Microsoft Details FOSS Patent Breaches

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.'"

Oh microsoft

[falcon5768 (629591)]

Graphical user interfaces, the way menus and windows look on the screen, breach 65

You really DONT want to open that can of worms. Trust me you really dont.

Re:Oh microsoft

[UnknowingFool (672806)]

Somewhere in the legal departments of Apple, Xerox, HP, AT&T, and IBM, IP lawyers are getting ready for a counter strike. Complete with pirate uniforms. This cold war will escalate into a very hot war if MS goes through with it. :)

Re:Oh microsoft

[psbrogna (611644)]

Anybody else see parallels between this & Disney whining about infringment after they made movies based on long standing folklore?

Re:Oh microsoft

[$RANDOMLUSER (804576)]

MS can't seriously believe they invented any part of the WIMP (GUI) system?

It doesn't matter if they invented it, only if they patented it. Which is what's wrong with the whole system.

Re:Oh microsoft

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

It doesn't matter if they invented it, only if they patented it. Which is what's wrong with the whole system.

Not true. The U.S. patent system is based on a "first to invent" doctrine, not "first to file."

Applying for a patent often serves as proof that you had indeed invented something at a certain time (at least the filing date), and creates a bit of a barrier for someone else to prove that they invented it earlier (since they'd need to conclusively demonstrate that they had done it before you had), but it's not unheard of or even especially uncommon historically.

That's the whole idea behind 'prior art' in the U.S.: if you can demonstrate that you, or somebody else, had invented something and published it before the person who got the patent for it did, then the patent can be ruled invalid.

There are some (IMO, really poorly thought-out) proposals that would change the U.S. system to a "first to file" one, which is more common throughout the rest of the world, but it hasn't happened yet.

Re:Oh microsoft

[$RANDOMLUSER (804576)]

Yeah. All I have to do is take on Microsoft's legal department and the USPTO to prove that it's a bad patent.

Zoom in...

[mccalli (323026)]

One more level of zoom required, Microsoft. Still can't tell what you're actually saying.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Zoom in...

[RealEstateGuy (1088269)]

Google probably has a patent on zooming so you're probably out of luck

Why not do it the other way

[MikeRT (947531)]

Have some people at IBM tally up publicly how many patents Windows and Microsoft Office violate. Then have them say, "what's the point, are you going to actually sue someone over this?"

No new details

[NakNomik (21692)]

This is still old news. There are no new details in this article that were not already present in the one Slashdot reported on Sunday (the CNN Money article, http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_arc hive/2007/05/28/100033867/index.htm?section=money_ latest [cnn.com])

That is NOT specificity..

[the_rajah (749499)]

until we get patent numbers and exactly what it is that is infringing on it. Put up or shut up.

You're Giving Them What They Want

[repetty (260322)]

By getting ourselves worked up about this we are only playing into their strategy. This threat worries only the people who don't know better. (Not coincidentally, these are frequently the people making technology investment and purchasing decisions. This is an old, faithful Microsoft business technique.)

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.

[shaitand (626655)]

Microsoft is afraid, plain and simple. This an edorsement by the market leader that Linux is ready for the desktop. They were afraid to see Novell pushing it but when Dell went onboard and picked the most user friendly of distros to do it with; Microsoft became terrified.

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.

And who are they going to sue?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Dear Microsoft,

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:

• there are multiple email programs and window managers produced in many countries around the world, a lot of which do not have software patenting laws
• Linus & co. working on the kernel have absolutely nothing (or at the most, extremely little) to do with email applications and GUI prettiness
• Unix predates Windows and there is a LOT of prior art (and I imagine patents as well) on most of the aspects of the Windows operating system and Office suite
• Going up against big companies who rely on Linux (Sun, IBM, etc) could unleash a patent war in the reverse direction (and a lot of unfriendliness)

Best Regards from Sweden,

Someone who doesn't care about your patent claims.

Microsoft will win everytime

[packetmon (977047)]

Method and apparatus for clicking

Abstract

A click is made when someone's finger presses down on a mouse

Inventors: Microsoft
Assignee: Microsoft
Filed: March 14, 1929

See!

