Microsoft Too Busy To Name Linux Patents? 236
bob_dinosaur writes "According to The Register, Microsoft's Patent Attorney Jim Markwith told the Open Source Business Conference that the reason they hadn't named the supposedly infringing patents was that it would be 'administratively impossible to keep up' with the list. 'According to Ramji, the executive tasked with the difficult job of straddling Microsoft's growing support for open source in server and tools, and aggressive and unpredictable statements from management on patents, made a jaw dropping attempt to explain away the Forbes article. "The reason we disclosed that, is because there was a request for transparency following the Novell deal Iast November. This was a response to that transparency," Ramji said. It was at that point the OSBC audience erupted.'" That transparency apparently extends to multiple levels. ZDNet is reporting that Novell will share the details of its agreement with Microsoft sometime in the near future.
Administratively impossible? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Administratively impossible? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Administratively impossible? (Score:5, Funny)
NOOOOoooobody expects the Ballmer Inquisition! Our chief weapon is patent nr 1,563,245...1,563,245 and 934,189...934,189 and 1,563,245.... Our two weapons are 934,189 and 1,563,245...and 2,100,003.... Our *three* weapons are patents nr 934,189, 1,563,245, and 2,100,003...and 2,100,004.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such patents as 934,189, 1,563,245.... I'll come in again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, if you know the table structure, and ID is a valid column name... OK, I buy it. But this is Microsoft! "count(*)" works even if you have no idea of the row structure, which is precisely where Microsoft is.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Administratively impossible? (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux and other Open Source software projects almost unquestionably transgress patents owned both by Microsoft and others. This is not the real issue. The real question is, are these patents defensible? Or would they fall due to "prior art" or other well known / common patent flaws? And, if Microsoft and other patent holders revealed OSS patent transgression, would there be practical work arounds? Probably many of the patents would fail if challenged.
One reason Microsoft and other patent holders might not want to reveal the specific patents is that the OSS movement will challenge them rather than licene them, while many commercial groups will be inclined to do the opposite, license them and pay the patent holders a fee.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How'd they know there were 235? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the only way to count them was to have a list. A list they could very easily share with us if they wanted to. Of course, as everyone else has said, we'd code around them, challenge their validity, etc. And no, it wouldn't matter if the list wasn't 100% correct. It'd just be useful to say that, hey, we really don't infringe that one, but whatever, while fixing all the ones we might infringe upon with OSS.
Of course, that's exactly what they don't want us to do. They don't want us to stop their FUD. And therein lies the problem: promissory estoppel (they promised not to sue), laches (they knew about the infringement and did nothing), unfair competition and anti-trust actions, as well as a whole host of other things you'd see a real lawyer argue if they actually tried to bring a patent infringement suit. Of course, IANAL, so get one if you ever want to make claims like those in court.
BTW, you know why I think they gave that promise not to sue? To keep any of us from bringing a declaratory judgment action against them. I seem to recall that case law is mixed on that point, but it gives them some wiggle room to avoid having anyone bring a lawsuit over this. I wouldn't be overly surprised if Red Hat or someone had their lawyers send a nasty letter to Microsoft over this and they realized that they had to cover some ass and pump out a little more PR as a smokescreen to hide their backpedaling on this issue.
Don't get me wrong, they'll probably still use the FUD they've created as another way to strong-arm vendors, but I bet they'll do it a little more quietly and they'll do it to people they already have some hold on.
Re: (Score:2)
As you point out, for them to say 235 it sounds like they have a list. How do we get to see it? Threaten M$ with litigation of some form even though they promised not to sue but it is still impacting on your business.... makes for a pretty tight spot.
Someone needs to leak that list.
Microsoft didn't come up with that number (Score:5, Informative)
Then the paper's author spoke out, saying that MS was misrepresenting the results. First, it was 235 potential infringements, in part because none of those 235 patents had been tested in court and could be invalid. Second, these were not all Microsoft's patents.
Frankly I think he was far too kind. Microsoft turns "potential" into "actual", and "235 patents" into "235 of our patents". That's not "misrepresenting", that's fucking lying, especially when it comes to implicitly claiming ownership of patents which are not theirs.
Oh yeah, and thirdly the author said that Linux was not atypical compared to closed source software in how many patents it potentially violated. The fact is, and one of the conclusions of the study, was that software patents are such a minefield that pretty much every piece of software potentially violates some.
This was all on
By the way, this probably means that the best source for finding out which patents Linux hypothetically violates would come from the original paper.
Re:Microsoft didn't come up with that number (Score:5, Informative)
I can't help but notice how the numbers keep changing. The study says 283 patents, Balmer at one point said 228, and now it's 235. Frankly since they aren't substantiating any of these claims anyway I think MS just makes up a number to keep people confused. Maybe they'll think that further research turned up another 7 patents, even though it's still all based on a completely braindamaged intepretation of someone else's work.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft didn't come up with that number (Score:5, Informative)
http://news.com.com/Group+Linux+potentially+infri
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
*The real kind of mountain and not the Darl McBride version of a mountain.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft has been stealing IP, and now some very important cases are over and they find themselves on the loosing end of the stick. They still need to steal the patents to keep up since they are not innovative themselves. What they were doing is outright stealing patents and hoping they'd be able to win in court.
Patents cross-licensing are like a web that criss-crosses the glo
Re:Administratively impossible? (Score:5, Funny)
Open Letter to Jim Markwirth and Brad Smith: (Score:5, Interesting)
Dear Messrs. Smith and Markwirth,
Right. It's not standard operating procedure to list the patents when you are claiming patent infringement in order to use it as a weapon. You declared war on the Free and Open Source Software Movements, you're the ones pointing the gun, so c'mon. It's time to put up or shut up. Sue the community, sue Red Hat, sue Linus, sue the Mozilla Foundation, the Free Software Foundation, and sue Sun. Sue IBM. Sue me! Maybe my little project violates your patents! Let's have it! SUE US!
Stop this cowardly spreading of FUD. I declare that the Emperor has no clothes. Take us to court. You know we'd sue you if you violated the GPL, so let's have it.
Or do you, as I said before, are you afraid? What is it? Fear that you'd have all of your patents thrown out of court? Or maybe you fear that the industry would turn against you? No, I think it's all those things, but most of all it's that your bluff would be called and you'd have to stop spreading FUD. You know you can do more to damage Linux's reputation by sullying its good name with lies and innuendo about patents that are either obviously invalid or non-existant.
We have a saying where I come from: "Don't let your mouth write any checks that your ass can't cash!"
Put up or shut up. Sue us!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Now if Microsoft said that listing the bugs in the OS was administratively impossible, I would believe that. But they are citing a very specific number of infringement and had the count broken down into specific areas with specifi
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft will get around to filling out the list when Ballmer's done with his dance classes. He's planning on announcing the patent list during an interperetive dance session at one of their conferences. To be honest, he's still smarting over the whole "monkeyboy" thing, and intends to show everybody that he CAN dance. Bill is, as ever, supportive.
It's about priorities, people!
Does thiis make sense? (Score:3, Insightful)
If it is impossible, then doesn't it seem like there is something really wrong here? Isn't a patent supposed to be tangible enough to warrant a claim or some sort? Then, how can it be impossible to list what the patent violations ars?
One more possinle naive question: didn't Linux borrow heavily from UNIX, much more so than from anything Microsoft has done? And didn't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Like this one?
http://www.google.com/patents?id=pY0LAAAAEBAJ&dq= m icrosoft+virtualization [google.com]
They patented something that already existed at the time. Just do a Google patent search for "Microsoft" and "virtualization" and see there's nothing to fear. I'm kind of embarassed for them that all of these patents seem bogus. Curiously, one o
Hwhat? (Score:5, Insightful)
I realize that there would be a lot of paperwork involved in defending those patents once groups start having to verify with MS as to specific infringements, but isnt this overhead a cost of doing business concerning protecting your IP? Can companies infringing on patents that companies refuse to disclose information for even be considered to be infringing?
Ignorance of the law may not be a defense, but being told that you CANT know what the law is sure seems different. Mind boggling, unless i'm missing something key.
Perspectives are necessary, someone point out what i'm missing.
Re:Hwhat? (Score:5, Interesting)
When I started as a developer 10 years ago, may be this was the case, my bosses then had absolutely no clue what programming was all about (I am not talking about a specific programming language, or paradigm, just programming or software engineering in general)).
These were the type of people, who felt the sand under their feet, slipping away every time there were concerns regarding the technology they were managing. And the reason was obvious, they DIDN'T KNOW about the technology they were managing.
But now it's a very very different world, people who were senior programmers then, are now managers, and as such are in much better shape to judge the technologies they work with.
So in retrospect, Microsoft may have had luck in these kind of FUD tactics, 10 years ago, but that won't work now. Sure there will be some, who will fold and pay up, but then most of the competent people in the industry that I know, are saying...."Hang on a minute,, there is something very fishy about these claims"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Danke.
