Slashdot Log In
Author of Linux Patent Study Contradicts Ballmer
Posted by
michael
on Sun Nov 21, 2004 03:40 PM
from the that's-unpossible dept.
from the that's-unpossible dept.
An anonymous reader sends us this EWeek story, following-up on the recent Linux patent scare. The author of the patent study is contacted, and says, "Open source faces no more, if not less, legal risk than proprietary software. The market needs to understand that the study Microsoft is citing actually proves the opposite of what they claim it does."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Aww, man (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Aww, man (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
Study concludes A.
MS decides B.
MS distributes B across the globe, everyone repeats. End of story.
No new study required.
Parent
Re:Not really (Score:5, Interesting)
MS distributes B across the globe, everyone repeats. End of story.
this reminds me of the whole "total cost of ownership" campaign ms ran a few months ago, whereby ms claimed that the tco of microsoft server solution was cheaper, overall, than the linux equivalent.
well, i downloaded the pdf of the study and read the whole damn thing. the bottom line: the ms solution was cheaper... if you factored in the "retraining costs" required to move your "existing i.t. staff" to use linux.
the devil, of course, was in the unspoken assumption that you are already running an ms shop. more correctly stated: the tco of your current system is cheaper than moving to a new system over the short or, potentially, medium term.
now, since ms still has the lion's share of the desktop and workstation installs and a healthy chunk of the server space they maybe could be forgiven for glossing over this crucial fact. but, still, it just boils down to making a simple unstated assumption that changes the whole outcome of the data.
Parent
Re:Not really (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately this is a trend that is increasing in our society, one takes a fact or group of facts out of context and uses that to prove something.
Parent
Re:Not really (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not really (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not really (Score:5, Funny)
My god
Parent
That's why TCO does not include migration costs. (Score:5, Insightful)
TCO only covers daily operation costs, upgrades, air conditioning, employees, etc.
All of the migration costs go under the category of "migration costs".
Otherwise, it is easy to increase the "TCO" of any other product to any amount you want by "assuming" that the company in the example will be running your product and that it will cost $X to migrate from your product.
$X includes all data migration costs, educational expenses, etc. So, you "estimate" that it will cost $500/person/hour to "re-train" the existing staff. If that isn't enough, then "estimate" that it will cost $750/person/hour to "re-train".
You can do the same with the data migration costs. If the company selling Product A needs Product B to be $100,000 more expensive, just "assume" that the example company will be running Product A and then "estimate" that it will cost $100,000 to migrate the data to Product B.I don't think so. They can add whatever costs they want to the migration cost amount, but they won't ever split it out correctly.
Otherwise, people could easily see that other solutions are far less expensive to run
Parent
Re:Not really (Score:4, Interesting)
That's an angle I haven't thought of before: The "independent" M$ studies demonstrates that once you start to use M$ tech, it becomes costly to switch. The study actually shows the cost of exercising your freedom to switch to an alternate supplier once you have been entangled in M$ lock-in tech.
Parent
Re:Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more like:
Study concludes A
MS decides that A is bad and tells everone about it.
It's certainly disingenuous of them to change "potentially" to "does." But other than that they really aren't contradicting the study. This just falls under the category of "lies, damn lies, and statistics"
Parent
What? (Score:5, Funny)
Sue-ability (Score:5, Interesting)
While I am glad that OSS hasn't been suded yet, I think it's a bit immature to use this as a defence. First of all, you don't need to actually do anything wrong to be sued, and usually you're sued because you're making enough money that the plantiff might take a bite of it, or you have conflict of interest with the plantiff.
Wasn't it not long ago we read about SCO/MS Connection [slashdot.org]? It's pretty obvious now that the litigation is baseless, but this doesn't not stop corporates from taking it to the court.
Another example is FireFox, many claimed it's flawless, but the realistic others know that no software is bugless, but its OPEN status allows things to be fixed relatively quickly. So it would be unwise to claim that FireFox has fewer bugs and more secure because it hasn't been exploited yet.
So a better argument might be OSS, given it's open, any potential patent infringement will be digged out before it goes far.
However, this brings another question, can we safely assume that nothing incriminating is in the source? Patent itself is illusive enough, and how easy it is to find out about a particular patent, and then relate it to a certain class in the source?
more secure than IE (Score:5, Insightful)
I take issue with this. You're (unintentionally I assume) implying that because Firefox is not flawless, it doesn't have fewer bugs than IE. This is the fallacy of the excluded middle.
Nobody with a clue claims that Firefox is flawless. Just that it's more secure than IE. Which, when you think about it, is not a very strong assertion at all.
Parent
Hardly. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's probably very easy to imagine it. Just like people can imagine the flying cars and vast underwater cities.
Meanwhile, back in the real world (http://www.eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/index
Security is based upon your security model and your implementation of it. A good model can still have buggy code. As the bugs are found and fixed, there are fewer problems.
A bad security model can have great code, but the problems keep coming. See all of the Windows anti-virus companies for a real world example of this. Rather than Microsoft fixing their security model, they rely upon 3rd parties to issue daily patches that are unbelievably specific to an individual exploit.
Parent
Re:Sue-ability (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, no Firefox developer ever claimed such thing, no other serious OSS-person ever claimed that and even altough I find loads of crazy opinions on Slashdot and other forums, I haven't seen anybody claiming that on Slashdot or anywhere else.
The author needs to learn how to do math ... (Score:5, Funny)
'over 228' as Ballmer said in his speech."
Last time I checked 283 was over 228
Re:The author needs to learn how to do math ... (Score:5, Funny)
In a lot of cases software patents don't make sense.
Parent
Re:The author needs to learn how to do math ... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, "potentially violates" means that a case could be made for infringement, but that it has never been tested in court, so it could very well NOT be an infringement as well. In addition, an untested patent has a fairly good chance of being overturned or limited. Patents that have been upheld in a court are much more dangerous.
Where Open Source has an advantage over Closed Source is that a patent holder who hasn't sued in a timely manner has much less of an excuse - with Closed Source, they aren't able to see how a program is implemented, so don't know that it violates their patent, and that's why they didn't sue earlier. Thus, a lack of patent holders suing over an Open Source product is a better indication of future safety than it would be in Closed Source.
Parent
Re:The author needs to learn how to do math ... (Score:3, Informative)
Most likely, the patent you are referring to covers a small, specific enhancement to the mouse. Kind of like how auto manufacturers patent small specific enhancements they make to engines.
Math Error in Article (Score:4, Informative)
Liability of implementors of patented ideas (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean in many CG books they describe algorithms that are patented, yet nobody sues the authors of the books. Can someone write a free implementation of a patented idea just for the sake of other people doing research on the idea (e.g timing and comparing certain patented algorithms, etc.)? This doesn't seem different from publication of said idea/algorithm.
It is my understanding that if somebody uses it for commercial purposes or if I try to sell it, then I/they 'd be liable. But can source code be considered as a publication in certain cases?
Re:Liability of implementors of patented ideas (Score:3, Informative)
Strictly speaking, yes. Patents protect the abstract concept of something. If the code was just copyrighted, you could release a competing open source product though. That's why companies like patents.
Re:Liability of implementors of patented ideas (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed. Depending on the language (e.g. C vs English) the description is the invention or not. It's one of the things that illustrates very well why patents are ill-
Re:Liability of implementors of patented ideas (Score:3, Informative)
except... (Score:5, Interesting)
If one patent is broken by an OSS Project, its much more of a burden.
Re:except... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't stop a social movement. That's why Bill Gates hates it so much.
Re:except... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the potential to buy their way out of trouble is always available to them. I don't believe that most people have the ability to resist a wad of dough thrown their way (AKA, "everybody has his price").
Re:except... (Score:3, Informative)
1. Collect royalties directly from the end user
Patent's don't work that way. Patents prohibit you from manufacturing or selling the patented invention. If you're just using one you got from someone else they can't come after you. They would have to go after the person who gave/sold it to you.
2. Issue an injunction to the end user to cease using their IP - immediately.
Courts issue injunctions, not patent-holders. What the patent-holder would do is send a
Re:except... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they have a long history of doing just that. They settled with sun for a large sum. They settled with Burst. They settled recently with Novel for 500 million.
These companies all have one very common concern: shareholders. Legal proceedings like taking on Microsoft are costly, and shareholders are interested in their own profits. If you take a risky long term approach (like pursuing a royalty per end user) t
Law? What law? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what'll happen with this? Nothing. Your boss will still think MS is the bestest ever, the average dingaling will keep using Win98 SP1, and no major media outlet will make the tiniest peep.
Fight the power!
So we just get to take MS's word for it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure Linux and Windows both violate some rediculous patents out there that have not been upheld in court.
But Ballmer is saying here, "Windows is 100% free from patent violations, Linux is one big huge patent violation. Yes, I know there is really no proof I can show you to back up what I'm saying, but you should take my word for it. After all, MS is run by businessmen and Linux is run by dirty pot smoking communist hippies."
This has been a common theme lately (Score:5, Insightful)
This has been a common theme lately. Microsoft did the same thing with various other studies. The Bush administration used reports that claimed the non-existence of WMD in Iraq to support its claims that Iraq was dangerous. Recently, I read a column where someone claimed that increased Firefox use would harm security (the larger target theory), with a reference to a report that showed IE gets more exploits per user than does Firefox.
People get away with spreading all this FUD, because readers don't verify the information that's being cited. When Microsoft says the report found Windows cheaper than Linux, people assume the report indeed said so. Unless, of course, they are inquiring minds and want to know how the report arrived at its conclusion. Then they suddenly find the report concluded the opposite!
What I don't understand is why the authorities get away with it. THESE PEOPLE ARE LYING TO US. Have you seen Ballmer in court over his allegations? Or Bush?
Re:This has been a common theme lately (Score:3, Insightful)
Aren't journalistst the ones who NEVER accept a story at face value, but instead dig deeper and expose the truth? This has been perverted to mean 'finding the angle', which means they sensationalize that which should not be sensationalizeed.
Now, I *could* do the reasearch and find the facts on things, but there's no way that i could personally do that for every 'fact' that is asserted. So i rely an another party to do it for me. That being the journalists and reporters that pr
Re:This has been a common theme lately (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this so difficult?
Oh yeah, because the people who make laws got there by lying.
Parent
They are allowed to Lie to us (Score:5, Interesting)
Fox News was able to get a court to rule that they have no responsibility to tell the truth because there is no specific law that say they have too. So if a news station can not be required to report on things honestly, then I don't think there is much change of getting a company (especially MS) to do so.
On of Many Links to this story [projectcensored.org]
Parent
Re:This has been a common theme lately (Score:4, Insightful)
My personal experience is that people form an initial impression about an issue on an emotional basis, so whoever reaches their emotional buttons better (or maybe even just faster) sways that initial impression. Once they have that initial impression formed, they seek out support for that conclusion (hooray for me for making a smart decision!) and they discount evidence to the contrary (because that would only make them feel stupid for being wrong).
OK, that's not everybody all the time, but I think I see it enough to say it happens frequently. Of course I could just have formed that opinion and been ignoring evidence to the contrary...
Parent
It's all about perception (Score:5, Insightful)
Perception keeps the "Linux is hard" mantra in people's mind, even when useability and ease continue to improve. I hope Slashdotters understand this.
So do not expect *cough*, *cough*, Monkey boy to stop his gospel soon, because I know that he knows that; you guessed it...It's all about Perception."
Cb..
Curious (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is willing to patent things, and to assume there are no patent infringments in the open source seems short sighted. And if they don't have the patents yet, eventually they will, as they push their technology forward. It isn't as if Microsoft consists of a bunch of incapable people, so eventually they will have, if they don't already, a lot of important patents open source will infringe upon.
When I was working at one large software company, we wrote a number of patents. One of the reason was that companies like IBM might sue you, and if you don't have patents you can exchange with them, the cost is higher during the settlement.
Honestly, it seems without "open source" patents, the open source community is fighting without an important tool, and like all wars of attrition with a determined foe, will eventually lose.
Yes but the Patents are dubious (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, supposedly the system only works when a patent is contested in Court. But due to the $$$$ Microsoft have in reserves, anybody that legally owns (or doesn't infringe) CANNOT afford to mount a defence against the diatribe of ligation, and has to recede.
Microsoft win everytime, whether legal or not (and if it dubious, they buy them out anyway).
Monopoly rules... do NOT pass go.
Parent
Re:Yes but the Patents are dubious (Score:4, Insightful)
Could an open source project code team afford the legal costs to protect what is theirs against dubious patents awarded to MS in court? I doubt it.
Parent
Accuracy is really not the point (Score:3, Insightful)
And how many patent lawsuits has Microsoft had... (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft, Tiscali sued over European download patent [macworld.com]
Sun, Microsoft settle suit in billion dollar pact [nwfusion.com]
Microsoft settles Intertrust patent lawsuit [10e20webdesign.com]
Microsoft settles suit with Immersion [com.com]
Microsoft settles 1999 Patent Infringement Case [earthweb.com]
Open source is more vulnerable to patents (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no lack of buzz around patents. This article garnered opinions from some big names in the patent world, like Free Software Foundation counsel Dan Ravicher, law firms Phillips Fox and Baker & McKenzie.
Dan Ravicher of the FSF made this point: "patents pose less of a threat to open-source software than they do to proprietary software". He also states: "There are no patents that choose only to be infringed by open source. Any patent that imposes a threat to open-source software is going to impose a threat to proprietary software."
Well, the first point doesn't flow logically from the second point. Open source and proprietary software are in two different categories, from an evidientiary and a monetary point of view.
Access to source code
As a matter of evidence, violating patents in open source software is evident on its face: you can read the source code. Legible code makes a patent infringement case trivial. Proprietary software may require expensive reverse engineering, to devise how it operates and whether that operation violates the patent. There may be some legal questions regarding your capacity to reverse engineer legally, particularly with oppressive legislation such as the DMCA.
Access to software
Also, in this vein, to determine a violation of proprietary software, you must also have access to it. Proprietary software, particularly custom or enterprise software, may not be readily available to examine. Even if the software is available, it may require an onerous license that prohibits reverse engineering. Open source software is, almost by definition, accessible to anyone for examinition. Having a clause to prevent reverse engineering would be contrary to its object.
Licensing capacity
The lucid nature of open source software means that to obtain a mandatory license for a patent would be prohibitively expensive for two reasons. First, open source software does not have deep pockets or the capacity for a cross licensing agreement. Second, even if either were available, the nature of open source software would wholly undermine the purpose of the patent: an open source implementation of the patent would be available for free, unrestricted use.
A proprietary software company, on the other hand, has the economic means and an economic incentive to obtain a license or cross license, and would presumably do so only for the benefit of the company, and would not threaten the other economic interests of the patent.
Compulsory Licensing
Patent legislation provides for compulsory licensing, I understand, if it is in the public interest. However, even though a proprietary company could enforce this licensing by challenging it at the patent office, currently the cost would be prohibitively expensive to many, if not most, open source software developers. As well, compulsory licensing that undermines the patent, by creating an open source unrestricted implementation, would create contentious arguments about the real public interest. Patents protect the patentor, and as a secondary consideration they may have licensing imposed against the will of the patentor, if it is in the public interest. Their rights would likely trump.
For at least these reasons open source software is in a different situation than proprietary software, and as a result I am not entirely convinced of Mr. Ravichers's assertion, as they are quoted in the linked article.
Re:Open source is more vulnerable to patents (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Someone should call MS out on this patent issue (Score:3, Interesting)
"Your assertion is that Linux violates a set of patents, and therefore as an end user I might be found liable and forced to pay dammages at some future date.* Does using Windows remove this problem for me? Are you willing to either guarantee that Windows does not have any IP property issues or to indemnify me if someone decides that they want $699 for every copy of XP that I use because they think one of their patents is being violated?"
cricket... cricket... Mr. Balmer - are you still there?
* For the sake of argument, I'm going along with Blamers FUD that end users are responsible for paying for IP violations, not the producers of the software.
Based on the wrong premise . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
This statement is based on the premise that legal action will actually be based on perceived patent violations in open source software and that open source software contains either no legitimate violations or at least no more violations than most proprietary software. That is, all of the patents that it does violate are bogus being issued on prior art or trivial methods by a broken patent system.
Although it may well be the case that most of Microsoft's patent portfolio is unenforceable if contested by an entity with sufficiently deep pockets, I doubt that actual violations will be the deciding factor if litigations are pursued. I believe that Microsoft will weigh many factors before pursuing litigation and the legitimacy of their claim will weigh far less than any tactical or strategical advantage that perusing even a bogus law suit will offer.
Microsoft has repeatedly shown that it does not care about a fair and open market and is unconcerned of going afoul of antitrust laws. Indeed the weak response by the US justice system to Microsoft's past transgressions has had the same effect on this corporate bully as passive behavior has on the playground bully or the bully in the work place. A bully won't changed until forced to do so and some can never change.
To Microsoft, software patents are just another weapon to be wielded against anyone who would dare attempt to take a slice of the market. It is just another anticompetitive tool that they will use directly though litigation or indirectly though a FUD campaign.
It's time that the DOJ got their act together and removed this bully from the corporate playground. Microsoft needs to be broken into at least two and probably three separate entities before their blatant disregard for the antitrust laws permanently destroy any chance of an open and fair market in the software sector.
Culture of negativity (Score:5, Informative)
I think it makes an interesting statement about MSFT products to hear them bashing the competition instead of selling the competitive strengths of their products.
To me it's almost an admission that their product line is not cost competitve with OSS. That's not strictly a price comparison, it's a value comparison. MSFT products do not give you the same value for the $$$ that LInux and OSS. Something most of us here have known for a long time.
MSFT has been sticking it to their customers for years with higher and higher license fees, back-stabbing EULA's and Naziesque business practices. I think they're really underestimating how bad people dislike being dicked and how long their memories can be.
I know it sounds a little Pollyanna but it's unfortunate that going negative can be so effective. It's kind of like spam. Everyone complains about it but as long as it's effective we're going to keep getting buried buy it.
Re:Really! Really! (Score:3, Informative)
No, it indeed doesn't. You're missing the point that large companies do not check either whether what they do violates any software patents. The reasons are that such an activity would be
People with mod points read this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even though we may not agree with the poster his post was not trolling but rather a valid point.
Please do not mod people down based on wether or not you agree. Be fair or