to question the authority of patent examiners, but it can (and does) happen. It simply depends on the nature and scope of the patent. While it might seem easier to simply change the code rather than slug it out in court, the patent might be sufficiently broad that it forecloses any solution other than licensing the patent; this seems to be a low probability, but it is a risk.
Third, Linux is a global phenomenon. What does Europe or Asia care about Linux patent troubles in the U.S.? Couldn’t there be a code fork for the U.S. — and a code fork for non-U.S.? Well, yes, that could certainly be done but, as any dev will tell you, maintaining and keeping multiple code forks in sync is a pain in the rear. Not to mention a distribution problem. Red Hat, Canonical, and others would hypothetically need to make sure that they use the non-infringing code fork when distributing in the U.S. — or they could be sued. Because of the pain involved with that option, I just don’t see it happening. It’s far more likely that the Linux community would try to find a general solution that eliminates the infringement without requiring a code fork.
Fourth, what about liability? So, the Linux community modifies the source code to get rid of the infringement, but it still retains liability for the past infringement. Microsoft would presumably still want Red Hat and others to pay up and, if you’re pragmatic, it’s not that difficult to see why. For example, hypothetically, Red Hat’s investors made money from sales growth of a product that infringed on another company’s intellectual property. How far does the liability go? Could users be made to pay? In theory, anyone who uses the infringing code for any significant commercial purpose could be vulnerable. I don’t see Microsoft going after users, because it would be going after some of the same people that buy its primary commercial products (ie. Windows, Exchange, Office, etc). Who wants to derail that gravy train?
{For purposes of disclosure, I hold a number of patents.}
You do realise that OIN and the patent commons hold a number of patents in defense of Linux, don’t you? There will be a large number of those which are infringed by Microsoft/Windows. If Microsoft sue “Linux” over patents, “Linux” will countersue.
The OIN, for example, holds patents on Web access technologies that would cripple Microsoft’s whole desktop if it is infringed by Windows, which is more than likely. There are over 500 patents in the patent commons and a good many of those also could be made to stick.
The resulting pain for Windows will be much higher than for Linux.
For a start, for Linux there is prior art in ancient Unix and BSD, and in many hundreds of textbooks on Unix internals. The is also the IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin. There is a vast array of prior art and patent coverage for all of the primary design elememts of Linux.
Windows design, OTOH, is based on VMS, which is a proprietary system that Microsoft do not own …
Windows design started in collaboration with IBM, and Microsoft walked out of that collaboration presumably taking IBM IP with them …
{Fourth, what about liability? So, the Linux community modifies the source code to get rid of the infringement, but it still retains liability for the past infringement.}
Indeed, what about liability to countersuit? Microsoft will find it a lot harder to modify the code, and replacing existing copies of Windows will be impossible, so Microsoft will be liable for ongoing infringement, as well as past infringement.
{How far does the liability go? Could users be made to pay? In theory, anyone who uses the infringing code for any significant commercial purpose could be vulnerable.}
Now apply this exact same question to all Windows users in the US, who would be vulnerable to the countersuits.
{Who wants to derail that gravy train?}
Precisely. The countersuit would have the potential to make it illegal to use Windows in the US. This is why Microsoft will not sue Linux.
If Microsoft are not going to sue, then all their current harumphing about Linux and patents is just noise, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.
http://www.patentcommons.org/
http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/patents/disclosures.shtml
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/
Edited 2007-05-16 05:32
Huh, slinging fud is still considered by fanboy journalists in the realm of technology. Next article please. Maybe something relevant.
Apparently, Microsoft claiming patent infringement on Linux is like Ford trying to sue GM because GM makes cars that have tires and engines just like Ford does.
I hope no legal credence is given to those a**holes at Microsoft. I also hope that juvenile chump, Steve Ballmer, tries to push this all the way to the Supreme Court so the whole world can see, once again, how incompetent that moron is. Personally, I could care less about how much IP Microsoft “thinks” it has, the simple fact that it’s NOT patent infringement unless their code matches Linux line for line.
On a related note, shouldn’t Xerox should be suing everyone for using a GUI?
I also agree on the ruling that patents are issued way too readily. IMO, you should only be able to patent an idea if you’re able to produce a tangible equivalent.
Kevin talks about needing to integrate “patented” software for interoperability purposes. He makes the same argument as Novell to why they signed with MS: “the cross-licensing agreement that Novell signed with Microsoft, according to both Justin and Sam, was necessary as Novell required sanctioned access to Microsoft’s code in order to develop open source interoperability without violating MSFT’s IP.”
However, the European Commission found all but three out of ~100 software patents on Microsoft networking to be “obvious” and therefore not qualifying royalties. MS has refused to comply with their antitrust ruling since 2004 and is facing big fines and a possible structural remedy.
Why should GNU/Linux companies respect these bogus patents? To appease a convicted predatory monopolist with royalties (oops I mean “interoperability” money in Novell language) Sorry Kevin but it ain’t free software anymore if you have to violate the GPL and pay royalties.
http://boycottnovell.com/2006/11/24/what-about-the-ec-ruling/
http://eupat.ffii.org/07/03/mspat/
Neelie Kroes: “The commission’s current view is that there is no significant innovation in these protocols,” Kroes said. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/01/yourmoney/msft.php
Edited 2007-05-17 01:08
someone just wants to play with the big boys and make big-boy money and do those sneaky deals and stuff….ahh the joys of commercial linux