Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Why Microsoft Won't List Claimed Patent Violations

Posted by kdawson on Mon May 14, 2007 07:20 PM
from the only-stick-they've-got dept.
BlueOni0n writes "Earlier today, Microsoft announced it will begin actively seeking reparations for claimed patent infringement by Linux and the open source community in general. One opinion on why Microsoft won't reveal these 235 alleged IP infringements to the public is that they're afraid of having the claims debunked or challenged — so instead they're waiting until the OS community comes to the bargaining table. But a more optimistic thought is that Microsoft may be afraid to list these supposed violations because it knows the patents can be worked around by the open source community, leaving Microsoft high and dry without any leverage at all."

Related Stories

[+] Microsoft Says Free Software Violates 235 Patents 1217 comments
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2
  • Where's Novell? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Monday May 14, @07:22PM (#19123795)
    Didn't they claim (after they signed the agreement) that Linux did not have any patent issues with Microsoft?

    Where is their press release regarding this?
    • Where's the Cease and Desist? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by EnderWiggnz (39214) on Monday May 14, @07:33PM (#19123921)
      Where is the C&D from the FSF?

      If someone is making a dubious claim, slap them with a c&d, and force this thing into court.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Where's Novell? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wall0159 (881759) on Monday May 14, @07:42PM (#19124023)

      The thing I think is interesting is MS's deal with Novell. If MS really had this big patent portfolio on which Linux was infringing, then Novell would have been in a very weak bargaining position.

      Instead we see the opposite - MS paid Novell a lot of money for that deal. To me this says that MS is full of shit, its patents are hollow (or uninfringed), and they were paying a lot of $$$ to Novell to try and add credence to their dubious claims.

      But what would I know - I'm just a hippy Linux user ;-)
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Where's Novell? (Score:5, Informative)

        by KarmaMB84 (743001) on Monday May 14, @08:22PM (#19124443)
        The deal required that Microsoft also had to pay royalties. Microsoft's revenues are MUCH higher than Novell's so they paid more than Novell paid them.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:Where's Novell? (Score:5, Interesting)

          That makes sense... Bill Gates makes much more than me, so we should charge him $1,000 for a cup of coffee. Seems fair :-) In the real world, big companies typically pay less than small companies for the same service, and I bet Bill gets his coffee for free. Anyway, this just more M$ FUD, with no substance. The only people M$ will scare are the guys who actually pay for free software, so the rest of the world should more or less feel safe, especially outside the US where countries mostly recognize that software should not be patentable.
          [ Parent ]
      • Re:Where's Novell? by dlawson (Score:1) Monday May 14, @08:40PM
      • Barrel is smoking, feet are bloody (Score:5, Interesting)

        by WebCowboy (196209) on Monday May 14, @09:07PM (#19124841)
        If MS really had this big patent portfolio on which Linux was infringing, then Novell would have been in a very weak bargaining position.

        Both parties are in awkward positions, if pro-Free-software legal experts are correct in their interpretation of the MS-Novell agreement and the GPL.

        Increasingly it looks like the agreement will be in conflict with GPL3, and as software included in SLES migrates towards using GPL3 Novell will either have to freeze SLES at the last version of code relesed under GPL2 or somehow find their way out of the agreement to stay current.

        MS is in an awkward position because in their end of the deal they are obligated to sell SLES certificates. Technically they are now a Linux distributor. To sell a distribution you MUST abide by the GPL--even under GPL2 when you distribute GPL software you MUST make the source code available without restriction. It does not matter if the code implements a patented invention, MS could not charge a royalty/licensing fee to restrict use of the application or its source code without violating GPL. If MS is serious about trying to enforce its patents it must immediately terminate its agreement with Novell. GPL3 would not make the above situation any different for these existing patents from what I understand--what GPL3 does is keep authors of GPLed code from creating NEW patents based on the functionality of that GPLed code (could a lawyer out there tell me if that is a valid interpretation?).

        I'm not convinced MS will get very far with this latest cage-rattling. I suspect many of the involved patents are pretty dubious in nature--and some may be very old and could be close to expiration by the time litigation has finally reached a conclusion (another reason why they wouldn't pull a SCO and head into an embarrassing, protracted legal battle over IP). I also suspect that the Linux kernel itself violates few if any patents at all given how architecturally different it is from the Windows kernel. Microsoft would most likely go after the more outer layers of the OS onion--those involving interoperability with Windows. That is, after all, the stated focus of the MS-Novell deal.

        I think we'd first see action against Samba for example. Mono would've been a target as well, but the Novell agreement took care of that. Frontpage interoperability with Apache is another likely Free software target (I realise not all of their targets are GPL, though that is their prime concern). ODBC drivers that let Linux talk to Microsoft databases might be in the crosshairs. This strategy could be part of the "if you can't beat them, join them" plan: If Vista and the corresponding to-be-released server OS prove to be disappointments over the long term the Windows platform as it exists today may be allowed to wither and die on the vine, to be replaced with something more Linux-like (or perhaps BSD-like).

        If it does indeed "pull an Apple" and underpin its OS with such Free content it'll need a differentiator--and they intend that to be backwards compatibility with what will be "legacy Windows", which will also allow them to maintain their vendor lock-in. That key piece of the puzzle cannot be Free under the MSFT business model so the goal of more aggressively enforcing patents is likely to explore the feasibility of taking the "MSFT/Linux" or "BSD Windows" route whilst maintaining the leverage they enjoy as a monopoly.

        Their investment in "open source research" as of late has provided them with some ammunition, however I think they are still too clumsy with the gun and will only be able to shoot themselves in the foot with such a clumsy strategy. MS is resilient though, so I hope defenders of Free software can keep them off balance before they recover.
        [ Parent ]
    • Re:Where's Novell? by lnjasdpppun (Score:2) Monday May 14, @07:49PM
    • Some of the patents may be invalid by firedeveloper (Score:1) Monday May 14, @11:13PM
    • Re:Where's Novell? by orielbean (Score:1) Monday May 14, @11:15PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • This reminds me of something... by MoxFulder (Score:2) Monday May 14, @11:19PM
    • Re:Where's Novell? by HermMunster (Score:2) Monday May 14, @11:23PM
      • Re:Where's Novell? (Score:5, Insightful)

        I do admit, I just can't get past the way this resembles a Monty Python sketch. I can see it now...

        JOHN CLEESE: "You've trespassed upon my property!"

        GRAHAM CHAPMAN: "I did not."

        CLEESE: "You did! You did! You owe me a toll!"

        CHAPMAN: "I wasn't aware that I did. Where did I step on your property?"

        CLEESE: "...I won't tell you."

        CHAPMAN: "What? Why not?"

        CLEESE: "If I told you, then you'd find a route that doesn't cross my property. That would ruin my chances of collecting a toll in the future, now, wouldn't it?"

        CHAPMAN: "You are a very silly man and I have no intention of paying."

        CLEESE: "THERE! You did it again! Now pay up!"

        CHAPMAN: "No. Go away."
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Where's Novell? by mpe (Score:2) Tuesday May 15, @04:28AM
    • Re:Where's Novell? by instanto (Score:1) Monday May 14, @11:36PM
    • Re:Where's Novell? by Brotherred (Score:1) Tuesday May 15, @12:35AM
    • Re:Where's Novell? by statusbar (Score:2) Tuesday May 15, @12:36AM
    • 5 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • MSSCO by Gary W. Longsine (Score:2) Monday May 14, @07:23PM
  • The big problem... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14, @07:23PM (#19123801)
    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. Micah hacks the computer system so Nathan can win. Peter controls the radiation power, and the ending is a cliffhanger into the next and final episode. 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.
  • SCO by C_Kode (Score:2) Monday May 14, @07:23PM
    • Re:SCO by Ohreally_factor (Score:3) Monday May 14, @07:39PM
    • Re:SCO (Score:5, Interesting)

      by deathy_epl+ccs (896747) on Monday May 14, @07:41PM (#19124015)

      Is it just me or does sound like the beginnings of the SCO/IBM fiasco repeating itself?

      SCO failed Microsoft... so, as the old saying goes, if you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself.

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:SCO by smash (Score:2) Monday May 14, @08:27PM
      • Re:SCO by UncleTogie (Score:2) Monday May 14, @09:28PM
      • Re:SCO by Citizen of Earth (Score:3) Monday May 14, @09:31PM
        • Re:SCO by freeweed (Score:2) Tuesday May 15, @09:19AM
      • MS are fighting a shadow by CarpetShark (Score:3) Tuesday May 15, @01:29AM
      • Re:SCO by hey! (Score:2) Tuesday May 15, @06:10AM
    • Re:SCO by bursch-X (Score:2) Monday May 14, @10:50PM
  • So in other words: by Anarchysoft (Score:2) Monday May 14, @07:24PM
    • by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Monday May 14, @07:28PM (#19123875)

      Just take a look at the amusing comments on the Office blogs about licensing their Office 2007 user interface IP. It's abundantly clear that some of the bigwigs in management there are not lawyers, and haven't even read about their own company's history in this area with Apple and others in the past. Some of them really do believe that just because they spent a significant amount of time and money researching something, they automatically get perfect monopoly protection of that research under IP laws.

      [ Parent ]
      • by JimDaGeek (983925) on Monday May 14, @07:49PM (#19124123)
        Damn, I just spent my last mod point, or I would mod you up, this is exactly what I was thinking. How the hell can the management be so dumb as to forget their OWN companies history with Apple? MS really sucks IMO. I wish the US govt. had some spine and had split the company to an OS division and a software division during the anti-trust thing. I guess MS knew what greedy politicians to bribe with money. Oh, but it is PC to call those bribes "campaign contributions".
        [ Parent ]
        • US Government (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Archangel Michael (180766) on Monday May 14, @10:05PM (#19125281)
          (Last Journal: Wednesday September 22 2004, @11:13AM)
          I'm under the belief that a monopoly cannot ever sustain itself. Ever. At least not with some ACTIVE help from the government (see ATT). In this case, I saw the collapse of Microsoft coming in the year 2008, some six or seven years ago. I saw what Linux was back in its infancy, in the late 90s, and saw it steadily improve.

          I may have been a little later to jump on the Linux bandwagon back then, but I've been onboard since 99 or 00, and by the time 02 or 03 came around, I saw the writing on the wall. This whole thing was magnified by the ME disaster, BOB, and Clippy. These failures are key to understanding WHY Microsoft is doomed to failure.

          ME, BOB, and Clippy are all UI designs, not core components. Microsoft has stopped making core improvements to the OS for some time. And by CORE improvements I mean innovations to the underlying OS. By now, Windows should have been FULLY virtualized and abstracted away from the underlying hardware. Microsoft has made the error of tying itself to x86 architecture to much, and that is now limiting its ability to add true functionality (like virtualization), something that is vastly needed, especially in the server market, where each service almost needs its own host.

          Along comes Linux, which ISN'T tied to a piece of hardware, and has abstacted various layers so that it doesn't need to be tied to specific hardware, and it is leading into virtualized hosted environment. I suspect the next revolution in OS is going to be complete abstraction of the core OS from the underlying HW via vitualization, which will break the bonds from x86 architecture.

          So, by NOT interfering (protecting MS), the US Government is actually helping Microsoft CRUSH itself by trying to maintain a codebase that is incomprehensible because it has never had to change architecture. If the US government tried to break up Microsoft all those years ago, Windows and the core application and server products might have been improved to the point that the monopoly would still exist, only in three parts.

          As it looks right now, MS is a beached Whale, and the tide is still moving out. The mighty leviathan is being crushed under its own weight in an environment that is changing faster than it can. Be warned, Microsoft (or whatever happens to it) will still have remains, but it will not be the powerhouse it once was.
          [ Parent ]
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Much of Microsoft's IP strategy is FUD by KarmaMB84 (Score:2) Monday May 14, @08:35PM
      • Re:Much of Microsoft's IP strategy is FUD by FractalZone (Score:1) Monday May 14, @09:04PM
    • Microsoft is playing poker. by Mahjub Sa'aden (Score:2) Monday May 14, @07:28PM
  • Like McCarthy holding up an envelope (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cavehobbit (652751) on Monday May 14, @07:25PM (#19123835)
    (http://www.wrightwing.net/)
    MS likely has as many patent violations in its secret list as McCarthy had Communist names on his.
    • Re:Like McCarthy holding up an envelope by Anarchysoft (Score:2) Monday May 14, @07:27PM
    • Re:Like McCarthy holding up an envelope by iminplaya (Score:2) Monday May 14, @07:51PM
    • by cavehobbit (652751) on Monday May 14, @07:57PM (#19124225)
      (http://www.wrightwing.net/)
      Yes, there were. But when he held up the envelope it was a total bluff. He had nothing in it.

      [ Parent ]
    • by Volante3192 (953645) on Monday May 14, @07:57PM (#19124237)
      There's a difference between saying "There are 57 card carrying Communists in the Department of Defense!" on national television and "Julius and Ethel Rosenberg are suspected of being Soviet spies because of this evidence."

      Just because there's a shark in a lake filled with trout doesn't mean you drain the lake to kill the shark. You could be one of the trout.
      [ Parent ]
    • Ummm, you do know that at the time McCarthy made his accusations, there were Communists actively spying in the government, right?

      While that may be true, it's also true (or alleged to be true) that Senator McCarthy held up a blank sheet of paper when he first claimed he had names of Communist conspirators/spies.

      Furthermore, many of the people who were publicly humiliated and accused of being Communists were in fact nothing of the sort. Unfortunately, the problem with defamation is that once the slander/libel is out there, it's really hard to retract. Especially if the party making the outrageous claims is a respected Senator who gets to mobilize government resources to harass people. McCarthy's abuse of the system was his way to attack political opponents, not get rid of real Communist spies.

      While it's quite probable that there are some real patent violations in the Linux kernel and in the source code of various GNU tools, that's about all you can say. Whether these infringed patents are even valid is another matter -- and you can certainly bet that FOSS authors are going to go after at least some of Microsoft's patent claims on the grounds that the patents are invalid. For each patent that gets invalidated, Microsoft's patent portfolio becomes just a little bit less valuable...

      So it's not in Microsoft's interests to divulge just which patents they feel have been infringed. Worst case scenario, they could lose a good chunk of their portfolio and still have nothing to show for it because the remaining patents that withstood scrutiny might be found to not apply; those patents that do apply could be easily worked around with a modest investment of engineering effort.

      What makes me wonder is why Microsoft is bothering to take a page from SCO's playbook. It hasn't worked too well for SCO, so why does Microsoft think they'll fare better with the same strategy?

      To tie this back to the McCarthy analogy: even if Microsoft is right that there are infringed patents (which is statistically likely), there's no guarantee that Microsoft has done the due dilligence to ascertain which specific patents have been infringed and leave no margin for doubt. Microsoft has broken down the numbers by OS component (kernel, "GUI," etc.) to tell us how many patents they believe have been violated by each component, but again, we only have their word for that. For all we know, Microsoft is trolling and pulled these numbers out of thin air. Kind of like McCarthy's list.

      This seems like a pretty obvious fishing expedition. You know, the kind that involves big nets that scrape the sea floor and damage coral reefs, to use yet another tortured metaphor.
      [ Parent ]