When Sun Microsystems releases Solaris as open-source software, it plans to provide legal protection from patent-infringement suits to outsiders using or developing the operating system–one of several ways Sun hopes to make Solaris more competitive with Linux. Elsewhere, Microsoft’s Ballmer warns Asia of Linux lawsuits.
Sun plans patent protection for Solaris; MS Warns Asia of Lawsuits
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
More FUD.
Hi,
Interesting article. Sun is suggesting that it will use its patent portfolio to protect OSS, similar to what Novell and RH are/will be doing. Of course, they will protect only protect their own interests/parties/allies, since they are, afterall, all companies.
bye,
victor
“Ballmer, speaking in Singapore at Microsoft’s Asian Government Leaders Forum, said that Linux violated more than 228 patents”
You have to wonder if Uncle Fester even knows which patents are allegedly being violated.
Looks like Balmer and friends are finally playing thier hand. I really doubt most Asian nations will be swayed though. Anyone for FUD soup???
Last I heard a lot of Asian nations cared about using legit copies of MS Windows as well
oh wait..
ballmer needs to take some time off… to go to the job centre to look for a new job.
http://kwiki.ffii.org/PolandDoesNotSupportCouncilVersionEn
hope it will last till the end. Ballmer and sco cannot sue in EU
Moreover a large amount of nations have no provisions for software patents and dont accept US office patents as valid throughout the wordl
Said he was only quoting a study by a company selling Linux lawsuit insurance(!) that on the basis of 283 issued but legally untested software patents, Linux (unclear if users or some other entity(ies)) could be subjected to lawsuits. Patent lawyers interviewed for the article I read said true, but so could virtually any other software makers, including MS.
Who own these other patents? Novell, HP, Sun, IBM, gulp SCO :b
Would these companies start sueing each other, or the little guys in the OSS business.
Who is selling to asian countries. Didn’t Sun have a win recently with JDS. Is it going to sue itself.
I admit I am not to knowledgeable in all this stuff, but the only thing that makes sense is that MS is the only who would sue.
“We think our software is far more secure than open-source software. It is more secure because we stand behind it, we fixed it, because we built it. Nobody ever knows who built open-source software,” he said.
Then the opensource community screamed at MS, “We built it!”
:b
Warning Asian Linux users of lawsuits is like warning Steve Ballmer of the dangers of obesity. It will only be ignored.
Clearly there’s no people involved in OSS… it just materializes out of thin air. Who knows where it comes from? For all we know, Linux is made by crazy Iranian hackers who wants to destroy America! Fear fear fear.
Trust Microsoft.
Go get them MS, show those asians that they should not be using CommieWare
I think Microsoft is well within its right to defend the patents it owns, and it should not let opensource Gangsters with strange unamerican ideals and smelly clothes stop them!
Said he was only quoting a study by a company selling Linux lawsuit insurance(!) that on the basis of 283 issued but legally untested software patents, Linux (unclear if users or some other entity(ies)) could be subjected to lawsuits.
Could you please provide me with a source? Thanks.
“We think our software is far more secure than open-source software. It is more secure because we stand behind it, we fixed it, because we built it. Nobody ever knows who built open-source software,” he added. ($1=1.646 Singapore Dollar)
I think we know who build OSS as much as we know who built MS software. At least we can see where, if any, IP violations happen in Open Source unlike in Closed Source.
“Could you please provide me with a source? Thanks.”
http://news.com.com/Group:+Linux+potentially+infringes+283+patents/…
however this report only says that it “may” infringe which is potentially fud and useless
Oh, dear looks like Mr. Ballmer has pushed a nerve with Gregory…(Tirade follows…)
First of all, ASIA with what 3-4 Billion over there, couldn’t care less about what Mr. Ballmer thinks.
Or the west for that matter, they have a pretty much a self sustaining economy with human potential off the charts.
Secondly, what country in thier right mind would join an organization as opressive as the WTO, who immediately stacks the deck against said country in competing markets such as software engineering through the use of patents on EVERYTHING, just to join.
I can tell everyone here, that if you think the Chinese are THAT STUPID, ain’t the kettle calling the pot black.
Right now the Chinese are doing quite well without the WTO. If you care to take a trip over there you will know what I mean. Prosperity is everywhere with tall steel glass buildings creating skylines that rival anything the westerners have on its coasts.
Finally, what an interesting stance. Most American companies are DIEING to get into the far east markets to expand beyond Ballmer’s precious little WTO markets. In fact Microsoft is even dumping its so called software engineering facilities in its “WTO USA Member based country” for India and China.
Doesn’t sound like Microsoft thinks to highly about the competitive advantage of creating anything inside a WTO country he so highly touts in his speech!
Reason? Microsoft and the West are PETRIFIED of China.
But, I do mean LITTLE WTO markets. The Chinese have everything Ballmer and the west want, and I find it very interesting American companies who are SOOOOOO out of touch to what is going on over in China have the balls to fly over there and say YOU WILL DO THIS OR ELSE you can’t be in our little WTO club or even when you join we will sue you….after all, thats how we make money we don’t actually make everything….we shipped all of that production/enginering OVER TO….
Oh…you guys…so sorry. Where was I, Oh yes, if you join we will sue you.
Wanna join the big WTO?
Anyone follow that logic?
Ballmer is an IDIOT.
What would YOU DO….stay in the WTO giving you access to markets that grow around 2% a year with enourmously huge costs due to patents and other garbage, or leave the WTO and patents behind and enter into an EVEN LARGER market with a 20% growth rate?
Ballmer is a total moron.
-gc
http://english.people.com.cn/200309/01/eng20030901_123485.shtml
http://ecoustics-cnet.com.com/A+Legend+in+the+making/2009-1001_3-94…
http://app1.chinadaily.com.cn/star/history/00-04-18/b06-search.html
I think its this one: Results of First-Ever Linux Patent Review Announced, Patent Insurance Offered http://www.osriskmanagement.com/press_releases/press_release_080204… not sure though, haven’t read this one. The same story was posted on Groklaw IIRC.
That’ is one of the problems with being astronomically wealthy.
You have a tendancy to believe your words to be gospel truth when everyone else see marketing FUD.
Isn’t the ratio of Chinese to all other nationalities something like 1 in every five individuals?
It all goes back to the same argument that I posed 2 years ago when I quoted this interview.
http://www.sslug.dk/patent/strassemeyer/transr-del.shtml
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=1770
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=3669&offset=15&rows=30
There is a problem with linux and patent. IBM knew that a long time ago. HP killed their linux distribution at the same time in 2002 as the leaked HP memo regarding this problem was written by their own legal staff. SUN found out about it when they kept on making their own linux distribution and then killing it later. RedHat knew about it a long time ago too — their SEC filings have been saying that for ages. Novell is using this problem to steal customers from RedHat because RedHat doesn’t have much patents on their own as a defence.
” IBM knew that a long time ago”
No. this is just your alleged opinion on the basis of unknown qualifiers
“leaked HP memo regarding this problem was written by their own legal staff”
nope. it talked MS threatening HP with it
“SUN found out about it when they kept on making their own linux distribution and then killing it later. ”
tell me they arent selling jds on top of linux and solaris
“their SEC filings have been saying that for ages.”
quote?
“RedHat because RedHat doesn’t have much patents on their own as a defence.”
you claim that on the basis of what?
Novell dosen’t do that. They don’t promote themselves of doing that anyway maybe some PR from some execs but no company promise!
http://www.novell.com/company/policies/patent/
>>>No. this is just your alleged opinion on the basis of unknown qualifiers
Dr. Strassemeyer is a Senior Technical Staff Member by the IBM Corporate Technical Board — he (and other senior scientists and engineers) personally briefs IBM’s CEO and all the senior VP’s at IBM and together they come up with their strategic business plans.
http://www.linuxforum.dk/2002/program/abstracts/karl-heinz-strassem…
They all got the same memo from IBM lawyers — Houston, there is a problem.