Of course!

[TheWoozle (984500)]

"...but the company says it still prefers licensing deals with open-source developers, software distributors and users instead of legal action against them."

Me too! I prefer people to just give me money rather than have to go through all the hassle of producing something of value.

Hey, Microsoft! I've got a bunch of patents that you're infringing and I would prefer that you go ahead and license them from me rather than starting an ugly legal battle. I'll even give you a deal (just this once, because you like a nice kid): $100 Million for the lot. This offer won't be repeated, so take advantage while you still can!

In other news...

[Baavgai (598847)]

SCO called and wants it's business plan back.

Giving counts is pretty useless. Calling it more detailed it like saying you'll release the personal information of the vicitms and just giving a list of nationalities; you really don't know more than you did before, but the feed got you to stay tuned.

I didn't know US patent law

[Flying pig (925874)]

Applied in the Isle of Man (Ubuntu) and Germany (the home of StarOffice). Let alone the rest of the EU.

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.

Nothing to see here, move along...

[radtea (464814)]

Until they tell us specifically which patents are being violated by what software, we cannot take any remedial action.

There are two possible cases: 1) no free software violates any MS patents; and 2) some free software violates some MS patents, but we don't know what software violates what patents because MS refuses to tell us.

Ergo, it is reasonable to assume that since MS has made it impossible for potential infringers to take any action to avoid infringement, that they have an interest in any infringement that occurs. That is, MS is promoting infringement of their own patents.

Indeed, the article says, "But Augustin also acknowledged that it's not in Microsoft's interest to do so: Open-source programmers could rewrite their code to avoid infringing on specific patents, or the courts could find that Microsoft's patent isn't valid."

I am not a lawyer, but when a party promotes the infringement of their own patents it might be reasonable to assume that they may be estopped from ever enforcing those patents in the future.

MS needs to tell us specifically which free software is violating what patents. If they do not tell us that we are justified in assuming that either no free software violates any patents, or that MS is entirely ok with all the free software that violates any of their patents. If they were not ok with it, they would tell us exactly which free software violated exactly what patents.

Re:E-MAIL?????

[by Anonymous Coward]

I dunno, executing JavaScript in emails was a pretty novel idea. Mostly because nobody else was stupid enough to think of it.

Re:Nothing new here

[Skrynesaver (994435)]

Indeed this is just a random number series associated with various FOSS apps.
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:The Camerons are spot on:

[Yusaku Godai (546058)]

The software patent issue needs to be driven to the front of 2008 election politics.

Good luck with that. The average voter thinks that the Internet is the little blue 'e' icon on their desktop, and that Windows is a type of computer (the other type of computer is a Mac). They don't even know about FOSS or could scarcely give a hoot how it's affected by Microsoft, or how software patents affect innovation in general.

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:The Camerons are spot on:

[smitty_one_each (243267)]

I think there are more pressing issues in the world right now.

Possibly in a tactical sense.
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:

[A beautiful mind (821714)]

Good luck with that. The average voter thinks that the Internet is the little blue 'e' icon on their desktop, and that Windows is a type of computer (the other type of computer is a Mac). They don't even know about FOSS or could scarcely give a hoot how it's affected by Microsoft, or how software patents affect innovation in general.

There is a reason I hate cynical, trying to be realistic assessments. The problem with it is that by taking a view like that, no progress is possible. I deliberately overshoot what I think is the current average state of affairs both in politics and in computing. I _expect_ a voter or citizen to know the basics of what is a democracy, I _expect_ that an average person knows the basics of how a computer works. The reason is simple trends. It will continue to be important knowing about the basic operating principles of a democratic society and will increase in importance. It's going to grow much more important in the future to know about computers since computing is really only getting more widespead and slowly embedded in most everyday aspects of life.

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:Quick !! Lets examine and change them all !!

[A beautiful mind (821714)]

I for one don't feel like working around patents. I decided to ignore them completely. Yeah, I'm from Europe. If they ever institute software patents here I will continue to ignore them as a form of civil disobedience.