Slashdot Log In
MS-Sun Agreement Leaves Opening For OO.org Suits
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Sep 15, 2004 12:08 PM
from the on-what-basis-is-unclear dept.
from the on-what-basis-is-unclear dept.
newentiti writes "We all know Microsoft paid $900,000,000.00 to Sun and they also signed a LIMITED PATENT COVENANT AND STAND-STILL AGREEMENT. The agreement basically states that Microsoft will not sue Sun for any patents for the next 10 years and vice versa. What's really interesting is that according to this story the agreement had a special provision that lets Microsoft sue anybody, including Sun, over OpenOffice.org. I wonder what Microsoft had in mind?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Lawsuits ala Lindows (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lawsuits ala Lindows (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Lawsuits ala Lindows (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Lawsuits ala Lindows (Score:4, Informative)
Not true.
You specifically can NOT patent an idea. You can on;y patent methods of imnplementing an idea. Your patent must describe in detail everything necesasry to recreate your specific implementation (although you can cover many different implementations of the same idea within the one patent).
That is why patents describe "A method for blah blah blah" - it's the methods which are patented, not the concept of blah blah blah itself.
A subtle but VERY important difference.
Parent
Re:Lawsuits ala Lindows (Score:5, Informative)
Nope, that's how trade secrets work. A patent is a state-granted artificial monopoly on a certain device/technique/whatever that applies regardless of how any other party develops it. This is why patents are not secret -- in fact, anything you patent must be published and available to the public (IIRC, this includes source code or at least pseudocode for software patents).
If I have a trade secret (which, along with copyright, were the "traditional" ways software IP was protected), I have legal protection against corporate espionage and certain types of reverse engineering. But, if someone develops a device or technique that duplicates my trade secret on his own, he can use it. This is in contrast to a patent, where I must give all of my competitors the specifications of my device or technique in return for legal protection from their implementing such a device or technique without a license from me.
Parent
Re:Lawsuits ala Lindows (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Lawsuits ala Lindows (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Lawsuits ala Lindows (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Lawsuits ala Lindows (Score:5, Informative)
I believe the big issue was with the patented LZW compression algorithm that GIF uses rather than the file format itself. Here's the first link [cloanto.com] I found on Google.
Parent
Re:File format's not patentable? Better tell Adobe (Score:4, Informative)
Method and apparatus for viewing electronic documents
>5,737,599
Method and apparatus for downloading multi-page electronic documents with hint information
>5,781,785
Method and apparatus for providing an optimized document file of multiple pages
Etc,etc. They're patents relating to the use and distribution of pdfs, rather than the format of the file itself.
Parent
Re:Lawsuits ala Lindows (Score:4, Insightful)
"I'd been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob spends so much time and energy shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong, Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it; Bob's problem is that he can't sell it. We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections."
Replace Bob Rumson with Microsoft, and you have a clear match.
Parent
Re:Lawsuits ala Lindows (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Objective (Score:3, Funny)
Why, global domination, of course!
Re:Objective (Score:5, Funny)
Well I think so, Brain, but didn't SCO already patent that way of doing business?
Parent
Perhaps... (Score:3, Funny)
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say, perhaps, suing?
Hardly "funny"... (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft make money from exactly TWO products. Windows, and MSOffice.
Windows is under fierce attack from internet malware on the consumer desktop, and Linux in the enterprise. MSOffice is being eroded by the unbreakable OOo.
I said this a while ago when Microsoft and Sun announced their happy settlement: the goal is to squash OOo. SCO and Lindows demonstrated that lawsuits are not just about recovering damages: the mere threat of litigation is enough to kill a product.
OOo will not survive a SCO. It's not got enough grip yet. Microsoft must realize this.
So: they will use a stick and a carrot. The stick: lawsuits against prominent OOo developers for patent infringement. The carrot: MSOffice for Linux. I predict within the next 6 months, since every day that OOo is free makes it harder for MS to squash it.
And then... patents to make sure no-one can ever write a free office application again.
"Illegal software" is going to take on a whole new meaning by this time next year.
Parent
Re:Hardly "funny"... (Score:5, Insightful)
MS Office for Linux is not going to happen. Microsoft's power comes through control of the desktop platform. If they ran office on Linux, a lot of people would lose their only reason for sticking with Windows. Besides, the vast majority of people using OOo are using it on Windows, not Linux.