>>>nope. it talked MS threatening HP with it
Nope — the memo talked about how HP and Microsoft made a deal on patent cross-licensing. In the process of negotiating with Microsoft — senior HP executives were made aware that HP didn’t even have a corporate wide legal review in place with linux and GPL software, yet HP uses them in their products.
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/07/19/2315200
Isn’t it a big coincidence that after their corporate wide legal review — that HP killed their own linux distribution.
>>>tell me they arent selling jds on top of linux and solaris
SUN made a deal with SuSE to use SuSE Desktop Linux 1.0 for JDS. SUN is not making their own linux distribution for JDS. SUN went from making their own linux distribution —- to using RedHat linux on their server hardware and using SuSE linux on JDS. Suddenly all the big IT players are afraid of making their own linux distribution.
<<<“their SEC filings have been saying that for ages.”
>>>quote?
“We are vulnerable to claims that our products infringe third-party intellectual property rights because our products are comprised of distinct software components, many of which are developed by numerous independent parties, and an adverse legal decision affecting our intellectual property could materially harm our business.
We are vulnerable to claims that our products infringe third-party intellectual property rights including trade secrets because our products are comprised of distinct software components, many of which are developed by numerous independent parties. Claims for infringement of intellectual property rights may be filed and may seek damages and injunctive relief. The risk of infringement claims is exacerbated by the fact that much of the code in our products is developed by numerous independent parties over whom we exercise no supervision or control. It is further exacerbated by our lack of access to unpublished software patent applications. Claims of infringement could require us to seek to obtain licenses from third parties in order to continue offering our products, reengineer our products, or discontinue the sale of our products in the event that obtaining licences and reengineering could not be accomplished on a timely and cost effective basis.”
http://www.hoovers.com/free/co/secdoc.xhtml?ipage=3031764&doc=0&att…
<<<“RedHat because RedHat doesn’t have much patents on their own as a defence.”
>>>you claim that on the basis of what?
I am claiming that Novell is using this claim to try to steal RedHat’s customers. SuSE is safe because Novell has a bunch of patents. RedHat doesn’t. Not my claim — this is what Novell is trying to do.
Uncle Fester (aka Steve Ballmer) keep shelling out the FUD, everyone knows that M$ is a sinking whale?!
mv * > /dev/null
>>>Uncle Fester (aka Steve Ballmer) keep shelling out the FUD, everyone knows that M$ is a sinking whale?!
Or you can argue that Microsoft knew about this problem 2 years ago and tried to warn you. Kinda like public service announcements warning you not to drink and drive.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/18/ms_exec_rattles_sabre_sugge…
And you can argue that IBM knew about this problem since 1999 (the Strassemeyer interview stated that Linus was invited to see the linux demo in 1999 when IBM lawyers stepped in) — and not tell you about it. And IBM worked around all these legal nuclear bombs and made billions of dollars off of it. And ordinary linux users are unknowingly holiding the nuclear bombs — because IBM knew but didn’t tell you about it.
“They all got the same memo from IBM lawyers — Houston, there is a problem. ”
hmm. IBM is still redistributing linux and related software.so any patents on these would still affect. same as with sun and hp because they distribute suse and debian respectively. You need to understand that every *redistributor* is subjected to legal issues regardless of whether they own or develop the software.
”
“We are vulnerable to claims that our products infringe third-party intellectual property rights because our products are comprised of distinct software components, many of which are developed by numerous independent parties, and an adverse legal decision affecting our intellectual property could materially harm our business. ”
this is a standard warning even to SUN. they were recently attacked by kodak that java infringes their patents. also MS recently settled with novell for similar claims. Sun and MS have a cross licensing agreement settlement for similar cliams. This is by no means unique to opensource software or Linux.
In fact the whole concept of US office giving software patents at this rate is fatally flawed and therein lies the real problem. fortunately EU might be saved from this thanks lately to poland
>>>IBM is still redistributing linux and related software.so any patents on these would still affect. You need to understand that every *redistributor* is subjected to legal issues regardless of whether they own or develop the software.
The issue is that even IBM lawyers don’t know the exact legal definition of “distribution” (from the interview I quoted) — I doubt that you would understand what “redistributor” means. Technically IBM can structure all the transactions so that you purchase RedHat linux from Redhat — thus IBM’s hands are clean.
>>>In fact the whole concept of US office giving software patents at this rate is fatally flawed and therein lies the real problem. fortunately EU might be saved from this thanks lately to poland
Fatally flawed or not — IBM crafted a carefully thought out business plan to make money on linux and open source software.
“I doubt that you would understand what “redistributor” means. Technically IBM can structure all the transactions so that you purchase RedHat linux from Redhat — thus IBM’s hands are clean. ”
trust me. it doesnt entirely work that way. IBM has directly shipped Linux stuff including samba
“Fatally flawed or not — IBM crafted a carefully thought out business plan to make money on linux and open source software.”
which isnt relevant to what we are talking about afaik. IBM is just one company which does this.
IMHO cygnus was much more innovative here with open source business than IBM
>>>trust me. it doesnt entirely work that way. IBM has directly shipped Linux stuff including samba
That doesn’t make them a “distributor” — you are trying to use everyday term of “distributor” like IBM is shipping you a piece of furniture. “Distribution” and “distributor” are legal terms within the GPL licence — that even IBM lawyers don’t have a clue what they mean.
>>>IMHO cygnus was much more innovative here with open source business than IBM
RedHat/Cygnus was outplayed by IBM’s eclipse project.
You should read this little quote:
“The Linux and other open source Program(s) that were packaged with, or preloaded onto, the IBM computer system you are accessing are licensed SUSE GMBH or Red Hat Inc., or other distributors of open source Programs. IBM is not a distributor of the Linux or other open source Programs, but is merely a conduit through which these companies license open source Programs. You receive no express or implied patent or other license from IBM with respect to Linux and other open source Programs.”
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/enable/site/testdrive/j2eewas/agree.ht…
“”Distribution” and “distributor” are legal terms within the GPL licence — that even IBM lawyers don’t have a clue what they mean. ”
why not. anybody who is distributing software proactively is a “distributor”. this has been legally well defined atleast as far patent risk analysis is concerned. I am pretty sure the robust legal team with IBM has very clearly told IBM what it can do with GPL’ed software. otherwise IBM isnt going to put developers on the kernel
“RedHat/Cygnus was outplayed by IBM’s eclipse project.”
slightly misleading. cygnus had originally a very different model from redhat as far as forming a business around open source software is concerned. the fact that they were bought by redhat later doesnt change it. thats why the cygnus guy is the vp of open source affairs in redhat even now. IBM played it out in a risk free basis because they had other revenue sources. they could afford to totally dumb eclipse if necessary and move on. besides the need for a IDE such as eclipse was very much evident compared to the stuff that cygnus was playing out on purely free software. granted that redhat did follow a similar practise but Linux had the hype to trust it atleast compared to gcc which very few people actually appreciate for its immense value as the basis for all free/open source os including but limited to linux and freebsd. we are getting too much offtopic here thou
Read the above quote — IBM specifically tells you that they are not distributing anything.
>>>slightly misleading. cygnus had originally a very different model from redhat as far as forming a business around open source software is concerned.
>>>IBM played it out in a risk free basis because they had other revenue sources.
Cygnus’ embedded business (embedded linux and ecos) — was a total disaster. Cygnus spends the money on maintaining gcc and other tools, but with eclipse — any company (even non-linux companies like QNX and Wind River) can make money off of gcc tools. Cygnus’s consulting business — went no where under Redhat’s management.
I like how you agree with me that IBM play it out “risk free”, getting all these billions of dollars from linux, not sitting on patent infringement time bomb — yet you argue with me that somehow I was wrong to say that IBM has a carefully crafted linux business plan.
An oldie, but a goodie.