I'm too busy to name Microsoft Patents (Score:4, Interesting)
And naming even a single patent would be just spreading FUD because, as I've said, I'm too busy now innovating to sue at this moment. If the infringing code could be rewritten, I'd say something because I know Microsoft respects IP and I don't want people violating my IP unintentionally. But since the code it can't be rewritten without using my IP, so I'm actually doing Microsoft a favour by keeping quiet.
But tell you what, since I know even mentioning Microsoft's violation can cause uncertainty, I'll license each of my patents to Microsoft for the low low price of 1 dollar per patent, payable once every month. As stated, I'm too busy to sue anyone using Microsoft products at the moment, so Microsoft customers are safe...for now. But who knows what will happen to people who by unlicensed Microsoft projects in the future.
Re:Hwhat? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hwhat? (Score:4, Interesting)
What has (probably) happened here is some MS patent office guy essentially did a freedom to operate study as if he were representing Linux, he copied too many people in on the email with the findings which probably said something like, "We find that Linux could be infringing on as many as 325 Microsoft patents, however, the validity of these patents with regard to obviousness and/or prior art is debatable."
Basically another poster nailed it, when he said that the reason that microsoft isn't naming patents is so that they can license them to other "infringing" commercial entities. Had they named them, even without a suit, a slew of legal arguments contradicting Microsoft's position would be forthcoming shortly and commercial entities would have the option to use the OS legal arguments instead of feeding the beast.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft is orchestrating all of this so that they can sell licenses without disclosing WHAT is being licensed.
Sounds like buying an insurance policy where it covers nothing...and wouldnt that be illegal? or are they insulated by the fact that they can "come up with" the information at any time if necessary in court?
Re: (Score:2)
i was sure that they had to decide to sue or not sue as soon as they discovered the infringement. otherwise, i'm sure that would be some form of inappropriate behaviour related to wai
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
MS hasn't a pot to piss in. (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft patents attorney Jim Markwith told OSBC it would be "impossible" for Redmond's bureaucrats to respond to the volume of responses that would result from disclosure.
Do they really believe they'd have less work to do if they acted on their threats to deal with it in the courtroom? MS is just trying to keep the FUD of "using teh Linux may get you sued!!!11```" alive.
Impossible to keep up with the response. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Impossible to keep up with the response. (Score:5, Insightful)
Headline is wrong (Score:5, Funny)
What a bunch of crap (Score:4, Interesting)
And if they are... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM patents WHERE infringing_os="linux';
Vista & Word (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Could this bite Microsoft later? (Score:4, Interesting)
p.s. How about just the top five then? Certainly that won't take too long, right?
No. You're thinking of trademarks. (Score:2)
You can selectively enforce a patent. You may not selectively enforce a trademark.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Lots of Administrative Overhead (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, how many hours do you think it would take for the open source software to re-write their code to work around a patent after it was added? The effort of removing patent after patent is just more than Microsoft could ever bear.</sarcasm>
Re: (Score:2)
Either they know exactly which patents are involved, or they pulled the number 235 out of some dark and smelly place.
Re: (Score:2)
Better things to do... (Score:2, Funny)
they screwed themselves (Score:2)
Typical Failure. (Score:5, Insightful)
Impossible and contradictory tasks, answers depend on who you ask, infighting, these are the hallmarks of a company in trouble. Vista took too long to develop, does not work and is not selling. Office is being escaped by real standards based productivity apps which can no longer be fought off. Those are their flagships and their money makers. GPL 3 prevents them form stealing free software, so they will soon have to compete honestly. Not only won't they be able to grow as promissed, their revenues will collapse.
This is good because M$ is an enemy of free software and has made trouble for everyone else far too long.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Personal value judgements that do not reflect reality, no matter how much you repeat them. "Vista does not work and is not selling" has apparently become the rallying cry of people who are frustrated at the opposite.
I fail to see how the world will change vis-a-vis Microsoft and free software the day after the new version of the GPL is released. They couldn'
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know about today, but if you go back to a DOS 6.0 disk and do a search for the ascii string "COPYRIGHT STACKER INC" with a hex editor, I'm pretty sure that the before part of that statement isn't true.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Whoa whoa whoa. Where are you getting all this? Yeah, Vista took a long time to develop, I'll give you that. But where do you come off immediately following that up by saying it doesn't work? I haven't had one crash or error since I started using it months ago (right after it came out). It works perfectly, and it has some great internal improvements (WPF, WCF, WF) that developers love and that will let us make better programs. And saying it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Office 2007 is actually crushing everything else. It is making people excited about an office suite again (which is pretty amazing, actually).
