Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Will Not Sue Over Linux Patents
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue May 22, 2007 09:01 AM
from the what's-with-the-saber-rattling-then dept.
from the what's-with-the-saber-rattling-then dept.
San Muel writes "In an official statement, Microsoft has said it has no immediate plans to sue after alleging patent infringements by open-source vendors for the time being. The company goes on to say that, essentially, it could have done that any time in the last three years if it wanted to. So what's the purpose of these bold announcements? '[John McCreesh, OpenOffice.org marketing project lead] added that while Microsoft may not have plans to sue, it could be using the threat of litigation to try to encourage corporate customers to move to those open-source product vendors with whom it had signed licensing agreements, such as Novell. "Microsoft has spent time and money accumulating patents. Maybe it has started using that armory to move corporate customers to open-source software that Microsoft approves of."'"
This discussion has been archived.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.
Open Letter to Brad Smith (Score:5, Funny)
Sue us! C'mon, Brad. That's right. Put it all out there! You tried and failed with your feeble little pawn, SCO. Then the big bad judge ordered them to show the code! Oh my, got called on your bluff, eh?
Now you're too afraid to sue because you think the same thing will happen to you. C'mon, Brad, go ahead? What are you -- chicken?
Because then you'll have to show us the code, and your bluff will called and it will be all over. That's why you're not going to sue, you spineless twit.
Thanks,
Rob Shinn
An Open Source developer.
Re:Open Letter to Brad Smith (Score:4, Insightful)
So who wants to buy a full page ad in a trade magazine or national newspaper?
Parent
Re:Open Letter to Brad Smith (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Boring (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Boring (Score:5, Insightful)
Now when we've got them to make a humiliating climbdown, you want us to shut up?
I say we scream this headline all the way to Bangalore and back, just so everyone gets the message that the patent threat was a pile of worthless hot air all along...
Parent
Corporate Intimidation Tactic (Score:4, Insightful)
Legality (Score:5, Interesting)
There should be a way to make MS go to court or lose the right to sue.
Re:Legality (Score:4, Informative)
However their threats are empty, and only likely to sway companies still entrenched in the 'threaten to use open source to secure discounts' camp.
The big problem for Microsoft is that they are no longer the big player they once were. They know this, and this is an ill judged attempt to say they are still in charge. It's only to be expected.
Unfortunately words don't mean much when money is at stake, even their most devout customers will start to become edgy if they see competition moving to open source solutions and saving money. There is no loyalty where money is concerned.
Parent
Re:Legality (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
You see I have this big bat? (Score:5, Insightful)
I could have used it upside your head but I choose not to at this moment. But I could.
This is worse than FUD, it's an outright threat. By simply announcing you could sue, challenges large business into accepting risk. To the person in the trenches, they know Microsoft's got nothing. However to the CEO and the CIO, the same people who move a company forward, this is a challenge to their capital expense planning. They see the threat of lawsuit and immedietely classifiy that as risk.
How to mitigate it? Unfortunately you don't. Because it is the idea of lawsuit you cannot work around this risk unless you avoid it altogether. And this is what Microsoft is banking on. And by avoiding Linux for this year and next in capital planning, you avoid implementation of Linux in a corporate environment for at least three years. And by that time, Microsoft is betting that you will have spent so much T&E in their shop that it would be very expensive and time consuming to leave.
Actually.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Actually.. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Microsoft will lose the right to sue ... ever (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity) [wikipedia.org]
"Laches is an equitable defense, or doctrine, in an action at law. The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has "slept on its rights", and that, as a result of this delay, that other party is no longer entitled to its original claim. Put another way, failure to assert one's rights in a timely manner can result in claims being barred by laches. Laches is a form of estoppel for delay. In Latin,
Vigilantibus non dormientibus æquitas subvenit.
Equity aids the vigilant, not the negligent (that is, those who sleep on their rights). "
Re:Microsoft will lose the right to sue ... ever (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The Wiki you linked to does mention in how some cases, such as contesting an election, a very short period of time, mere days, is enough to invoke the doctrine, so I see where you get the idea timely means something less than a year, or even a quarter. The normal period is more like six years as doctrine. The big court cases specifically involving patents show up better if you search for 'submarine patents' instead of 'laches', and you may want to look at the time frames of the most significant cases there, as they are typically a lot more than the six year period, and many of them are more than the whole current 20 year life of a patent. Microsoft could probably wait 2 or 3 years and still be within the normal period that is considered timely. The could even justify this by claiming the allowed some time for lesser remedies such as negotiation to work if they could.
2. One principle behind laches is that the delay may be used to increase damages and make the resulting lawsuit more profitable, (usually because the defendant has presumably made more profit in the meantime). So what happens if a company waits a while to sue, but in its complaint sues only for an amount it claims reflects damages incurred before the date it first contacted the defendant, and waives additional damages subsequent to that date? You'll note my sig - I don't have a good answer to that question, but I think it may be a potential way to defuse a defense claim. Laches is an affirmative defense, requiring both assertion and proof by the defendant. A single affirmative defense doesn't usually lead to a whole case being thrown out with prejudice or anything on that order - more often it just limits the case's scope. (OTOH, if Microsoft doesn't have much of a complaint, it shouldn't take much to get the whole thing dismissed.)
Parent
Re:Microsoft will lose the right to sue ... ever (Score:5, Insightful)
Laches need not apply, for the following reasons (off the top of my head).
First and generally, statutes (legislation) trump common law (judge-made law). Laches is common law doctrine, patents are statutorily enacted. The period for execution of patent rights falls within a statutory declaration of, I believe, 20 years. The Court is not likely to have the power to supplant the statutory rights granted to the patent holder because of a delay. If patents were meant to have a timeliness to prosecution component, that ought to have been something considered by the legislature (Courts are inclined to presume competence of the legislature), and its absence may be deemed intentional.
Second but generally as well, equity [wikipedia.org] trumps law only where the law is unduly harsh. Patents are a legal concept whose temporal restrictions have been well reasoned by the legislation and long considered by the judiciary. As commercial negotiations regularly involve sitting on ones' right to sue, it is nigh impossible that equitable doctrines would come into play. It does not squelch the right to assert the proprietary protections vested by statute.
The concept of estoppel [wikipedia.org] may apply. Where one reasonably relies upon the statements of another to their own detriment, they may have an equitable remedy. Thus, if a commercial entity relies upon Microsoft's declaration not to sue in the immediate future, Microsoft may be barred from recovering at law because the commercial entity relied upon Microsoft's statements.
That being said, Microsoft has limited the scope of its statement to "immediate future", therefore any prolonged infringement would not be protected by such mechanisms. Microsoft need only bring a few demand letters to discontinue infringement, and the defense of estoppel is waylaid.
Thus, laches is unlikely to apply, however estoppel may, but only for the quasi-timeframe Microsoft cited of the immediate future. YMMV & HTH.
Parent
Play the game our way... (Score:5, Insightful)
What they are saying is that they really honestly don't mind when we are using Linux. And it's true, it even is smart.
Just look at it, Dell customers get to use Linux but still pay their share of MS tax, but now for an OS Microsoft doesn't need to develop or support.
You thought having 99.9% marketshare is the ultimate way to make money? Think again.
So MS wants to protect us by selling us insurance. (Score:5, Funny)
Racketeering? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this is called "Racketeering" isn't it. Like the mob asking businesses to pay for protection money so "nothing happens to them". I think this just crossed M$ over line in to illigal actions here.
If you work for a company M$ has approached with one of these offers I -encourage you- to ask your company to call M$'s bluff - and tell them you consider this move an illigal one and that your company will be contacting the States Attorney Genral. If enough companies do this it might scare the living hell out of M$. But first and formost - actually contact the States Attorney General - don't threaten to do it - DO IT!
Heck maybe not just companies should do this but individuals as well. I think there are enough links to statements by M$ that the States Attonrney General's could have something to go on - right?
Re:Racketeering? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Boy, this sure is a nice store. Be a shame if something happened to it, wouldn't it?"
Is a protection scam. The threat is of performing an illegal act - breaking the windows, trashing the place, burning it down, or what have you. All of those things are themselves illegal.
While what MS is doing is similar in result (they hope), it is in content much the same as the DA offering a lighter sentence for witness cooperation. It's "we could prosecute, but we won't if you cooperate." This is - obviously - not illegal. It's the same thing as all the megacorp patent cross-licensing that goes on.
Which is itself indicative of how crap the system as a whole is, and this is perfect evidence of why we need patent reform yesterday. But waving the bloody shirt and calling it racketeering doesn't help anything.
Parent
Ever wonder where MS got the number. (Score:5, Informative)
What the researcher is saying is the with 235 potential patent violations
Linux scores lower then most proprietary software he has looked at.
Incidently nowhere does he say who owns the 235 patents so given the amount of
Operating System related patents filed they are more likly to belong to IBM or HP
(DEC VAX, Tandem Non Stop etc. etc. ) than microsoft.
Pure FUD!
Microsoft just lost shitoads of patents (Score:5, Insightful)
"No immediate plans to sue" (Score:4, Interesting)
Patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Once these patents are gone, we can then ask Microsoft to revise their count, so that we can see how much work is necessary for the next round of patent reversions.
I am not a patent lawyer, but shouldn't there be some simple way to tell the patent office that they aren't doing their job of vetting patents properly? Shouldn't MicroSoft be slapped properly for submitting so many invalid patents?
Re:M$ doesn't *need* to sue... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see.
Microsoft says.
1. Open Source projects are violating our patents.
2. We will not sue over these patents.
3. We will not tell you what patents they are violating.
4. You should give us money so we will continue to not sue you.
Parent
The threat is worse than the suit (Score:4, Insightful)
An actual suit could result in MS having some or all those patents thrown out, at which point they are no longer able to affect a PHB-HMN.
Parent