In response to Ballmer’s comments today that Linux “violates more than 228 patents”, Dan Ravicher, Lead Patent Counsel for OSRM, had the following comments:
“There are no patents that are only infringed by free/open source software, because patents are infringed by specific structure that accomplishes specific functionality. Patents don’t care how the infringing article is distributed, be it under an open source license, a proprietary license, or not at all. Whether and how software is distributed makes no difference. The bottom line, then, is that there’s no reason to believe that Windows, Unix-based or any other functionally similar operating system has any less risk of infringing patents than GNU/Linux does.
“Ballmer makes a very bold statement by saying ‘Linux infringes hundreds of patents’, because that is extremely different from saying ‘Linux potentially infringes X patents,’ as the requirement to prove infringement is much stiffer and more difficult than the requirement to simply file a case claiming infringement. As the SCO saga shows, filing a case based on an allegation is one thing, proving the merits of the allegation in court is something completely different.
“The point of the OSRM study, which found that Linux potentially infringes 283 un-tested patents, while not infringing a single court-validated patent, was to (i) confirm what everyone in the open source community already knew, that open source software is not immune from the perils of the patent system, where common software can be potentially infringed by hundreds of patents while most pharmaceuticals are only potentially infringed by a couple, (ii) reinforce the fact that the patent system provides patent holders with means to harass open source software with claims of patent infringement, just as they harass proprietary software, if they want to, and (iii) show that although the patent system may negatively impact open source software, it won’t have a larger negative impact on open source software than it already has on proprietary software.
“In the end, not a single open source software program has ever been sued for patent infringement, much less be found to infringe, while proprietary software, like Windows, is sued and found guilty of patent infringement quite frequently. For examples we have Eolas’ patent being infringed by Windows and Kodak’s patent being infringed by Java. If one believes the proof is in the pudding, that stark contrast shows how open source software has much less to worry about from patents than proprietary software, although the system is still such that there are issues for everyone to be concerned about.”
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041118224916429
There is one point that always seems to be left out. We are talking about Open Source. Take a good look at that. If Microsoft wants to sue and stop people from using thier “stolen code”, they would have to not only kill the companies involved, but anybody that has seen that code. This is one war that Microsoft is not going to win. Small as it might be, Open Source is never going to just dissapear because somebody wants it to.
E
“We think our software is far more secure than open-source software. It is more secure because we stand behind it, we fixed it, because we built it. Nobody ever knows who built open-source software,” he added.
Question: Who developed Windows NT?
Answer: Engineers from Digital Equipment Corporation
Question: Who developed Internet Explorer
Answer: Spyglass Inc. who licensed the browser to MS
Question: Who developed Microsoft Office?
Answer: Word and Excel are from MS but PowerPoint from Bob Gaskins.
Question: Who developed Linux?
Answer: less /usr/src/kernel-source-2.6.9/CREDITS
“Nobody ever knows who built open-source software”
I’m convinced that OSS has been created by penguin shaped aliens coming from outer space.
>>>If Microsoft wants to sue and stop people from using thier “stolen code”, they would have to not only kill the companies involved, but anybody that has seen that code. This is one war that Microsoft is not going to win.
You missed the point that it’s not Microsoft that is doing the suing. It’s the “eolas” type of 1 man company with 1 patent that is doing the law suits.
With regard to OSRM’s position, it’s more or less compatible to Microsoft’s position.
Even if you look at trophy linux case studies (like linux deployment at shipping giant UPS) — there are signs of UPS doing a very careful deployment in light of these concerns.
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=51…
UPS has to establish a centralized software clearing department — where they work with their internal legal staff to pre-approve every single open sourced software before they actually can use it. If say a new version of some open sourced software switch to a different open source license — then they need to seek approval once again. Nobody within UPS can even download or copy or work on any open-sourced code within asking for legal approval.
UPS has to hire all these extra people to do central clearing and on top of that they may have to buy linux insurance from OSRM. You add these extra costs up — your total cost of ownership structure just go up by a big margin.
UPS has to hire all these extra people to do central clearing and on top of that they may have to buy linux insurance from OSRM. You add these extra costs up — your total cost of ownership structure just go up by a big margin.
But if you’re UPS, it’s probably cheaper to hire a dozen lawyers to check on OSS than to license 100,000 copies of MS Windows, Office, etc.
>>>But if you’re UPS, it’s probably cheaper to hire a dozen lawyers to check on OSS than to license 100,000 copies of MS Windows, Office, etc.
Not really.
You still have to pay for OSS software licenses. You still have to pay for OSS support contracts. You still have to pay for your internal clearing house staff (which is a combination of IT staff and legal staff). You may still want to buy OSRM insurance. You still have to train all your workers to use OSS software (and other migrating costs).
Note the resemblance of Steve Balmer to Dick Cheney, he saw that a pissed off angry little ideologue spewing a bunch of lies and half truths in thinly veiled unsubstantiated threats can do to gain voter share and thought it might work for market share too.
This is all smoke-and-mirrors.
If Redmond knows a certain operating system, say, Linux, has code that is being infringed upon and Redmond does not enforce it, Redmond looses the code.
So af a company is willing to post its proprietary code and fails to protects its alleged intellectual property via a patent, which is, ironically, is a public post of said code, such an act would allow said code to fall into the public domain.
I am sure Asia was quaking. More-than-likely, they all said something akin to, “Stupid American”.
>>>If Redmond knows a certain operating system, say, Linux, has code that is being infringed upon and Redmond does not enforce it, Redmond looses the code.
Just look at the LZW patent, CompuServe and Unisys waited until the GIF format (which is based on LZW compression) to become popular — and then they started charging $$$ on their patent.
>>>So af a company is willing to post its proprietary code and fails to protects its alleged intellectual property via a patent, which is, ironically, is a public post of said code, such an act would allow said code to fall into the public domain.
That’s not the worry. The worry is that company A posts codes and patches to open source projects and those open source projects accepted the patches. But the problem is that both company A and the open source projects do not know that another company, company B, already have patents on that technology.
Not really.
You still have to pay for OSS software licenses. You still have to pay for OSS support contracts. You still have to pay for your internal clearing house staff (which is a combination of IT staff and legal staff). You may still want to buy OSRM insurance. You still have to train all your workers to use OSS software (and other migrating costs).
That is not true. We did a large migration at the US governent agency I work for.
If you have a clearing house to Vet the code then most likely those people that vet the code are also developers and can work on it and support it. (No need for support contracts unless you want them) Another instance of this is the Howard County MD public Libary which went from Windows 98 and NT to Linux and developed their own version in house.
http://www.newsforge.com/os/04/05/03/1520209.shtml It has saved them 1000’s and 1000’s of dollars! They already had in house developers they just put them to work on Linux and OSS apps. No extra money, and they share their version of Linux with other cities and counties (And countries) to do the same thing.
Some people will buy red hat and buy a support license etc. But that will still save you money because a lot of OSS apps like PHP, Open Office, My SQL etc are free. Now add up the cost of useing Microsoft versions of these same apps? (And yes I know I can use Windows and use the apps I just named on Windows.)
Plus most companies have lawyers sitting around doing nothing anyway, so you just find someone in their firm that does patent work and give them something to do.
If you look at the Howard County case study, they didn’t vet anything. They use the free OpenOffice (instead of paying for StarOffice) — which isn’t protected by the SUN-Microsoft cross patent deal. And their real “cost saving” is delaying buying new hardware.
As for your large government migration. Well if you are the US government — you pretty much don’t need insurance. If you have large number of IT staff around and if you have a large number legal staff around — maybe. So linux is for enterprise business, the rest of us is screwed (and if you are large enough to be an enterprise business — then you also are large enough to negotiate with microsoft to lower their prices directly).
As a small “c” conservative (as in small government) — I don’t want the Howard County to hire another bunch of civil servants to do central vetting (each with generous government benefits) or that the City of Munich making a “make job” project out of helping local Munich IT businesses. I mean even the munich politicians will tell you that switching to linux is a little bit more expensive up front but we are going to generate local jobs. I mean if politicians tell you it’s a little bit more expensive — then you know that the final tab is going to be enmormous.