Through the Patent Looking Glass with Microsoft

Andy Updegrove writes "By now you've probably read more than you want to about Microsoft's announcement that it owns 235 patents underlying leading open source software, including many opinions about whether Microsoft's new assertions do, or don't, represent a real threat to Linux, OpenOffice, and other OSS. To get to the bottom of the issue, though, you have to take a deep dive into how patent cross licensing works these days. When you do, you realize that patents don't mean what they used to, and have far more defensive than offensive value in the marketplace today. It also becomes apparent that it really doesn't matter whether Microsoft has valid patents or not, because so many other companies do as well. Today, what companies worry about isn't asserting their patents against other companies, but maintaining their freedom of activity. In this case, the open source community can simply ride the coattails of the major vendors, because Microsoft doesn't hold enough cards to win the hand, much less the game." Relatedly The Register is reporting that the author of the main report being used by Microsoft to support their patent claims has come out against Microsoft's interpretation of his work and Jonathan Schwartz gives some free advice to the overly litigious.

Is this just repeating Ravicher's 2004 rebuttal?

[toby]

Back in November 2004, Dan Ravicher complained to Steven Vaughan-Nichols [eweek.com] that Ballmer had misread his patent study, so I'm not sure that this is 'new' news.

That Register link is dead (although even Google News indexed the article. wtf?) But many articles are repeating Ravicher's old remarks: Ravicher says his report proves the opposite of Microsoft's claims [itbusinessedge.com], The author of that report disowned Ballmer's remarks [out-law.com], etc.

The "defensive patent" theory is flawed

[ClosedSource]

"Today, what companies worry about isn't asserting their patents against other companies, but maintaining their freedom of activity."

Last year IBM sued Amazon over IBM patents and it had nothing to do with "maintaining freedom". The whole theory of defensive patents is just an excuse for patent-mongers like IBM to continue to restrict competition.

Re:Is Schwartz alluding to SCO and Microsoft.?

[slashthedot]

RedHat could be the third one, according to this Register article.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/15/schwartz_b log_microsoft/ [theregister.co.uk]

Not 2004 Rehash [correct formatting]

[twitter]

Back in November 2004, Dan Ravicher complained to Steven Vaughan-Nichols that Ballmer had misread his patent study, so I'm not sure that this is 'new' news.

This looks recent to me. I journaled [slashdot.org] the interesting parts of the Register article. The statements were presented as recent and are identical to those running in the stories you point to:

Dan Ravicher, says that is not what the report said, and that it did not claim that open source software faces legal problems. "Open source faces no more, if not less, legal risk than proprietary software," Ravicher told technology news site eWeek. "The market needs to understand that the study Microsoft is citing actually proves the opposite of what they claim it does.

The Register article also quoted Ballmer citing a paper published "last summer" by a nameless "Open Software" group so this is not a rehash of the 2004 events, other than committing the same offense. Microsoft is like that. When a lie does not stick, they tell it again.

Re:No matter what MS says

[LWATCDR]

Easy. Microsoft is claiming 240+ plus patents are infringing on Windows.
Later they claim less than 50 are in the Linux kernel with the other in the GUI and OpenOffice.
That right there is FUD since OpenOffice isn't part of Linux and frankly more people use OpenOffice on Windows than on Linux.
Also Linux doesn't have a GUI. Gnome and KDE are not part of Linux and run on other OSs as well as Linux.

Finally they refuse to what patents are infringing but say the will show them to known Linux users and some distro makers.

Well I am a Linux users which is no known. Show them to me.
Microsoft will not show them because they want to use them to bet money from companies that use Linux or sell Linux. If they show them then they would bet challenged or written around.

That is FUD.

Re:Groupthink?

[unapersson]

It's not really possible as there is not enough information for the other side. MS is holding all the cards to their chest. Such an article would need to list all those patents and that simply isn't going to happen. It's also very hard to defend the old, "you're infringing our IP but we won't tell you what" approach they're taking. The pro-MS comments I have seen have been inflammatory nonsense and I doubt if you'll get much else until Microsoft shift from its protection racket stance.

Re:Is this just repeating Ravicher's 2004 rebuttal

[DECS]

Microsoft's Unwinnable War on Linux and Open Source [roughlydrafted.com]
Microsoft, threatened by the encroachment of competition from open source, has long waged a detached propaganda war against free software and in particular Linux, but has recently escalated its conflict into a full blown attack. Here's what's happening, and why it will greatly accelerate the company's undoing.

Re:No matter what MS says

[sconeu]

Lanham Act. [wikipedia.org] In particular, Section 43(a)(1)(B).