Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Details FOSS Patent Breaches
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue May 15, 2007 10:41 AM
from the just-a-little-bit-dangerous dept.
from the just-a-little-bit-dangerous dept.
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.'"
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This discussion has been archived.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.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Oh microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Zoom in... (Score:5, Funny)
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Zoom in... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Why not do it the other way (Score:5, Interesting)
No new details (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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.
Microsoft will win everytime (Score:5, Funny)
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! (Score:5, Funny)
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... (Score:5, Funny)
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 (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.
Nothing to see here, move along... (Score:5, Interesting)
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????? (Score:5, Funny)
I dunno, executing JavaScript in emails was a pretty novel idea. Mostly because nobody else was stupid enough to think of it.
Parent
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?Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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)
Parent
Re:Quick !! Lets examine and change them all !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent