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

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

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. :)

Apple is no friend of Linux

What makes you think Apple would fall on Linux's side? Apple has cross-patent deals with Microsoft that protect them from this kind of thing and Apple is very clear in the marketing materials that they are just as eager as Microsoft to see Linux go away. There seems to be this naive idea within the Linux community that Apple is a friendly company. Here's a clue guys, the enemy of my enemy is NOT always my friend.

It's not a friend, or an enemy, it's a company.

What makes you think Apple would fall on Linux's side? Apple has cross-patent deals with Microsoft that protect them from this kind of thing and Apple is very clear in the marketing materials that they are just as eager as Microsoft to see Linux go away. There seems to be this naive idea within the Linux community that Apple is a friendly company. Here's a clue guys, the enemy of my enemy is NOT always my friend.

Not sure I buy this. I wouldn't say that Apple is exactly #1 in the "Linux Fan Club," but they have a lot to gain via open standards, at least when it's a choice of "open standards or Microsoft's proprietary standard." (I'm sure they'd much prefer their own proprietary standard being the One True Way, but as long as that's not going to happen, it's better nobody own it than a competitor.)

I don't think you can sum up Apple or the Macintosh platform's relationship to open source in general, or Linux in particular, as just "love" or "hate." It's much more nuanced. Apple has a lot to gain by any slip in Windows marketshare and a loosening of Microsoft's hold on the desktop, particularly the home desktop (it's been a while since they've gone after the business desktop and I doubt they'll ever really try again). It's a lot easier for Apple to compete against Linux than it is to compete against Windows, because Linux has less lock-in. (I.e., you can switch a Linux user to Mac more easily than you can switch a Windows user to Mac.) However, at the same time, they compete with Linux in the smaller segment of "non-Windows OSes." (So, it's the converse of before -- it's easier to switch a Mac user to Linux, than a Windows user to Linux. Such is the double-edged sword of open standards.)

You see the same issue with IBM -- on some levels, IBM is (or was) competing with Linux; e.g. vs AIX. (For this to make much sense you really have to think back a few years before they jumped on the open-source/open-standards bandwagon heavily.) Some of their divisions I'd expect still do (maybe database software?). There are probably a lot of non-IT examples around that people could come up with, too.

Corporations, because they don't have a single controlling mind, can in many cases do things that would appear to be hypocritical or contradictory if they're anthropomorphized. There's a lot that's been written about this sort of behavior (Google "coopetition"), and it's a lot more complex than 'friends' and 'enemies.'

Re:Oh microsoft

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

to quote Vizzini

"You're trying to kidnap what I've rightfully stolen."

Re:Oh microsoft

Hey, Microsoft, 1988 called. They want their look-and-feel lawsuit back.

Re:Oh microsoft

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

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

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

Re:Oh microsoft

no, MS has to take on you. They have to sue you for patent infringement.

And if you really think MS's pockets are so deep that they can carry themselves through their current lull, survive the dip their stock is going to take, AND sue a couple thousand companies...without details from each of the defendants being shared between said defendants...

This isn't the RIAA going after grandmothers living on welfare. MS is aiming to go up against people that will put up a tremendous fight. You don't think RMS would happily go to court every day just to make MS hire the team of lawyers it would take to argue against him, for instance? You don't think the fact that it was shown they were propping up SCO hurt their case? You don't think that public opinion is already swinging against MS, and would do so even more if they followed through with such a thing? You don't think that the battle-hardened troops that dealt with SCO (much smaller, yes, but that fight was only against IBM, and SCO was claiming much more solid (and false) infringements) are licking their lips to take on MS in the "look and feel" BS that they're saying is being infringed upon? You don't think Motif Windows Manager was around prior to Windows 3.0? You don't think other things were around long before the Motif toolkit?

When the RIAA sues a grandmother living on welfare, all they have to do is show that an IP given to her computer by her ISP downloaded songs from a p2p site. Going after someone for actual patent violations, when the patents are bad patents, is not quite as cut and dry. And you can believe that if MS tries to "make an example" of someone, that someone will have a hell of a lot of support standing not behind them, but with them.

Re:Oh microsoft

no, MS has to take on you. They have to sue you for patent infringement.

No, all they have to do is scare your customers away, by dropping unsubtle hints that they might be sued at some point in the future, if they use your software (without buying a "license" from MS).

It's a protection racket; you don't need to actually be assaulted for it to adversely impact you.

Re:First to file

first to file is the rule

Not in the United States. [wikipedia.org] In the U.S., first-to-invent is the rule, not first-to-file.

Short answer: yes

MS has 155 patents with the word "User Interface" in the title. Have a look:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-b ool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Microsoft&FIELD1=ASNM& co1=AND&TERM2=user+interface&FIELD2=TI&d=PTXT [uspto.gov]

What sucks is that yesterday they only had 151...

Re:Oh microsoft

A System and Method for Selecting Options from a List

All those poor people, for thousands of years, just sat there looking at a set of items and couldn't select any of them. I can see the cave men, looking at a pile of bones and trying to select one of them, but of course, Microsoft wasn't around so there was nobody to help them...how sad.

Re:Devil's Advocate...

I think it was RMS --- all hail! --- who pointed out that anyone who uses the phrase ``intellectual property'' almost certainly has no idea what they are talking about. And the concept of the patent appears to pass a lot of people by. It's possible (I don't know) that MS copyrighted the design of the Windows Start Button. But your chances of fighting a copyright action over the word `start' are approximately zero.

It's possible that they had a trademark on `Start', except they're not using it as a trademark, nor marking it as such, nor defending actions (Trademarks are really `defend NOW or lose' items).

It's even vaguely possible that they patented the idea of having one button which accesses the primary menus of a system. But they'll lose on obviousness, prior art (the Mac Apple-logo button) and laches (the offences, if offences there were, have been happening since forever, and you can't delay an action until the transgressor has made enough money to make them worth suing).

But those are very different claims, with very different routes to court or settlement. And all of them would ultimately fail. Remember, the EU has not accepted software patents, nor is likely to; Blair is no longer around to suck up to Gates, and the other major EU players aren't as obviously in the thrall of American riches. Sarkozy will veto anything that weakens French companies in the face of US competition, for example, especially in his first few years, and Merkel isn't any more favourable.

This isn't some high school ``he copied my homework'' thing: Microsoft would have to prove very carefully the nature, chronology, intent and effect of the purported copying. And all the evidence is that Ballmer and Gates aren't much smarter than ``he copied my homework''. Meawwhile IBM's Nazgul are quiet, careful, implacable, playing for the highest stakes and --- to mix a metaphor --- they will not stop. Ever. IBM cannot allow Microsoft to gain an inch on this, and they have a patent portfolio to make Microsoft's utterly irrelevant.

Patent portfolios are like nuclear weapons (I spent the weekend in Hiroshima, so the metaphor is live for me). When no-one uses them, they ensure a tense peace. But the first to use them offensively loses as badly as their target.

ian

Further reading

Probably relevant articles:

Apple Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994), aka the "Look and Feel case" on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], and the actual ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals [earthlink.net].

The MIT AI Lab has a fairly good introduction [mit.edu] to the basis for the current U.S. software IP system, including what elements are typically protected by copyright and which by patents. (Basically: "Expression" = copyright; "idea/implementation" = patent, "concept" = (hopefully) neither.)

Zoom in...

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

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Zoom in...

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

Why not do it the other way

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?"

I, for one, trust Microsoft on this

after all, who knows more about breaches than Microsoft

Microsoft's customers too...they get used to having their breaches around their ankles on a daily basis

No new details

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..

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

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

My patents

"You are violating a bunch of my double secret patents. You have to guess which ones. I don't have to tell you. Give me money."

Now, where have I heard this before?

They are afraid.

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?

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

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!

"...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...

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

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...

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.

So lets be pre-emptive

According to Google (Issued Patents [google.com]) Microsoft has apx 600 issued patents dating back to January 1987 (don't care about any issued prior to that). So lets create a project to evaluate each patent for validity and non-obivousness, locate prior-art if any, and identify possible infringement in FOSS code.

Note that many of these are for things we may not care about (like mice, keyboards etc) so the number to analyse will go down. Still non-trivial, but all it needs is persistence, the help of a few law students, and the IT crowd to hunt down prior art. And lets put it all in one place where anyone that gets sued can go to for a definitive reference.

BTW, I am not aware of such a thing being out there already, if so then please let me know, my quick search didn't find it this morning.

What do you all think?

I see a dangerous pattern here

Graphical user interfaces, the way menus and windows look on the screen, breach 65. E-mail programs step on 15

OK, so let's look at historical precedent. Microsoft was sued by Apple (unsuccessfully) for infringement of look-and-feel "copyrights" and various UI patents. This case dragged on for years, and resulted in Apple and Microsoft eventually calling a truce.

Then along came Adobe, which sued Macromedia because Adobe had patents on certain types of tool palettes. Adobe then turned around and bought Macromedia. (Yes, some time elapsed between these two events, but still...)

Now Microsoft is alleging that they own intellectual property used in the Linux kernel and various key pieces of software outside the kernel. The above claims are interesting, considering Microsoft's track record of claiming ownership of various UI elements. So far, Apple and Xerox have remained silent, but they may not for much longer. I'm even more curious about the claim of 15 patents in e-mail. After all, e-mail technology has been with us since ARPANet; SMTP and POP are exceedingly well established, and were certainly not invented by Microsoft; I don't even think MS can claim ownership of IMAP. So, what exactly are they claiming ownership of?

To me, this looks like a ploy to "convert" Linux and all of the ancillary GNU programs and FOSS programs that are widely used. By "convert," I mean obtain ownership of. Since Microsoft can't litigate a particular company out of business in order to kill Linux, they're playing a much sneakier game. They've already bought off Novell so as to avoid having to deal with them in any SCO-style lawsuits. How long before the settlement offers start pouring in -- and the settlements basically mean ownership of the code?

As has been pointed out by others, this article really doesn't demonstrate that Microsoft has revealed any more information -- they'd already broken down the number of patent violations by category a couple days ago. But you can bet that Microsoft will make sure to keep this story in the news as often as possible... especially with an Attorney General in office who's willing to push legislation to favor Microsoft.

Is Mono dead?

While Microsoft still hasn't said exactly which patents are being violated, and many of their claims are likely invalid, they probably do have valid claims on certain parts of Mono's implementation of .NET (specifically, Windows.Forms, ASP.NET and ADO.NET). If the Mono team removes those parts, then Mono is effectively dead, in my opinion. Not that I'll be losing any sleep over that, mind you. I always thought Mono was a waste of time for Linux. Even more so now that Java is GPLed.

There are no infringments....

... untill MS presents the evidence, the evidence is researched by those who are the coders of suppose infringments, and recognition of infringment is done by such coders.

Until then it can safely be assumed that MS is being what we all have come to expect them to be, due the reputation they have worked to establish. Dishonest.

Its best to call MS's cards on this. The sooner it is addressed openly and honestly the better.

Question about Timeliness

Why is Microsoft doing this now? And more importantly, is the onus on the patent holder to make this claim in a timely manner?

It seems to me that a viable strategy of patent holders (looking to profit from previously unprofitable patents) would be to
allow them to be tread upon by competing products, until at such time that those competing products become financially viable...
and *then* file suit.

This strategy seems less about protecting one's intellectual property, and more about encouraging the competition to cement
its dependency on your patents in order to extract greater compensation at a later date.

Anyone know if there's a requirement to file a cease-and-desist in a timely manner?

The Camerons are spot on:

Chlanna nan con thigibh a so's gheibh sibh feoil
(Sons of the hounds, come here and get flesh)
http://www.theflyingscotsman.ca/claninfo.htm [theflyingscotsman.ca]

Did not the United States declared independence specifically to end this sort of long-distance pick-pocketing?
What we have is a great opportunity for a Lessig or a Moglen to lead a peaceful overthrow of a sorry state of affairs.
The software patent issue needs to be driven to the front of 2008 election politics.

Re:The Camerons are spot on:

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:

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:

Ellsworth Toohey would be proud of those cretins.

Sorry, all your credibility was lost with the reference to Ayn Rand.

Re:The Camerons are spot on:

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)

Violation of Patents for Ideas They Stole???

Considering that the original concept of a GUI comes from Xerox Parc, I fail to see how Microsoft or Apple either one can hold patents on that. Considering that Microsoft totally rips off each new version of Apple's OS, I fail to see how they can hold patents on that too.... I think that the FOSS folks should claim that they, too, ripped off Apple and not Microsoft. Since they're both ripping off the same source, of course they look familiar. As for OpenOffice, I can only imagine that the patents in question are the ones that concern document (data) formatting for the Microsoft proprietary document formats.

2 cents,

Queen B.

Re:The Camerons are spot on:

Patent reform is honestly a more pressing issue than gay marriage or abortion, and those have been at the forefront of election politics for the past 20 years.

Re:Nothing new here

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:Nothing new here

It would be smart of the FSF to file a suit right now for slander of title against Microsoft. They need to put up or shut up... doing otherwise is "tortuous interference" with Linux and other OSS vendors' businesses by making legal accusations that aren't true to stymie their business. It may be good to deal with 200 patents at once rather than one at a time. Microsoft has money to play that game, the FSF does not. Also, patents en mass in court can show a clear misappropriation of the patent system in the field of software and business model patents that one-at-a-time can't prove effectively in separate non-connected cases.

What about PR?

I think you missed the point of this game. Given the size of MS pool of patents this set is ridiculously small. I think the ones they selected are pretty bulletproof and - surprisingly - that this won't be a legal war of attrition, MS will play nice about it. Why? Because this is just a battle in a PR war, a strategic attack. This is not meant to harm OSS directly - it's a preparation for a major offensive and will be fought without determination, since a minor victory, not a real triumph, is all MS needs.

I think this is a small step in a FUD campaign, a kind of damage control. The SCO FUD is grinding to a halt and likely to backfire. The reason is simple: nonobvious copyright infringement is quite hard to prove and unlikely to be ubiquitous in OSS. The outcome of the SCO case may convince users that OSS is reasonably free of IP problems. MS has to act now, proactively.

This new case will be pushed to the media. It'll linger for some time. MS won't disclose the patents too quickly, waiting for satisfactory media coverage. Finally they will, and then MS will be very reasonable - first they'll just want compensation (we can see that already), then they may even choose to donate some of the patent rights to OSS. No real harm done, end of story. But the PR effects will be great for MS:

• Most of the disclosed patents will be dealt with using workarounds, others will be donated. MS defended its rights, acted benevolent and the problems were solved. PR effect: Bully? Who, us?
• The story is public. The workarounds etc. will be a proof that OSS was infringing. And that's not just Linux - the patents they chose hit many projects, and MS is doing everything to make sure it gets noticed (that's why they publish these numbers instead of listing the patents). PR effect: IP violations in OSS are a fact.
• Now MS will explain why the set of patents was so small compared to the number of patents owned by the company - they weren't really trying, these were just the cases they spotted almost by accident. This will be hard to argue with, especially if they keep a few identified patents secret and show them as further proof if challenged. PR effect: OSS is in violation of IP rights and the scale of the problem is difficult to estimate.
• For a moment MS threatened that they might go after the users. This will be remembered as a possibility. PR effect: Other companies might actually do it in the future.

So, just as copyright FUD started by SCO is dying, MS is preparing an exhibit A for further FUD campaign, a proof that at least patent infringement is a real problem in OSS and a basis for the line "there are IP issues in OSS and sometime, someone might go after YOU, the user, and noone will be able to help you".

In short: a lot of the patents are probably rock solid, and the fact that OSS can work around them should not make you think this case is not a serious problem. Who will invest a sum of money comparable to the MS PR budget in a media campaign showing just how easy it was to deal with the patent issues?

Re:What about PR?

Why Microsoft won't name the patents, straight from the horse's mouth (go here [fortune.com] for the blog article):

The question I anticipate that most readers will want to ask (and that isn't really answered in the feature story) is: Why doesn't Microsoft identify the specific patents and explain what specific aspects of free software infringe them. I did ask Gutierrez that question, and here was his answer: "We do. But in private conversations in the process of licensing discussions with companies that are looking in good faith for ways of resolving the situation." In those contexts, he says, "we walk through a number of exemplary patents and go as deep as they want us to go. Our experience has been every time we've done that, it doesn't take companies a long time to figure out that there is an issue here."

Why won't he do the same thing in public? "There are a number of legal reasons why companies don't do that. No company does that. IBM (IBM) doesn't do that. HP (HPQ) doesn't. Fujitsu (FJTSY.PK) doesn't. For a number of practical reasons. Once you've made that statement from a public perspective, anybody in the world can go to court and ask for a declaratory judgment. That would spur potentially hundreds or thousands of lawsuits around the world, or reexaminations of patents around the world. Even if they're perfectly good patents, it would create an administrative nightmare."

Re:E-MAIL?????

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

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

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.