Microsoft Details FOSS Patent Breaches 576
CptRevelation writes "Microsoft has released more detailed information on the patents supposedly in breach by the open-source community. Despite their accusations of infringement, they state they would rather do licensing deals instead of any legal action. 'Open-source programs step on 235 Microsoft patents, the company said. Free Linux software violates 42 patents. Graphical user interfaces, the way menus and windows look on the screen, breach 65. E-mail programs step on 15, and other programs touch 68 other patents, the company said. The patent figures were first reported by Fortune magazine. Microsoft also said Open Office, an open-source program supported in part by Sun Microsystems Inc., infringes on 45 patents. Sun declined to comment on the allegation.'"
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:3, Insightful)
Its really sad to see this happen. A lot of people predicted something like this, but I was really hoping (naively) it wouldn't happen. I could see projects like Mono being hit really hard, which is a shame because I actually like Mono.
That is NOT specificity.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're Giving Them What They Want (Score:5, Insightful)
We all know that this is a ruse. We know it.
We can do our part by ignoring this non-event.
--Richard
They are afraid. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know why you never saw something like this from Microsoft before? They didn't think it was worth their time.
In any case, it is FUD; there might be a vulnerable project or two but there is basically a stalemate on this one. That is why they are pushing for licensing instead of filing a lawsuit.
This is a good thing. Most MBA's will see right through both the motivation and the push for licensing.
Re:The Camerons are spot on: (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, don't get me wrong, I think this is a great evil and I want it to get lots of attention, but even I think there are more pressing issues in the world right now.
Re:Quick !! Lets examine and change them all !! (Score:5, Insightful)
And who are they going to sue? (Score:5, Insightful)
In case you haven't realized, "Linux" is not a single entity. When you say Linux breaches patents on email or graphical user interfaces, are you aware that:
Best Regards from Sweden,
Someone who doesn't care about your patent claims.
Re:The Camerons are spot on: (Score:5, Insightful)
Strategically, though, the US is comitting seppuku if it allows a few fat cats to patent obvious things, stifle innovation, destroy productivity, and otherwise distract from useful work.
Ellsworth Toohey [wikipedia.org] would be proud of those cretins.
Re:The Camerons are spot on: (Score:3, Insightful)
If so, then this country's in more trouble than I'd realized before, and I thought it was in a sorry shape *then*.
I didn't know US patent law (Score:5, Insightful)
The implications for all this are interesting. Does Microsoft really want European software slowly to drift away from its link to the US? Because they are exposing more and more to European legislators that, in effect, they want to enforce a charge on European businesses based on US law that is not applicable in the EU. They already have done themselves no favours with the Competition Commission. Given that the Open Document format is now an international standard, the EU is quite free to use free software to implement it while the US might end up having to pay a Microsoft tax. That is an interesting possibility.
Many years ago at a seminar on patent and trademark law, I asked the lawyer who was acting as convenor what, in his view, the position would be if a manufacturer attempted to claim that only their patented technology was able to create an instance of something complying with an international standard which was embodied in European harmonisation. To which his reply was "You're just being a smartass." It looks like there could yet be a test case.
Re:The Camerons are spot on: (Score:5, Insightful)
I encourage people to do so. Shooting for the average never helps, it lowers the average in the wrong direction.
(Also, I think your view that tries to be realistic is exaggerated)
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing new here (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean really, are they going to claim that outbreak's calendar integration is patentable, I can think of 15 mailers that do calendar integration, no bother and that covers the 15 breaches of their patent.
As for UI/Menus really guys do you think you'll get "Heirarchical menus" past a wide awake patent court?
Don't Sun have a cross licensing deal over Star Office, so there go those
And if your trying to tell me that the Linux kernel infringes, where, in the drivers?
- SMB/NET Bios was an IBM technology from '84
- vfat, I heard you intend suing camera/flash card manufacturers for this too, but do you really want to start a war with (the much derided) Sony, they're also part of the OIN [openinventionnetwork.com]
Look I could go on playing guessing games but unless you are willing to stand up a case why in the name of Xenu should I take you at all seriously?Re:My patents (Score:1, Insightful)
Devil's Advocate... (Score:2, Insightful)
Since Windows95, Microsoft and Windows have developed their own brand identity, different from the Apple OS they emulated so long ago... and settled with long ago. Maybe Linux distros, in trying to create familiarity and entice users by creating a similar look and feel of windows, are slightly guilty of some, albeit probably small, degree of infringement.
Fisking the FUD (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
"A System and Method for Selecting Options from a List"
"A System and Method for Choosing Between Several Options"
"A System and Method for Displaying Information on a Video Device"
"A System and Method for the Representation of Electronic Documents on a Video Device"
&c.
In short, just a lot of nonsense, overbroad, long-after-the-fact patents that they managed to squeeze through that goatse.cx-like orifice that is the Patent Office, and they believe will cost too much for Free Software to invalidate.
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you really think MS's pockets are so deep that they can carry themselves through their current lull, survive the dip their stock is going to take, AND sue a couple thousand companies...without details from each of the defendants being shared between said defendants...
This isn't the RIAA going after grandmothers living on welfare. MS is aiming to go up against people that will put up a tremendous fight. You don't think RMS would happily go to court every day just to make MS hire the team of lawyers it would take to argue against him, for instance? You don't think the fact that it was shown they were propping up SCO hurt their case? You don't think that public opinion is already swinging against MS, and would do so even more if they followed through with such a thing? You don't think that the battle-hardened troops that dealt with SCO (much smaller, yes, but that fight was only against IBM, and SCO was claiming much more solid (and false) infringements) are licking their lips to take on MS in the "look and feel" BS that they're saying is being infringed upon? You don't think Motif Windows Manager was around prior to Windows 3.0? You don't think other things were around long before the Motif toolkit?
When the RIAA sues a grandmother living on welfare, all they have to do is show that an IP given to her computer by her ISP downloaded songs from a p2p site. Going after someone for actual patent violations, when the patents are bad patents, is not quite as cut and dry. And you can believe that if MS tries to "make an example" of someone, that someone will have a hell of a lot of support standing not behind them, but with them.
Re:The Camerons are spot on: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
No, all they have to do is scare your customers away, by dropping unsubtle hints that they might be sued at some point in the future, if they use your software (without buying a "license" from MS).
It's a protection racket; you don't need to actually be assaulted for it to adversely impact you.
I see a dangerous pattern here (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, so let's look at historical precedent. Microsoft was sued by Apple (unsuccessfully) for infringement of look-and-feel "copyrights" and various UI patents. This case dragged on for years, and resulted in Apple and Microsoft eventually calling a truce.
Then along came Adobe, which sued Macromedia because Adobe had patents on certain types of tool palettes. Adobe then turned around and bought Macromedia. (Yes, some time elapsed between these two events, but still...)
Now Microsoft is alleging that they own intellectual property used in the Linux kernel and various key pieces of software outside the kernel. The above claims are interesting, considering Microsoft's track record of claiming ownership of various UI elements. So far, Apple and Xerox have remained silent, but they may not for much longer. I'm even more curious about the claim of 15 patents in e-mail. After all, e-mail technology has been with us since ARPANet; SMTP and POP are exceedingly well established, and were certainly not invented by Microsoft; I don't even think MS can claim ownership of IMAP. So, what exactly are they claiming ownership of?
To me, this looks like a ploy to "convert" Linux and all of the ancillary GNU programs and FOSS programs that are widely used. By "convert," I mean obtain ownership of. Since Microsoft can't litigate a particular company out of business in order to kill Linux, they're playing a much sneakier game. They've already bought off Novell so as to avoid having to deal with them in any SCO-style lawsuits. How long before the settlement offers start pouring in -- and the settlements basically mean ownership of the code?
As has been pointed out by others, this article really doesn't demonstrate that Microsoft has revealed any more information -- they'd already broken down the number of patent violations by category a couple days ago. But you can bet that Microsoft will make sure to keep this story in the news as often as possible... especially with an Attorney General in office who's willing to push legislation to favor Microsoft.
Re:They are afraid. (Score:1, Insightful)
Their vouchers for Novell linux constitute indirect distribution as covered in section 7 of GPLv2.
They're either violating the GPL or they've already sub-licensed their patents. Either way I don't care because software patents are not valid in Europe! After the way they shafted companies in the past (eg: Spyglass) it looks like MS is now about to find out how it feels to be on the raw end of a deal. Nobody twisted their arms here, they freely entered into this deal while trying to be clever and undermine the GPL, inadvertently shooting the pooch in the process.
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
MS has a LOUSY legal record (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Quick !! Lets examine and change them all !! (Score:4, Insightful)
Is Mono dead? (Score:5, Insightful)
The boy who cried wolf? (Score:2, Insightful)
This 'magic number' keeps coming up, and the idea that by saying Linux 42, UI 65, etc etc somehow equates to a detailed description of patent breaches? Let's get real here. I want to see the actual claim. Show us the code. [showusthecode.com]
Perchance the MS IP team are worried that if they actually showed which of their patents were infringed they would be laughed at? IANAL but it seems to me that even if by some remote chance a MS patent had been infringed by a kernel developer somewhere, that MS has the responsibility to let them know exactly what patent they have infringed. Failure to do so would seem to make any legal action they attempt nothing short of harassment. Or am I way off-base here? /. lawyers, where are you?
Don't be blind (Score:4, Insightful)
This is probably the most effective way to protect their bottom line. Going into court isn't what they want. They want doubt in prospective OSS adopters. With doubt comes the likelihood of sticking with what's safe. It's the same sort of campaign they "allegedly" helped SCO take-on to help stifle OSS adoption. From what I can tell, it had a impact for quite some time.
I am sure Microsoft knows that quite a few patents may not hold up. They'll only get bad publicity in the tech world, but to shareholders and the rest of the world, they'll look like they're protecting their assets. They had record profits last quarter and will continue to do so by spreading doubt in prospective adopters minds. It's so simple and yet so effective.
Apple is no friend of Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Violation of Patents for Ideas They Stole??? (Score:5, Insightful)
2 cents,
Queen B.
Re:Pull a Microsoft on Microsoft (Score:1, Insightful)
It's a misconception that all open source projects are non-profit, even if the ones in question do not generate any revenue a derivative project could decide to generate a profit.
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
The iceberg is starting to melt... quickly.
Unenforceable if it's Incomprehensible (Score:4, Insightful)
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
There is not a judge in the world, much less a jury, that could possibly even comprehend the text of this patent.
And there is no way in hell that the patent examiner could possibly have comprehended what the patent application was about.
Re:The Camerons are spot on: (Score:2, Insightful)
While I agree with your argument in principle, it's uncomfortable to see someone expecting a "higher level" of socio-political knowledge touting democracy. Assuming that you're a U.S. citizen, you live in a country that (thank the deity of your choice) has never been, nor (hopefully) ever will be, a democracy.
Democracy is a logical equivalent to mob rule.
A Representative Republic [wikipedia.org] is the U.S. form of government
Do you really want the majority opinion to rule in many of the issues facing this country?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
There are no infringments.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Until then it can safely be assumed that MS is being what we all have come to expect them to be, due the reputation they have worked to establish. Dishonest.
Its best to call MS's cards on this. The sooner it is addressed openly and honestly the better.
Re:The Camerons are spot on: (Score:2, Insightful)
Does this computer have google? (Ofcourse it does its just a website)
Wheres the internet? (Internet Explorer Icon)
How do I get to my email? (well if you dont know how the hell am I supposed to? I dont know if you are using MSN, Gmail, etc...)