Sure their desktop is under assault from Internet malware but has this eroded their market share in the slightest? No. As long as the applications people want to run only run on Windows then Microsoft will continute to dominate the market. I hate Windows but I run it at home because the games I play don't run on Linux. As for Malware, I'm behind a firewall, and I don't use IE or Outlook so what do I care.
Parent
My USian friend... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
OOo = "Open Office" ! (Score:5, Insightful)
The agreement refers to 'the product developed by Sun and commonly known as "Open Office"' and this most certainly refers to Openoffice.org.
The name "openoffice.org" was chosen because "open office" was trademarked by some other company, but not for software.
Parent
Hardly seems sinister (Score:5, Insightful)
Sinister? Or SNL plot? (Score:5, Funny)
The rest states that Sun has to give Microsoft legal aid in bringing lawsuits against users of Open Office. Also, Microsoft will pay Sun a confidential sum for its troubles for providing that legal aid.
So, MS can sue Sun for using OO, and require Sun to help MS sue Sun, but then MS has to pay Sun for such aid???
That series of stories could be almost as entertaining as te SCO Follies!
Parent
Possible Simple Explanation (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, I this is Microsoft and their legal actions have rarely been that benign in the past.
Office is their cash cow obviously (Score:3, Insightful)
Sec Doc (Score:3, Informative)
Holy #$#@$ (Score:3, Insightful)
Jesus Christ. How hard is it to use simpler terms if you don't know that the *complex* ones mean? Lets atleast try to keep it a little professional editors. Please.
Re:Holy #$#@$ (Score:5, Informative)
vice/vix is latin for position. I don't think visa is anything in latin, or if it is I don't think it would make sense.
No dictionary lists 'visa versa' or 'visa verse'. Most of them list 'vice versa'. I wish I knew why so many people say/spell 'visa'. (I'm guessing they say "vice-uh", and think it's spelled 'visa'. but in english visa would be 'vee-za')
Here's a hint to everyone. Whenever you use a word or phrase, even a simple one you've used since you were a child. Look up it's meaning. It only takes a few minutes and you can use language more effectively if you have a more precise idea of a word's meaning. If you do this consistently, when you go to look up "visa versa" and find it's not there you'd realize the mistake.
Parent
Re:Holy #$#@$ (Score:4, Funny)
Jesus Christ. How hard is it to use simpler terms if you don't know that the *complex* ones mean? Lets atleast try to keep it a little professional editors. Please.
OpenOffice.org software download: free
Patent agreement between Sun and Microsoft: $900,000,000
Getting flamed by an AC for misspelling "vice": priceless
There are some things money can't buy. For everything else, there's visa versa.
Parent
MS Earth (Score:4, Funny)
Rebranding the planet Microsoft Earth [microsoft.com]®
Re:MS Earth (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:MS Earth (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:MS Earth (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Change the name (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Change the name (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Change the name (Score:5, Funny)
IANAL
With reasoning like that, you should be! I think you could really help SCO's case.
Parent
legal strategy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Its pretty obvious that Microsoft wants to preserve their right to sue, but I'm surprised that the deal with sun provides an exception. If the two agree that there is a real prospect of Microsoft winning a suit over OpenOffice.org, I would think that Sun would want to be protected and would have held out until Microsoft agreed. And I would think that Microsoft would have agreed, if they really wanted the deal with Sun, perhaps with the likely damages subtracted from Microsoft's payment to Sun. So what this suggests to me is that Microsoft's legal strategy involves a suit in which for some reason it would be difficult to avoid naming Sun as a defendant but in which Sun does not anticipate actually have to pay any significant damages or litigation expenses. I'm not sure how this situation would arise - maybe a situation in which MS has to name everybody initially but would then drop Sun as a defendant after discovery?
Could be... (Score:5, Interesting)
What could happen is this...
I remember reading that MSFT was going to tie some DRM into future versions of office... only "authorized" people could view documents. You'd, of course, need a MSFT policy server somewhere on your network to make sure you could set these permissions, and view documents, and all that good stuff...
If OpenOffice decided to reverse engineer this, the loophole lets MSFT sue them.
Does anyone remember the good old days when you could save your Word 6 doc, open it in WordPefect, and work on it there? Or, hell, when you could save your GeoWrite document, open it it Word Writer, and work on it there? What the hell happened?
Server melting... (Score:5, Informative)
According to the recently released financial documents to the SEC, besides the 900,000,000.00 being paid to Sun, a LIMITED PATENT COVENANT AND STAND-STILL AGREEMENT was also enacted.
IV. PROVISIONS RELATING TO OPEN OFFICE
1. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Agreement, with respect solely to the product developed by Sun and generally known as Open Office, the Covenants of Section II above and the Releases of Section III above shall apply fully to Sun but shall not apply to Authorized Licensees of Open Office or any other third party. Accordingly, Microsoft shall not be foreclosed by this Agreement from seeking damages from Authorized Licensees of Open Office for copies of Open Office made or acquired prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement. Nor shall Microsoft be foreclosed from seeking any damages from Sun, its Affiliates, Authorized Licensees or any third party for any copies of Open Office made or deployed by a User after the Effective Date.
So basically, while Microsoft will not sue Sun for any patents for the next 10 years and visa versa (Cross Licensing Agreement). Microsoft can sue anybody, including Sun over Open Office (Sun's Star Office is protected). This is probably as close as Microsoft can legally get to buying Open Office.
The rest states that Sun has to give Microsoft legal aid in bringing lawsuits against users of Open Office. Also, Microsoft will pay Sun a confidential sum for its troubles for providing that legal aid.
2. In the event that Microsoft elects to sue or otherwise seek recovery from an Authorized Licensee of Open Office for copies thereof that were made and deployed by a User prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement ("Deployed Copies"), upon request, Microsoft agrees to promptly reimburse Sun for any reimbursable Damages. Sun shall promptly notify Microsoft of any Claim, shall provide Microsoft with the opportunity to take control over and responsibility for the defense and/or settlement of such Claim, and shall reasonably cooperate with Microsoft in litigating the defense of such Claim, including in all discovery and trial preparation efforts. Microsoft will not have any obligation to reimburse Reimbursable Damages unless Sun abides by the foregoing requirements. Microsoft shall also be relieved of its obligation to reimburse Reimbursable Damages if Sun breaches any warranty in Section VII.4. As a condition to accepting control and responsibility for such defense, Microsoft shall acknowledge in writing that such third party claim constitutes a "Claim" and, as such, would give rise to Reimbursable Damages if determined adversely. In the event that Microsoft accepts control and responsibility for such defense, Sun shall be entitled to participate in such defense at its own cost. "Claim" means any claim that Sun is liable to indemnify or otherwise reimburse any Authorized Licensee or third party for damages it has been ordered to pay by final judgment or settlement arising from a claim asserted by Microsoft against such Authorized Licensee or third party that any Deployed Copy of Open Office infringes any patent of Microsoft. "Reimbursable Damages" means the amount of any adverse final judgment awarded by a court of competent jurisdiction, or Microsoft approved settlement, against Sun that is based on the Claim.
3. The Parties acknowledge that the product currently marketed by Sun as Star Office shall not be affected by this Section IV.
LIMITED PATENT COVENANT AND STAND-STILL AGREEMENT [sec.gov]
FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
OpenOffice is nothing to do with Sun surely?... (Score:5, Insightful)
One could equally say the agreement left open the possibility of suing people over Linux, or indeed washing machines.
I doubt Sun wants to enmesh itself as responsible for washing machines anymore that they would OpenOffice... yes I understand where OpenOffice comes from, but ask yourself if you;d want blurry lines if you were Sun.
Perhaps the spin on the reportage is a little askew. I'm not sure one can infer any intent on Microsofts part.... unless of course MS are planning on suing makers of washing machines.
visa versa? (Score:5, Funny)
visa versa? is that like the back side of your credit card?
Open Office vs. OpenOffice.org (Score:4, Insightful)
war of attrition (Score:5, Insightful)
no quarter, no mercy, just cut em off completely, send msft to the recycle bin of history forever...
msft is not to be trusted under any circumstances...
this has already been done both in my office and at home...
It may be reasonable after all (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not a troll. I don't like Micro$haft but I don't see this as the evil, bad thing everyone else says it is.
What it will eventually boil down to is, how do they utilize (if they do) this provision?
Visa versa (Score:5, Funny)
I can see the VISA ad: "Because Microsoft won't take American Express"
This clause doesn't apply (Score:5, Insightful)
According to one of the posts in the article [linuxelectrons.com], there is no such product called "Open Office" (4th post down as of 9/15/2004 6:00 GMT). The product mentioned in the agreement (legally speaking) may or may not refer to OpenOffice.org, which is what the news story is referencing. Why can a news story get it wrong and not a legal contract? Because legalese is all about semantics. News stories don't have to be to have a Slashdot discussion.
The post in question states:
This is stated here [openoffice.org], in the Trademark section (which they claim was last updated 2003-07).Did Sun's legal department pull one over on MSFT's legal department? Was it a mistake? Was Oo.o defined earlier and then said "referred to herein as 'Open Office'"? Was the agreement between Sun and Microsoft dated before the official communication of Oo.o? I don't know, but it appears to be pretty clever, and raises some intriguing questions.
One way or the other, this won't stop me from deploying Oo.o. It's an excellent product, and saves $400 per PC (nearly 40% of the cost of a complete system).
Re:This clause doesn't apply (Score:4, Insightful)
No, and you should become very very worried if any judge lets you spend more than 30 seconds arguing it. If he does it's probably because he's already decided to rip your case apart limb by limb and is just looking for an excuse to stomp it into a bloody pulp and shove it down your throat one spoonfull at a time. Chuckle.
A contract is an agreement of good faith intent. You, me, the judge, everyone at Sun, everyone at Microsoft, and everyone here on Slashdot knows that the item "referred to herein as 'Open Office'" is clear and obvious refference to Sun's OpenOffice.org. Any attempt by Sun to argue that the use of "Open Office" was a trick refference designed to deceive Microsoft would place Sun in a position of bad faith. Every other term and clause in the contract would then likely be interpreted in the light least favorable to Sun.
For similar reasons, when there is a real and reasonable confusion in the meaning of a contract written by only one side (such as EULA's), those terms are generally interpreted in favor of the person who did not write the contract. You can't write confusing terms and then claim ownership of any car that uses your parking service.
-
Parent
Here is the plan... (Score:4, Insightful)
When and if Microsoft unleashes its patent war against open source in general, against Linux and OpenOffice in particular, Sun and all customers of Sun will be immune.
Thus, Sun will be the only company allowed to sell Linux and OpenOffice, aka, StarOffice and will be Linux's sole distributor.
What does Microsoft get out of the deal? First, Microsoft does NOT want Linux destroyed. It needs to have at least the appearance of competition to keep government regulators off its back. That competition will come from Sun.
Second, Linux will be greatly hobbled because instead of the entire world working on Linux, there will be only one source with which to compete.
Basically, Microsoft will destroy Linux but keep the appearance of healthy competition in the marketplace.
Microsoft XML Schema Patent (Score:5, Informative)
There is one obvious reason for this clause that I can think of off of the top of my head. Microsoft Office XP has a feature by which Office documents can be saved in an XML format. Obviously, this means that the information in the resulting Microsoft Office generated files is not as obfuscated as it is in a binary format (provided key information isn't just base64 encoded into elements). Microsoft knows this feature can negate the lock-in to
Microsoft has patented their XML schemas. In order to write software that uses these Microsoft Office XML schemas, you must sign a patent license with Microsoft [microsoft.com].
Obviously, OOo will want to be able to open these new Microsoft Office XML formatted files similar to its support for the
Other companies make derivatives of OOo too (Red Hat, Novell/Ximian, BSDMall), individuals like myself, and even just translators non-Sun builds for mainline platforms who don't program at all. The Sun-MS agreement says that Sun's patent licensing for the Office Schemas does not apply to any OOo derivatives or builds that are done outside of Sun. Either all of these companies and individuals need to sign the Patent License Agreement with Sun or else they are open to lawsuits from Microsoft and potentially pay royalties to Microsoft in the future to use their schema.
It's really another clever way Microsoft has come up with to continue to ensure their file formats remain closely guarded and their own property.
As to whether a patent of an XML Schema can stand up in court, well, I know I personally as a single developer don't have the kind of money to challenge Microsoft on patent litigation if they sue me as an individual. Unfortunatley I have neither the time nor the skills to scrutinize all of Sun's contributions to OpenOffice.org's source code to see if they use Microsoft's patents in such a way that's legal for them, but not legal for me. I either must take my chances or stop being a non-Sun developer of OpenOffice.org. Unfortunately now any non-Sun entity working on OOo has to make that choice for themselves.
ed
Re:It is simple - FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, no. Companies that go for market share often lose sight of the most important thing: profitability. Granted, getting the most market share can lead to economies of scale, but the costs to get that market share (from reduced prices, marketing expenses, etc.) can easily swallow any increase in profits. This is one of the reasons why slashing prices to gain market share almost always results in lower profits.
Smart, successful companies know when to walk away from market share in order to maintain profitability. Dumb ones blindly go for the "sell at a loss and make it up on volume" mantra.
Parent
Re:That's a April's fool joke (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent