Microsoft Says Free Software Violates 235 Patents 1217
prostoalex writes "Microsoft told Fortune magazine that various free software products violate at least 235 patents, and it's time to expect users of this software to pay up patent licensing royalties: 'Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith and licensing chief Horacio Gutierrez sat down with Fortune recently to map out their strategy for getting FOSS users to pay royalties. Revealing the precise figure for the first time, they state that FOSS infringes on no fewer than 235 Microsoft patents.'"
The big fight LIVE! (Score:5, Funny)
In the Blue corner weighing in at 289 pounds we have Monkey Boy Ballmer, his speciality move: The chair.
In the Red corner, weighing in at 432 pounds we have the one and only R.M.S, speciality move, being R.M.S.
Who will win this epic battle?
Re:The big fight LIVE! (Score:5, Insightful)
I would guess that Microsoft probably infringes on some number of IBM patents - but then, pretty much everyone does. The thing I don't know is, does Microsoft already hve some patent license agreement (presumably some sort of blanket agreement) with IBM to cover them?
The big problem is that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The big problem is that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The big problem is that... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope, that's not the question. The real question is who has more customers that can be sued for patent infringement.
Being a consumer in no way protects you against patent infringement lawsuits. So, even if no one has enough money to challenge MicrSoft on the patent issue, many groups have enough money to bully MicroSoft customers until it decides to stop with the patent threats/suits.
Re:The big problem is that... (Score:5, Interesting)
If this comes to blows, IBM will have to a) provide non-infringing replacements, or b) indemnify their customers and go to the mattresses with their unparalleled patent arsenal. My guess is the MS just bit off more than they can chew. There are some rules you never break, and getting into a patent battle with IBM is right up there with starting a land war in Asia.
Re:The big problem is that... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to see IBM lean on Microsoft and point out that patent warfare is a multiplayer game. If Microsoft isn't out to raise the bar on corporate stupidity that should silence them quite fast.
By the way, notice something? Who just entered a patent agreement with Microsoft and thus can't participate in this fight? Right, Novell. For some reason I like that corp less and less...
Re: reasoning me-self. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: reasoning me-self. (Score:4, Interesting)
US$ 50 for many lawyers + US$ 50 for the judgement coasts + US$ 50 for the tons of papers + US$ 50 for the fueling + US$ 50 for the food diets + US$ 50 for SCOX's NASDAQ + US$ 200 for my pockets = US$ 500!!
US$ 300 - US$ 500 = US$ -200!!! And no money to pay to the M$ developers!!!
Conclusion: the M$'s software is bad software for the users.
Re:The big problem is that... (Score:5, Informative)
Note the word "uses". That means that if you use a device that is in violation of a patent, you could be found liable for that use.
The patent owner can go after the manufacturer of a device infringing his patent, those selling or offering the device for sale, and the end users.
As I understand it, they couldn't generally collect from everyone involved because that would be double or triple dipping. For example, if the manufacturer settles, then that makes the patent owner whole and absolves the others.
Re:The big problem is that... (Score:5, Informative)
That depends entirely on the nature of the settlement. There was a case few years ago where Timeline settled with Microsoft (some database technology issue), then announced that the deal with Microsoft did not cover end users -- and the courts agreed.
Re:The big problem is that... (Score:5, Insightful)
But what I really wanted to get to--note how wonderfully this really might work out for Linux. We should be SALIVATING at this opportunity. See, it's irrelevant at present who can or can't be sued. Why? Because in both scenarios, MS shoots their legs off (no, not just their foot). It's that bad for them because they have both more customers AND deeper pockets--the result is actually more than additive:
First, if MS's talk isn't FUD and they actually implement this stupid plan of theirs, new case law will come up to quickly clarify the extent which tier can be sued or both (customer or manufacturer or both).
If one can sue customers, then (1) MS has the largest customer base presently and worse, (2), just opened up their customer base to counter lawsuits from IBM, Redhat, etc.--and (3) it won't just be open season on Linux, but whoever wants a piece of MS, companies using MS (think Fortune 500 companies and their accumulated wealth).
(4) In turn, their customers may very well then have a case against MS in civil court (and if limited there, may be protected by certain consumer protection laws), since it was their product that caused you, the consumer/customer, to be sued. IANAL, but usually a EULA is enforced by contract law, and I recall parts of a contracted can be voided and a party held responsible if something in it is found to violate a law (iow, law overrides contracts). (5) Even consumer protection laws may kick in (as well as potentially interesting local laws).
OTOH, if the case law turns out to be such that you cannot sue customers or must sue a higher tier, well, MS's plan/threats/FUD about suing customers just went down the drain. Customers are safe. MS starts suing larger companies at their own risk in the typical legal battle.
Re:The big problem is that... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's an interesting bluff Microsoft is making. Let's see if anyone wants to call it.
In the meantime, could it be considered libel with the explicit intention to damage a competitor's business? Does someone have the money to bring a lawsuit against MS to force them to state clearly their evidence or STFU?
Re:The big problem is that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you're thinking of Bill Gates's wealth of $50 bn or whatever it is. I would expect much of that is made up of Microsoft shares, so a change in the share price would change his net worth, but that's completely separate from Microsoft's enormous cash hoard.
Re:The big problem is that... (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I see them going it far more insidious. This is publicity. They are hinting that OSS is infringing on their patents and are openly saying that "free software" should pay for the privilege of using said patents. The idea is to get this out into the public sphere, and to make people start to get nervous thinking about "free software" as possible patent infringement or as they would likely put it if this works, pirating.
The idea is to make people worry about a legal technicality as if they are breaking the law by association. In order to do this MS has to put out several complaints over a period of time, and probably sponsor "education campaigns" to teach kids about copyright and patent infringement.
They don't need to stop those who are educated in getting OSS, all they have to do is add another worry for people who are non-tech savey who might adopt OSS.
This kind of PR stuff is a double edged sword (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft, for credibility will have to produce a detailled list of said patent violations (and eventually a list of specific OSS application that they think are infringing).
And this, my friends, is a double edged sword.
On one hand, it will show that Microsoft HAS tangible proof that OSS are inferior because no company can be held responsible for patents infringement, and that patent lawyers will go after the users.
On another hand, such a list, and maybe a couple of days of work distributed across the whole community is everything needed to circumvent said patent and implement it either with a slightly different approach (see marching cubes vs. tetrahedron in 3D), using more generalised version (arithmetic coding vs. range coding in compression), or simply recycle some very old code in place - code who's age is a proof of prior art.
And suddenly, all this MS PR stunt is moot.
Just imagine :
This week press titles "Microsoft says OSS dangerous because patent mine field", "New microsoft sponsored studies proves TCO to by higher for OSS because of patent fees", "Microsoft to go after individual users MAFIAA style".
Next week press titles "238 patches and upgrades on Debian and Ubuntu repositories", "OSDL sponsored study proves that OSS has the highest reaction time in terms of patch release", "RMS & Linus to give speech about strengths of OSS development ; Ballmer responds throwing chairs".
Re:This kind of PR stuff is a double edged sword (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft flunks global test (Score:5, Interesting)
Faced with serious issues in Australia, China, nearly every emerging market and even much of the EU, Microsoft wants to play "us vs. them" with open source? Even much of the Fortune 500 has been investing significantly into Linux (such as the corporation I work for, which is one of the larger global financial companies). Our company didn't take previous patent trolls lightly, and Microsoft's reliability issues don't give it a reliable foundation on which to make life any more difficult for us.
In an era of unprecedented foreign confiscation of pharmaceutical intellectual property, can Microsoft be this utterly ignorant and stupid? Does Microsoft not realize it has zero leverage outside the U.S., facing serious penalties in the EU for its disregard for their law and even worse conditions elsewhere? Does it really believe it can force Brazil, China, Mexico, India, Malaysia, emerging Eastern Europe, Russia and countless other markets to pay excessive royalties for a bunch of questionable patents it had its attorneys sneak through? The only certain outcome is that U.S. intellectual property law will be even further ignored and real issues like drug patent confiscations more common.
Apparently SCO was only the warm-up act. This certainly is going to be an interesting train wreck for us to watch if they venture down this path.
*scoove*
Re:Microsoft flunks global test (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Microsoft flunks global test (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This kind of PR stuff is a double edged sword (Score:5, Funny)
You're forgetting some other important ones:
"Linus Torvals demands to see proof of Linux patent violations." "All of Europe calls for a ban on Software Patents, again." "IBM claims Windows violates 15,302 IBM Patents, demands reasonable fee of $1 per patent per copy of Windows sold."
Screensaver : patent could be circumvented. (Score:5, Interesting)
If such a trivial patent is valid, then the US patent system is realy b0rked.
But even, in such a case, the patent can be circumvented.
See, given the era when screensavers started to appear (i.e.: when CRT was the main method of displaying image for computers), so there a very high chance that such a patent will be formulated as the GP poster said : method in which the display shows random or non-random patterns in order to avoid screen burn-in.
See, the main point is that, as pointed-out by the Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], nowadays screensavers are primarily used for entertainment or security purposes, because LCD panels are a lot less susceptible to burn-ins than CRTs.
So the whole idea is to do exactly the same result, using slightly differently stated method. Call it a "screen protector". Define it as a piece of software that :
- Monitors user (in)activity.
- After a given time, turns the LCD panel of for power saving
- After a given time, switches from the user desktop to a different environment for security reasons (protect both the access to the desktop and the data displayed on the desktop from undesired intruders/eavesdroper)
- Switching back from protected mode to desktop mode requires that the user enters his log-in credential again.
- Password prompt conditions may be optionnal : one may decide to use auto-logon and only protect data visually (can't eavesdrop through window, but anyone could unlock)
- The protected mode may be just blank screen. As an added bonus, the protected mode may also display some sort of audio-visual entertainment.
It does exactly the same thing, but it is defined as a different product.
It's not just a flying toaster on the screen to avoid burnins,
it's a "screen protector" with "power saving and protection of privacy, with audio-visual entertainment option activated".
It's the same way the Arithmetic coding [wikipedia.org] can be circumvented by substituing it with the closely related Range encoding [wikipedia.org].
Or substituing the patented Marching cubes [wikipedia.org] algorithme for producing a surface from a volume, with the simplier but functionnaly equivalent patent-free Marching tetrahedron [wikipedia.org].
The only limitation is for a couple of things where, to achieve it's goal (interoperability with formats or network communication between microsoft and linux softwares), the software has to follow one specific implementation (ffmpeg may infringe on some of microsoft patent on VC-1 video) but the implementation can't be changed because compatibility will be lost (using alternative non-patented algorithms for video compression/decompression will result in incompatible data).
That hapened during the GIF and MP3 patent controversies. (Although in GIF's case the patent could be circumvented to produce legal GIF although not compressed).
But in the specific case of those 235 patents, some juridiction - mostly EU - will back the open source community as patents are used in ways to explicitely stop interoperation from concurrence. (See what happened with Samba)
Microsoft is the new SCO. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, Microsoft is the new SCO. The result will eventually be the same.
Adversarial behavior eventually destroys those who engage in it.
If you want a very good indication of the effect this new rotten behavior by Microsoft will have, just look at the Slashdot comments. People are ready for this after years of considering SCO. The parent comment is an example of this; the parent comment shows complete understanding. The SCO case has prepared us.
Microsoft has always depended on ignorance. That ignorance is disappearing.
Software patent games are the new McCarthyism. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is to software what McCarthy was to politics?
Re:Software patent games are the new McCarthyism. (Score:5, Interesting)
start referring to Balmer as the new McCarthy, paint them with that nasty brush, it's a PR nightmare if it catches hold.
Emphasize the chair tossing, all the nasty things MS has done to the competitors over the years, what politician/lawmaker would want to be identified with the new McCarthy?
Say, Apple OSX has BSD unix under the hood, but I bet they don't go after apple with this smear campaign.
Much easier scare small businesses out of using linux.
Oh, and Hah!, to the novell people who claim they didn't sell out.
Re:McCarthy underestimated the number (Score:5, Interesting)
> derived from Venona intercepts was even higher.
That is completely irrelevant. McCarthy pulled his number out of his ass. In fact, he pulled it out of his ass a few times and it was a different number each time.
Then he named names, which he also pulled out of his ass.
I can tell you for certain that there are murderers and rapists living in your city, out on the loose. I don't even need to know what city you live in. There are murderers and rapists loose in every city. However if I say there are 122 murderers loose in Philadelphia and I don't have a list of names and I start picking people randomly out of the Philly phone book then it really doesn't matter if later down the line a study finds that there are actually 375 murders loose in Philadelphia. McCarthy was not at all involved in the actual enumeration of communists in the US gov't. He was completely and totally involved in his own self-aggrandization.
> A few years later a Senator from Massachusetts (initials were JFK) claimed that the Soviet Union had close to 200 missiles
> ready to launch against the US - the truth was that the Soviets had 6 ICBM's ready by mid-1960. So maybe it is safe to say
> that Microsoft is to software what Kennedy was to politics?
Also irrelevant. That is not at all what Kennedy is remembered for, while McCarthy is CHIEFLY remembered for pulling a "number of communists" out of his ass and then witch-hunting around all the while refusing to provide any documentation to back up his claims. McCarthy is not the only political figure ever to exaggerate or be wrong
If Ballmer can't back up his number of patent claims with actual documentation of same then the original analogy of McCarthy and Ballmer is apt and valid. If Ballmer says "238 patent infringements" and then he can't give you a 238 page memo to go with that then he will have "pulled a McCarthy."
If somebody shoots Ballmer in the back of the head over this, then he will have "pulled a Kennedy."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The big problem is that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, you get the feel there's some sort of end-game being played out here, but it all started well before it became clear Vista was going to be a dog.
The thing is, if Microsoft divulges what the FOSS patent breaches actually are, the community will respond promptly, and that particular bullet will have been fired. Until Microsoft's list is actually available, we don't know how much harm they'll be able to do, but there's not much chance they'll be able to inflict fatal damage to FOSS.
This patent grab is essentially a one-shot hit, and until now, was always more valuable as a FUD threat than an actual tool of coercion. That Microsoft is choosing to use it now is indicative that they believe it's value as FUD has waned, and I suspect that has more to do with the outcome of their their patent proxy SCO's efforts than with Vista's failure.
Re:The big problem is that... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The big problem is that... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The big problem is that... (Score:5, Insightful)
100% of the small business clients I work with are not adopting Vista. The only place I have seen it show up is in new laptops someone ordered from Dell (with Vista Home Premium, and 512mb-1gb, no less), that were ordered without consulting the IT consultants or in-house team. A handful of clients asked about adopting it simply because it was the 'new' Microsoft 'thing', not aware of the hardware upgrades that would come with it (2k to XP was a matter of getting everyone to 512mb from 128-256 to run good, now its a matter of going from 512mb to 2gb for good performance).
I wish Vista was just XP SP3, but its not, its XP SP2.6 Smoking Crack. It changes the look and feel of Windows, mainly system settings drastically, even experienced end users have a learning curve and in corporate environments this is a bad thing. Don't even get me started on the replacement of add/remove programs. The bottom line is, if we need a more Mac-like interface, we'd buy Macs and improve centralized management for corporate environments.
If Microsoft actually pursues any of the claims againts OSS, they are going to get hammered, HARD. IBM notwithstanding, what do you think keeps Google running? OSS has a large field of successful companies that make good money with OSS and will stand up to them, its simply too late to leverage against them.
The SCO Group is a very sad case, primarily because everything Caldera purchased in regards to legacy Unix was intended to free up a lot of potential patent/etc. issues in Linux for all users/vendors/coders. They reneged on that intention when Ransom Love and anyone that was playing the OSS game at Caldera was kicked to the curb.
Bring on the comments and criticisms, I fully expect to start moving companies to Vista within a year, but anyone with minimal reasoning ability is hesitant to perform a major rollout to inconsistent underperforming hardware so early in the adoption phase.
Cheers.
Re:The big problem is that... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The big fight LIVE! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Begun, the troll wars have (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't believe it will be Linux. It is more likely they will fork their own copy of one of the BSD's, probably FreeBSD, and then port all their own proprietary stuff on top of that.
In other words, once again, Apple will show them the way.
Re:The big fight LIVE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The big fight LIVE! (Score:5, Informative)
Yes and No. When I worked for a big corporation (not IBM) we had an agreement with MS; we could use their patents, they could use ours. But Microsoft made it clear in the agreement that if we used open source software the cross-licensing didn't apply.
Re:The big fight LIVE! (Score:5, Funny)
Let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's time for the US to rid themselves of that law.
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft patents that Linux infringes on almost certainly include their patent of file system symlinks, which have been in Unix systems since the seventies, as well as a slew of other very obvious inventions, none of which have been tested in court. Getting a patent granted, as denizens of Slashdot are all too well aware [freepatentsonline.com], seems to be the easy part. Validating those patents in a court of law may be a little more difficult, especially when one of the supporters [ibm.com] of linux, might have a patent portfolio that would push Balmer from chair throwing to crying uncle.
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Informative)
And even if we switch to "first to file," prior art will still invalidate the patent. Specifically, see section 135 - "Inventor's rights contests" [cornell.edu]
Or start at the beginning, and patch it with [cornell.edu] the ammendments H.R.2795 would make [loc.gov]
Will it be substantially easier for MS to abuse patent law under H.R.2795? Absolutely. Will it make "prior art" invalid? Not at all. And, like I mentioned, it's not even out of committee yet
Software patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Software patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Bert
Who believes that getting rid of software patents is an uphill battle with the upcoming revision of the European patent law (in particular because of TRIPS, which contains an innocent looking but very nasty clause, that patents must be obtainable in any technical field).
Re:Software patents (Score:5, Interesting)
If FOSS were somehow limited to the US, maybe they could hire enough lawyers to mount an offensive. But with the extremely strong chunks of the community around the world they literally have no chance. At best they can just fuck things up and make themselves look even more "evil" than they already do.
Re:Software patents (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that the lawyers for both sides will profit but you can take off the tinfoil hat regarding MS wanting to line lawyers' pockets.
Here's the deal as I see it. MS gets to inhibit open source at minimal expense. They already have their own corporate lawyers plus external lawyers from prestigious firms on retainer. A law firm I worked for did lobbying for MS, Bill Gates came to our office. That's just a cost of business for a company the size of MS. The reality is any delay tactic or expense caused to their competition helps their bottom line by delaying the exodus. It really doesn't matter if MS has a legitimate case or not. Even if they lose, they win.
Go ahead, make my day. (Score:5, Interesting)
cAjones != cOjones (Score:5, Funny)
A cajón is a big box (the aumentative of caja). A cojón is a testicle. Maybe that's the word you were looking for?
Re:cAjones != cOjones (Score:5, Funny)
Re:cAjones != cOjones (Score:5, Informative)
Both are right. "Cajón" is the augmented form of "caja", which is box, so it literally means "large box". However, spanish speakers don't really use it that way, if they want to describe a large box they'd say "caja grande", the word "cajón" is really only used for medium to large drawers. Small drawers, like those on a jewelry box or some such, are called by the diminutive form "cajita".
The various modifier suffixes that can be placed on nouns is one of the coolest features of spanish, IMO. -ón (big), -ote (even bigger), -ito (small, cute, precise), -ejo (big and ugly) ... and others that I can't think of at the moment. You can make nice words like "cojoncitos" and "cojonejos", and there are thousands of really awful puns that can be constructed by noting that one word with a suffix sounds the same (or close to the same) as another word. Spanish is a great language.
since when do users pay royalties? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:since when do users pay royalties? (Score:5, Interesting)
And an even more interesting connection, how do they intend to collect these said royalties?
Re:since when do users pay royalties? (Score:5, Funny)
I suppose the article was 3 pages long.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahh, who am I kiddin'? Here's the skinny:
Microsoft has been approaching Fortune 500's for years now and offering to sell "patent licenses" on any of the software that the companies might be using without one. Basically, it's extortion. "We think you might be running software which utilizes our patented technology without a license, but don't worry, we're not going to sue you, so long as you buy this license from us."
That takes care of all the big fish.. last year they went after the little fish too, by approaching Novell and making that patent deal you might have heard of. When Redhat crumbles (assuming they haven't already) we'll all be paying a Microsoft tax.
Re:I suppose the article was 3 pages long.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever seen Red Hat crumble before? No. So why assume they already have? A generic Red Hat hater? One reason that Slashdotters don't like them is media players. They stay away from murky situations, because they are in a largely corporate market. Now you're seeing *why* they stay away from murky situations. TFA mentions that they've spoken with MS. You'll notice they didn't do a Novell-style deal.
Did you see them freaking out when Oracle went after them? Nope. The stock tumbled, then recovered once people realized the world wasn't ending.
Red Hat spends a lot of money on Linux, paying kernel and gcc devs, etc. Perhaps you're angry with them for not shipping codecs. Or for bagging the Red Hat desktop when they were losing money on it. I, personally don't have any such issues--and I was a RH desktop user when they dumped it. I could see where they were coming from.
Assume they've already buckled? I'd give long odds that you are dead wrong. I suspect that more than a few people are going to discover how tough, and principled, Red Hat is. This is the basis of their business, and unlike Novell, they don't have fools at the helm.
The silver lining is that I get to buy more stock, cheap. Just like after the Oracle attack. I made a few thousand then, and expect to make a few thousand over this SCO-like insanity, as well. Perhaps I'm wrong. But I'll be putting my money up.
Re:since when do users pay royalties? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, not sure what planet you're from, but I don't think many companies run pirated and cracked versions of Windows and Office. Whether you bother to shell out a few bucks for a legit copy, or just Bittorrent it, hardly matters. Your retail-box purchase, or lack thereof, is a piddly little nothing compared to the real money, which is in the corporate userbase, and OEM pre-installs.
You pay for Microsoft every time you go to a store that uses Windows-based POS terminals. You pay for it every time you go to a doctor's office with Windows PCs for running their scheduling. When you order something from a web site that ships goods from a warehouse that uses Windows on the pickers' terminals. Microsoft has insinuated itself into the "cost of doing business," and you pay for it, in fractions of a cent, every time you do anything.
Oh, and you also pay for them when you pay your taxes (or when your employer pays your taxes for you, because you're not trusted to actually do it), because the U.S. Federal government, like most other countries, is essentially a Microsoft shop through and through.
You only think that you're not paying for Microsoft's products, and that's exactly how they like it.
Re:since when do users pay royalties? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the old days, we called this extortion.
Re:since when do users pay royalties? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want to sue "Linux" for violating 235 patents, when in actuality, they should undertake roughly 235 SEPARATE lawsuits against the individual programmers whose code infringes. IT'S NOT LIKE THAT'S A SECRET. Code is always attributed in the free software world.
And what's with not being specific as to the patents? More SCO-like nonsense. They're afraid of giving people time to "open source" the defense using something like Groklaw to rally around.
no patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok just get rid of software patents. Software should've never been permitted to be patented in the first place.
Microsoft is silly (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I always saw it as a way for Microsoft to loosen its illegal monopoly status: by letting free software use some of its patents, its leveling the playing field.
And now they screwed it up. Countdown before more anti-thrust lawsuits start, 5...4...3...2....
Deja Vu? (Score:5, Funny)
where is the list of patents? (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft: It's a fact that Linux and free software infringe hundreds of our patents.
Journalist: Which ones?
Microsoft: Well, the kernel violates 60, the GUI violates...
Journalist (interrupting): which 60? Where is the list?
Microsoft: I'm not prepared to disclose that at this time.
Journalist: Well this is a big fucking waste of my time, isn't it?
Journalist: I went through this same dance with Darl McBride. Call me when you have something to say, bye
Re:where is the list of patents? (Score:5, Funny)
So then (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So then (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sure they are right... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I am sure they are right... (Score:5, Insightful)
We can't just ignore it because "software patents are wrong". Until the courts agree, we have to live with it.
Show it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Show it. (Score:5, Interesting)
The point about software patents is that the only way to protect yourself is to counter sue or to move to Europe.
Too late (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too late (Score:4, Insightful)
Shows you the fear (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Shows you the fear (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm willing to bet (Score:5, Insightful)
When MS can claim to have 235 patents that are violated by F/OSS we need to look closely at why they have that many that can be infringed upon by people so easily... perhaps they are not unobvious at all or too broadly stated to be of use other than to be an offensive tool to use against competitors.
And the strategy comes through (Score:5, Insightful)
Odds are, they'll be smarter about it than SCO - rather then go right for IBM (with tons of dollars to pay lawyers), they'll make "deals" with places like Novell and others so insure that PC tax continues no matter whom the likes of Dell and Gateway and others finally go through.
The sad thing is, there still isn't a great competitor to Windows. Linux is nice and Ubuntu and other distros have come far, but it seems they lack that final step (like "How do I change my screen resolution?" or other bits that only techies would know). OS X is my preferred OS as a security analyst, but it only runs on one system (I know - Apple sells hardware, blah, blah, blah, but damn - if they make Leopard for *all* X86 systems, they might take over the desktops - I've met plenty of CIO's who want that).
Either way, Microsoft's plan is to continue to be the "gasoline" of computers: they don't make the computers, but they get paid for every one that's made. Through their threats and strategic lawsuits/threatening of lawsuit, they'll ensure their money for a long time to come.
Unless, of course, there's enough people who stand up and say "No" and pool together *their* money to help companies fight back....
Re:And the strategy comes through (Score:4, Informative)
Ubuntu is *definitely* easy enough for a n00b if it comes pre-installed and fully configured.
Users file suit against Microsoft for .... (Score:4, Funny)
And our lawyers will work pro bono because so many of them hate MS too.
Real hardball (Score:4, Insightful)
Building stuff that can replace Microsoft's products is one thing - honest competition really. But we've never stooped to Microsoft's own favored methods of dishonest competition. Is Redmond really stupid enough to motivate us to take that step?
Re:Real hardball (Score:4, Funny)
I assume this is FUD mostly directed at Red Hat because it isn't like they are going to seize the international corporate headquarters of Debian or Slackware. What would they propose to stop the kudzu-like growth of the really free distributions? Take down notices on source servers? Set up servers to try to catch people using linux browsers?
You are right... (Score:4, Insightful)
We could screw them over.
But not without simultaneously screwing over millions of windows users.
Which would piss people off with the FOSS community, not MS for breaking standards.
It won't only be the little people (Score:4, Informative)
Last paragraph
"
If push comes to shove, would Microsoft sue its customers for royalties, the way the record industry has?
"That's not a bridge we've crossed," says CEO Ballmer, "and not a bridge I want to cross today on the phone with you."
"
Tech company sue it's own customers?
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Microsoft counters that it is a matter of principle. "We live in a world where we honor, and support the honoring of, intellectual property," says Ballmer in an interview. FOSS patrons are going to have to "play by the same rules as the rest of the business," he insists. "What's fair is fair."
Since when? Of all the corporations that have trampled small businesses IP rights Microsoft have to be the biggest shower of shits in existence. Most of their product range is based on other people's ideas and much of that, e.g. IE was ripped from small business with minimal reward to the innovator.
Basically, name them. Yep, name the infringements. Don't hide behind lawyers and withhold information, BE SPECIFIC!! Many of the IP claims that Microsoft put forward to the EU were minor extensions to existing Open Source software and are no "innovative" enough to justify the high fees requested, equivalent to making an add on to a car and claiming IP over the entire car. If accidental infringment has occured then it's reasonable to allow the FOSS authors the chance to remedy the situation by rewriting code but it's also reasonable to give them access to the information required to perform the task.
It's a constant embarrassment to me that the toadying twat that runs my country saw fit to give a convicted monopolist and proven unfair player like Gates a knighthood and until Microsoft starts behaving in a reasonable and honest manner Gates, Ballmer and Co. can stick their royalties up their arses where their heads have been for the last twenty years.
To reiterate, STATE YOUR CLAIMS IN FULL. Stop hiding behind misinformation, partial information and the pathetic, sad bullshit that has for so long been a trademark for Microsoft business practice.
There, I feel a bit better now.
If Microsoft put... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Later the article manages to imply that there's only one license that all FOSS projects use. You get three guesses which license it is, and the first two don't count.
Does anyone know where we can find out the 235 patents that MS claims are infringed? TFA didn't give any examples.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
It presents both sides of the argument fairly to me. It has plenty of praise for RMS on page 2. It clearly states that Microsoft's actions are unsound and likely to result in harm to the software industry on page 3.
All in all, I think the article is pretty balanced.
A picture of Steve Ballmer, wearing a suit, looking harmless,
Oh, and your idea of harmless and mine are clearly different. He looks ready to explode in that picture.
Tomorrow's Headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Listen, if MS wants to wind up in an eternal battle with the only company in the US that could probably sue their asses under the table, then by all means, please sue FOSS projects. People may not want to think IBM is some great savior of FOSS, but they are the closest thing to a large money source the movement is going to have. They also have a good deal to lose since they have sort of positioned themselves into this position. We have already seen that Novell doesn't want to have to defend FOSS. (Why do you think they signed that deal with MS?) Red Hat does not have the money to do it. HP has too much to lose since their business is still largely dependent on Windows based PCs. This really leaves you with one company, IBM.
I believe Microsoft has spread words like this before, and it seems to be a common thing whenever they feel they are losing some degree of steam. (After all, I think we are at the consensus that Vista is a flop, well until they officially force computer manufacturers to switch to Vista full-time, sometime around EOY.) The idea of the software industry and software patents has been the idea of a mutual peace. The industry will probably destroy itself if suits started flying. I also find this odd after the recent SCOTUS ruling in KSR v. Teleflex, which should make patents infinitely easier to overturn on obviousness issues, even some of those old flimsy software ones.
Which ones? (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on Microsoft, don't pull a SCO. If you think there's a problem, point it out so we can fix it. Tell us what patents, exactly, are infringed and what software, exactly, is infringing.
Sure, it's a bit risky. Any patents you point out are going to be put under a microscope and the collective knowledge of a very large and lore-rich community will be brought to bear in an exhaustive search for prior art, but if you really think the patents are truly valuable, novel inventions, and that you are really being damaged by their infringement, tell us so we can find a way to avoid infringing.
If we can't find prior art, and can't find a way to show that the software isn't actually infringing, and can't find a FOSS-friendly company to use its patent portfolio to negotiate a deal, then we'll get busy finding a way to change the software so it doesn't infringe. Actually, given the nature of the community, we'll probably change the software so it doesn't infringe even if we can address the issue another way. We don't like software patents, but we feel quite strongly about making sure that our software is free from any legal encumbrance. Tell us what the problem is and we'll try to fix it.
But, please, the biggest software company in the world should have at least a *little* dignity. Don't pull a SCO.
Microsoft's new mantra for 2007 (Score:5, Insightful)
This is part of Microsoft's new Vista campaign for 2007 and 2008:
"If you can't innovate... LITIGATE!"
I RTFA, and I don't see an itemized list of the FOSS packages which they claim infringe, and the relevant patent numbers that are apparently infringed-upon. Until I see an itemized list, I can't properly audit my collection of FOSS to replace or rewrite those referenced packages.
Until I see an itemized list of FOSS packages and relevant patent numbers, this is all just smoke.
More meritless numbers - no names (Score:4, Insightful)
At the same time, Smith was having Microsoft's lawyers figure out how many of its patents were being infringed by free and open-source software. Gutierrez refuses to identify specific patents or explain how they're being infringed, lest FOSS advocates start filing challenges to them.
But he does break down the total number allegedly violated - 235 - into categories. He says that the Linux kernel - the deepest layer of the free operating system, which interacts most directly with the computer hardware - violates 42 Microsoft patents. The Linux graphical user interfaces - essentially, the way design elements like menus and toolbars are set up - run afoul of another 65, he claims. The Open Office suite of programs, which is analogous to Microsoft Office, infringes 45 more. E-mail programs infringe 15, while other assorted FOSS programs allegedly transgress 68.
Still numbers out of thin air - and the real reason is more likely that the Linux groups would work on rectifying the patent conflicts much to the disadvantage of Microsoft.
I would count no infringement until Microsoft tells us what we are infringing on. Kind of like me telling you guys on Slashdot you owe me $800, $500 is for my time and the other $300 is for stuff I provided. without offering any proof besides a mention of a lawyer verifying my amount (yep, he said it was $800 too). Hmm, kind of sounds like the RIAA come to think of it....
Write to Fortune magazine and complain (Score:4, Insightful)
Better yet, write to every major newspaper and offer your view before they, in their usual utter clueless manner, copy the story verbatim. The BBC, for instance, since they tend to be especially dumb when it comes to parroting the Microsoft party line.
I don't think this is real because IBM has a lot at stake in Linux and MS almost certainly infringes on many of those. I'm pretty sure that MS also infringes on numerous Apple copyrights and Aplle could do something good for once and shake their own stick at MS.
Lastly, Microsoft, you should be ashamed at your behaviour. You know why so many countries and institutions are ditching your products for Linux and others? It's because of the way you behave. SCO almost certainly got the idea to sue IBM from you, Microsoft, and if that ever comes out in court, Fatman Ballmer is going to be doing some dancing in court, because IBM also knows this and they won't take it kindly.
Hope your tube of KY is ready Steve.
Silver lining (Score:5, Insightful)
1. We knew this was going to happen sooner or later.
2. Its better it happens sooner, Linus was getting impatient with the FSF folks
and rightly seeing them as paranoid. If it had been a year or so more, the kernel
might've been forked with some GPL v3 and GPL v2... This forces the FOSS community
to circle their wagons and get along.
3. I welcome this challenge, because what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
MS executives are doing it now to appear like they're working hard because the
great Redmond machine is running out of steam and they need to keep that stock
price propped up for a few more years while they sell:
When was the last time you saw an insider trade of 'buy' MSFT? They have a
good margin and great revenue, but so did Kodak and Palaroid just a short while back.
Ideas can last forever, companies don't.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
GPLv3 (Score:5, Insightful)
What if destroying Linux weren't the goal? (Score:5, Interesting)
What if Microsoft's direct goal were not harming Linux, but rather destroying the software patent system? Obviously, Microsoft would love for Linux to disappear, but they could be thinking much deeper. Microsoft has argued for patent reform before when they lost $521000000 to Eolas. Clearly appeal to Congress and the courts has not worked.
By creating complete chaos in the software industry, these legal threats could force changes to the laws to avoid a breakdown.
Nothing to see here (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently Smith didn't pay much attention in his equity classes in law school (not surprising since most people find equity boring and difficult - I on the other hand topped my year so :-P to Smith). This behaviour is going to give rise to a proprietary estoppel against Microsoft, and he has now publicly stated the hardest things a defendant would have to prove to get the estoppel. This is just about rule #1 of equity - if you know somebody is violating your property rights, and you let them expend time, effort and resources building something in violation of those rights without them having knowledge of the breach of your rights, the courts will not let you enforce your rights against those people or anybody who claims through them.
It would be a different matter if Microsoft had no knowledge of the breach, but having investigated it and found the breach, if they don't tell the projects affected what the alleged breach is in fairly short order, they are not going to be able to enforce their rights at all.
Even if he did not pay a lot of attention in his equity classes it seems unlikely Smith would not have some awareness of this. This suggests to me that Microsoft have no intention whatsoever of using the patents to pursue open source projects or even users who are building businesses based around open source products. If they did intend to do this, they would give specific notice. This leaves them with only intimidation as a strategy for exploiting their patents against open source.
It is a shame we have no examples of another company that turned to using unspecified intellectual property violations as an intimidation strategy against open source. Such an example might give us an indication of the ultimate result.
Not relevent (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, patents apply to almost all use, not just to things that are bought and sold - you can't undercut someone else's patents by giving away their inventions for free.
Third, every company that uses free software (and who doesn't?) does so presumably for commercial advantage.
Re:Dell? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, Microsoft is leagues ahead of Linux in the desktop market, and people claiming that Dell selling XP boxes instead of Vista marks the death knell for the company and suchlike is clear Linux fanboyism and propaganda. Whichever of their OSes they're selling, they're still paying Microsoft hefty licensing fees, and that is unlikely to change as long as their OS and office suite is ubiquitous in the corporate world. Microsoft may be deceitful and manipulative, but anyone comparing this to a dying company making a last ditch grab for cash in SCO style is clearly stupid or ill-informed, however much we might wish that to be the case.
Re:If they're slam-dunks... (Score:5, Interesting)
Problem: most FOSS projects don't have the resources to make sure they don't violate patents.
No, those are not the problems you're looking for.
There are roughly 1,400 (Patent Storm Search [patentstorm.us]) Microsoft patents covering OS kernels. Microsoft says Linux is infringing 45 of them. A quick look through those patents will bring up gems like Patent 6711625, found on the first page of results;
Microsoft currently has about 24,000 Patent Storm [patentstorm.us] patents in its portfolio, a significant proportion of which should never have been granted. Microsoft is using those dodgy patents to generate FUD, and make businesses less likely to use software which competes with its own products. That's the real problem.Well ... perhaps in part. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now ... all Microsoft needs to do (and is doing) is to demand license fees for the use of their patents. This won't affect Linux'es availability for anyone who's willing to pay for a license. How much opposition do you think this will engender in corporate America? How outworldish is it to try to monetise your patents? I have this sinking feeling that most of the industry will shrug it off with "Well ... we knew they're bastards, but that's why they make such a lot of money.", and simply make sure that their Linux distributions are covered by patent license agreements.
Google
Will Google suddenly litigate 150-odd patents (they won't be using the gui or Open Office, just the kernel), or will it consent to pay, say 15$ a copy in licensing fees? Eh? What would you advise Google's CEO if you were in charge of Legal Affairs?
Novell
Novell has signed this patent-agreement, so wouldn't automatically be required to oppose Microsoft when MS asserts its patents. And what about Red-Hat? Will they charge the windmills?
IBM ... will Microsoft see it as a winning strategy to get into a court battle with IBM about anything they can sue other much smaller companies for first? I'd be surprised.
And IBM? Will they even be a party in the initial legal battles? I mean
SUN
And yes, SUN will not take allegations that it's Open Office infringes on Microsoft's patents lying down. But will it take up the cudgels to protect the Linux kernel when it's trying to make a go of Open Solaris? Really?
The little guys
Although I will readily admit that "corporate" use of Linux has helped it along enormously, there are still the "purist" and "hobbyist" distributions. I'm guessing that there are hundreds of small specialised tweaked Linux distributions (ranging from Knoppix to firewalls) brought out by individuals and tiny little companies. That's where Linux shines. And that's where you see the oddball experiments and many of the interesting new developments.
So what are those small guys going to do when they receive a pay-license-fees-or-cease-and-desist nastygram? Their entire assets might just be enough to have a lawyer read the letter and explain to them what it means. My guess is that they will be unable to defend themselves and will quickly fold and withdraw their distros. That alone would be a blow.
The Kernel repositories
And then the Kernel repositories. What are the chances that those will have to take down the infringing portions of their code, if asked? Of course I can't say how likely this might be, as I'm not a lawyer. But Denis Crouch is and his response here ( http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/05/microsoft_ foss_.html [patentlyo.com]) doesn't completely reassure me that Microsoft won't get anywhere.
What does Microsoft have to loose really? ... who likes buying Microsoft? A show of hands please! ... And now, who of you buy Microsoft because it happens to come with the hardware, and it works after a fashion, and you're locked-in anyway?
And about other companies giving Micorsoft a hard time
Really ... what does Microsoft have to loose from some bad publicity when trying to collect licenses on their patents? Somehow I can't even imagine that it would spark off an anti-trust suit, because all the "corporate" Linux distros aren't affected. Microsoft isn't (formally) trying to siderail an opponent, it's trying to get money for patents they own. Well yes, it's lethal to free-as