So yeah to Joe Average end user the internet is just that blue icon you click on to get to google and check your email. Its sad but I'd expect over 80% of computer users are this way with no basic knowledge of how the stuff works behind it mostly because a majority havent grown up with the internet being commonplace. To Joe Average end user the Internet is just a series of tubes... straight out of Sen. Ted Stevens mouth
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, Microsoft, SCO called. They want their business model back.
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
Since some EU companies are involved could this get Microsoft into even deeper hot water with the EU?
Re:The Camerons are spot on: (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, all your credibility was lost with the reference to Ayn Rand.
This isn't news (Score:3, Insightful)
Question about Timeliness (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that a viable strategy of patent holders (looking to profit from previously unprofitable patents) would be to
allow them to be tread upon by competing products, until at such time that those competing products become financially viable...
and *then* file suit.
This strategy seems less about protecting one's intellectual property, and more about encouraging the competition to cement
its dependency on your patents in order to extract greater compensation at a later date.
Anyone know if there's a requirement to file a cease-and-desist in a timely manner?
Re:Devil's Advocate... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's possible that they had a trademark on `Start', except they're not using it as a trademark, nor marking it as such, nor defending actions (Trademarks are really `defend NOW or lose' items).
It's even vaguely possible that they patented the idea of having one button which accesses the primary menus of a system. But they'll lose on obviousness, prior art (the Mac Apple-logo button) and laches (the offences, if offences there were, have been happening since forever, and you can't delay an action until the transgressor has made enough money to make them worth suing).
But those are very different claims, with very different routes to court or settlement. And all of them would ultimately fail. Remember, the EU has not accepted software patents, nor is likely to; Blair is no longer around to suck up to Gates, and the other major EU players aren't as obviously in the thrall of American riches. Sarkozy will veto anything that weakens French companies in the face of US competition, for example, especially in his first few years, and Merkel isn't any more favourable.
This isn't some high school ``he copied my homework'' thing: Microsoft would have to prove very carefully the nature, chronology, intent and effect of the purported copying. And all the evidence is that Ballmer and Gates aren't much smarter than ``he copied my homework''. Meawwhile IBM's Nazgul are quiet, careful, implacable, playing for the highest stakes and --- to mix a metaphor --- they will not stop. Ever. IBM cannot allow Microsoft to gain an inch on this, and they have a patent portfolio to make Microsoft's utterly irrelevant.
Patent portfolios are like nuclear weapons (I spent the weekend in Hiroshima, so the metaphor is live for me). When no-one uses them, they ensure a tense peace. But the first to use them offensively loses as badly as their target.
ian
Re:The Camerons are spot on: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Camerons are spot on: (Score:3, Insightful)
The direct effect of patents is that US$ 50 digital camera could cost US$ 49 if it weren't for the patents, which is quite acceptable.
The indirect effects, on the other hand, although less obvious, run deep in the way our society works.
I suppose many
This scenario creates a world where in order to do something new you need licenses to a sizable patent portfolio, maybe a cross-licensing agreement with your older and larger competitor and to secure funds to defend yourself and your products from submarine patents. This environment is as hostile to the small inventors as it could get.
Re:The Camerons are spot on: (Score:3, Insightful)
Essentially, yes. One may as well quote Marx (a noted racist) when discussing the economic pitfalls of modern-day Africa. It isn't merely that she wrote a caricature, it is that the idea itself is a straw man to begin with, she uses this idea to push an agenda, and finally that her agenda has been thoroughly discredited on historical, scientific, and philosophical grounds. If you want to score an intellectual point, invoking Rand is not the way to do it.
Her philosophy doesn't do much for me, but her critique of Socialism seems accurate.
Socialism is not a monolithic political ideology so any particular characterization is useless. Beyond that, Rand's ideas about it don't fit ANY of the major flavors of socialism, even those of her own day.
Re:Nothing to see here, move along... (Score:4, Insightful)
That is true of copyright law, but not patent law. See, for example, the GIF fiasco.
What about PR? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is a small step in a FUD campaign, a kind of damage control. The SCO FUD is grinding to a halt and likely to backfire. The reason is simple: nonobvious copyright infringement is quite hard to prove and unlikely to be ubiquitous in OSS. The outcome of the SCO case may convince users that OSS is reasonably free of IP problems. MS has to act now, proactively.
This new case will be pushed to the media. It'll linger for some time. MS won't disclose the patents too quickly, waiting for satisfactory media coverage. Finally they will, and then MS will be very reasonable - first they'll just want compensation (we can see that already), then they may even choose to donate some of the patent rights to OSS. No real harm done, end of story. But the PR effects will be great for MS:
So, just as copyright FUD started by SCO is dying, MS is preparing an exhibit A for further FUD campaign, a proof that at least patent infringement is a real problem in OSS and a basis for the line "there are IP issues in OSS and sometime, someone might go after YOU, the user, and noone will be able to help you".
In short: a lot of the patents are probably rock solid, and the fact that OSS can work around them should not make you think this case is not a serious problem. Who will invest a sum of money comparable to the MS PR budget in a media campaign showing just how easy it was to deal with the patent issues?
Re:So lets be pre-emptive (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Camerons are spot on: (Score:3, Insightful)
homosexuality and abortion are much bigger life changing events in my book, and touch a far greater proportion of the population than patent law.
Patent law reform, while it should still be addressed, pales in comparison to the big issues in society.
You cannot patent thinking! (Score:2, Insightful)
If you patent code, you make other people, who will think of this trivial (as a developer) ideas and wouldn't be able to use them cause it violates some patents. THIS WILL MAKE COMPUTING STOP and not to develop further.
code cannot be patented !
Re:The Camerons are spot on: (Score:4, Insightful)
As a gay man who wants to marry, I think that software patents are a bigger issue.
The artistic and literal aspects of software are already covered well by copyright.
But the mechanisms used in software and controlled by patents are indeed pure mathematics. Any functional description of software can be reduced to uniform symbolic relationships, pcode, which is math. Avoiding the encumbrance of mathematics has long been one of the most basic intellectual freedoms in our society-- so basic that very few people ever discuss it today.
Re:The Camerons are spot on: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Camerons are spot on: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is reasonable to say, however, that an idea about Africa that was proposed by a known racist is more likely than other ideas to be founded on racist assumptions. This may make it less likely that it would be helpful. That doesn't mean that it should be dismissed out of hand, of course, but those who advocate it will have to work hard to convince people of that fact. Far simpler just to leave the racist out of it, and either find a more politically correct source for the idea (it's unlikely to be totally unique), or gloss over its source altogether until its merits are clear enough to support it against kneejerk rejection.
Bringing things back out of the analogy, it's sadly the case that some authors - Marx and Rand among them - are extremely controversial, to the extent that it's very difficult indeed to cite them without it being assumed that you're a brainwashed Communist or Objectivist who laps up their every word without a hint of critical thought in your brain. That is clearly a totally unreasonable assumption, but expecting any other reaction from Slashdot does perhaps betray terminal optimism on your part.
Re:The Camerons are spot on: (Score:3, Insightful)
First, we have the Constitution, which has a Bill of Rights intended to protect liberty from mob rule, with rules that make it really hard to modify.
And second, we have three co-equal branches of government, to keep their power in check. The only significant mistake, in my mind, is that the founding fathers designed an election system which favors a two-party system, which does not represent the will of the people nearly as well as newer systems do.
Since you are against democracy (where power comes from the people, which can take many forms, including direct democracy (which we are not) and representative democracy (where the people choose their government, which we are)), what alternative do you propose? Monarchy? Fascism? Dictatorship? Feudalism?
I know of no governmental system superior to Democracy, but if you have any ideas, I'm all ears. There are definitely drawbacks to democracy (one of which you noted), but they are not insurmountable, and for all its flaws, all other known systems are worse.