I have yet to encounter anyone who was excited about Office 2007. Most people don't want to relearn a new interface, and quite frankly, had everything they needed already in Office 97. What I do see is a lot of converts to OpenOffice.org and NeoOffice. The rest choose Office 2003 or earlier, or MS Office for Mac.
Even in the universities where every version is free, people are often choosing the older versions. I would have to think you'd have to be a huge MS fanboy or an astroturfer to actually be exci
Excited? OK, Cursing is excited. (Score:3, Informative)
Office 2007 is actually crushing everything else. It is making people excited about an office suite again (which is pretty amazing, actually).
Yes, cursing is an expression of excitement. Witness Fanboy Mossberg's reaction [allthingsd.com] and judge for yourself:
In my own tests, I was cursing the program for weeks because I couldnt find familiar functions and commands, even though Microsoft provides lots of help and guidance.
Wouldn't it be a better idea to spend those weeks learning something like Open Office on GNU/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is good because M$ is an enemy of free software and has made trouble for everyone else far too long.
I'm reasonably certain that if you ask Borland, Digital Research, Novell of the 80-90s, Wordstar, Wordperfect, Paradox coders, and hundreds of other people that worked for not-free software companies they would tell you that MS is the enemy of *anyone* who is not Microsoft.... including Windows end users.
The simple fact is that MS did not perceive F/OSS software as a threat until it was too late. Once Linux liberated the kernel the "fat lady" started warming up for
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny, Eric Raymond told me in Halloween of 1998 that Microsoft looked at Linux as a core threat. How are they noticing it late again?
The reality is that Microsoft simply did not worry about free software until it started gaining traction with corporations. When IBM and Novell and Sony And Apple and so on get behind something you can bet good money MS will be looking closely. Before that it simply was not
Re:Typical Failure. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, no, and well sort of yes and sort of no.
Vista isn't selling like 95 or XP did when people where really excited about this new wonderful version. People are using it and more will when DX-10 games are out and are considered must have.
Vista works. It does work. It isn't really any better for 99% of all end users than XP and rankly it is still a down grade for many. It runs needs more memory and electricity to do the same job as XP does. It isn't a great value that is for sure.
"Office is being escaped by real standards based productivity apps which can no longer be fought off. "
Not really. While I do use OO.org what is killing Office sales is Office. Office 2000 and Office 2003 does everything that you need an office suite to do. Office has been good enough for years now and here is the real dirty secret that Microsoft hates. Software doesn't wear out. Why do you think Microsoft really wants to go with the software as a service model?
XP is what is hurting Vista and Office is that is hurting Office. The old versions of both are good enough. Frankly for most people you don't need a computer every 3 years unless your a gamer so those are now good enough as well so fewer sales of new systems with Vista.
OO.org has started to make a dent with Governments because they hate the idea of their documents being controlled by a single source vendor. Which frankly is a brilliant idea IMHO. But what we are seeing is a mature market where the software is good enough to not rush to upgrade.
Just to be fair here is the ugly truth for Open Source. OO.org isn't better than Office. It is good enough and free. I keep hoping that someday OO.org will be better than Office but it just isn't yet. What it is is good enough, has an open document format, and free.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite all the hype, linux and open office are mere blips on the radar. Sure, they're growing stronger, but they are years away from causing Microsoft any real headaches. Right now, their biggest competition is themselves.
But its only about 26 patents. (Score:2)
Re: oops wrong study (Score:2)
Opps my bad got two studies confused.
A 2004 study by a Open Source Risk Management, a company selling insurance against risks of using open-source software, concluded that Linux could violate at least 283 patents, 27 of them Microsoft patents.
Just as hard as it was for SCO (Score:2)
Forgetfulness in the private sector? (Score:2)
"Sir, I don't recall being at the meeting where the number of infringing patents was discussed..."
-Rick
Horseshit (Score:2)
Poor Ramji (Score:5, Funny)
> Microsoft's growing support for open source in server and tools,
> and aggressive and unpredictable statements from management on patents [...]
They should hire Tony Snow, he can do that on mere brain stem functionality.
Nobody will believe that (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAL but I like to try on the hat
Just name one then (Score:2)
Hey, try this excuse! (Score:4, Funny)
My dog ate the patent list.
That's actually more believable.
Re: (Score:2)
Patients != Bugs (Score:2)
This is true! An extra 235 patents to monitor would overload their workforce that is already concentrating on the 235,000 bugs located in the first release of Vista! (May I say 135,000 of those deal with using Vista as a gaming platform)
After an sccidental pentathol shot... (Score:4, Insightful)
What they meant to say does make sense... (Score:2, Informative)
The way MS phrased their statement (and previous statements) is stupid and doesn't make a lot of sense. They made it sound like they had a list of patents, and now say they don't. However, the statement I think they were trying to say is, "We have so many patents that we know that some open source software somewhere must be infringing on something we've patented." Then they tried to clarify that they haven't actually made a list of them all because, "it would take way too much administrative time to find ou
Are patents like trademarks? (Score:2)
Is this also the case with patents? If they don't sue, do they lose the rights to them?
The synopsis has it wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
This is significantly different than "it would be 'administratively impossible to keep up' with the list."
I agree with the lawyer that the response to revealing the patents would be enormous and probably too difficult to keep up with. There would be all kinds of questions like "*How* does it infringe?", "Will this change help?", "What about this prior art?", etc, etc. There are thousands of Linux/GNU/whatever developers who are implicitly implicated by their accusations. Many of these are associated with large organizations which have teams of lawyers themselves. There are probably only a few lawyers dealing with this issue at MS. Thus, it *would* be administratively impossible to handle the response.
My feeling is that if you don't want to deal with the response, then shut up. But I guess they don't agree. But it is an interesting comment none-the-less.
BTW, I'm not being sarcastic in this post, but it's pretty difficult to tell given the absurdity of the issue.
There is no spoon... (Score:5, Funny)
Instead only try to realize the truth... There is no list.
They can't bother to number them (Score:2)
Guess we're even.
IANAL -- Laches Defense? (Score:2)
I'm not a lawyer, and I technically don't know jack about anything, but it sounds to me like Microsoft is inadvertantly laying the grounds for Linux's eventual Laches defense. [wikipedia.org] If I'm right, this apparently wouldn't completely protect Linux et al from lawsuit, but it would certainly mitigate the potential damages.
I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but I'm honestly just sick and tired of companies using threats of litigation as a weapon in the press, rather than using the courts to solve their problems.
Pointless argument (Score:2)
That's going to be my answer to the BSA (Score:5, Interesting)
If MS/BSA ever decides to try an audit us, my response isn't going to be, "We don't use MS products, period."
My response is going to be, "It would be administratively impossible for us to list the software packages in use throughout our company."
Then, when they kick the doors in, and find not a spec of MS software, our lawyers will have a nice round of settlement discussions with their lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the positive side.. (Score:2)
I keep dreaming the States will wake up and do away with software and busines method patents. Might prove handy in stopping the European Union doing something stupid (again) and listening to the patent lawyers on the whole subject, which has seemed imminent for a painfully long period now.
::sigh:: hypocrisy surrounds me... (Score:2)
REGARDLESS of how shady their buisness practices are, why is it OK for companies to infringe upon Microsoft patents but NOT ok for Microsoft to infringe upon other companies patents?
Re: (Score:2)
Double strawman (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft says that Linux infringes on a bunch of Microsoft's patents, but they won't tell us which ones. There's no attempt to present an issue and get it cleared up. There's only an attempt to tar Linux as publicly as possible with the "patent infringer" brush while providing nothing concrete that can be refuted. That's FUD.
Microsoft says that it can't tell us what the patents are that Li
Red Scare (Score:2, Insightful)
As if Microsoft does not have enough money (Score:2)
Microsoft gave us a number, 235, that means somebody either counted them or pulled them out of their rear-end in some FUD attack against Linux an
So... they basically gave Linux te go ahead? (Score:3, Interesting)
Before:
Nobody knew how many patents they may hold
Nobody knew if they would use them
Nobody knew if they would hold up in court
After:
It is obvious they can't do anything
They have more or less agreed not to sue anyone
If they don't name the patents soon you an use it as a defence
So essentially they have just managed to clear Linux from the FUD surrounding their patent portfolio, make it obvious to business around the world they don't have the balls to do shit with it, and pretty much offered everyone a great defence against their entire patent portfolio. I mean... wow, just wow. I knew the FUD against Linux would go away soon, but that Microsoft would do it themselves without even entering the courtroom... wow. I guess the Vista slogan was right after all...
Hey, it worked for the Federal Reserve (Score:2)
They claimed to be "too busy" to continue publishing the M3 number last April.
The story should have been on the front page of every newspaper, and should have immediately triggered
a global dollar-crisis, but instead the world believed Bernanke, and here we are today.
Go for it Microsoft. Because apparently we're living in an era populated with unquestioning sheep.
(I know, I know...it couldn't have been more offtopic... but this post gave me some deja vu.
Don't mod me down -- people really do need to wiki "M3"
whats impossible is.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)