SQL Server Developers Face Huge Royalties 574
superpat writes "The Register reports that Microsoft licensed SQL Server technology from Timeline. Trouble is, they didn't license the tech for use by MS customers... After 3 1/2 years in the courts, the final judgement rules that MS SQL Server customers must pay Timeline patent royalties. The argument that Microsoft said it was OK is no defence, apparently." News.com.com.com has another story.
Whoo. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Whoo. (Score:5, Insightful)
WRONG (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WRONG (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an aguement to use something written by a company who actually cares about it's customers.
Re:WRONG (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WRONG (Score:3, Funny)
"Wait guys, the lawyer's not hear yet"
Re:WRONG (Score:5, Funny)
13 lawyers (8 of 'em specialists in patent and copyright law)
27 managers
63 marketing analysts
9 outsourcing contracts, paid in advance
1 programmer (optional)
(No, I *didn't* forget the testing and QA guys
Re:mySQL is no MSSQL(not a troll) (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Whoo. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Whoo. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Whoo. (Score:4, Interesting)
Announcing Microsoft DataBOB (Score:5, Funny)
On February 20 2003, Microsoft entered into a settlement agreement with Timeline Inc. regarding certain intellectual properties of Timeline and licensing matters associated with Microsoft's use of Timeline technology in its SQL Server system.
Pursuant to the collective agreement between Microsoft and Timeline, Microsoft recognizes that while it had purchased a right to use the Timeline technologies in its SQL Server system, end-users of the respective technology were not licensed to do so, and would be liable for the purchase of such licensed use directly with Timeline Inc.
In order to provide our customers with a cost-effective alternative to licensing of Timeline Inc technology, Microsoft is pleased to announce that it is making its powerful, internally developed database technology available for immediate download. This product, Microsoft DataBOB, includes:
- a powerful database capable of listing your favorite contacts
- a GUI administration console that can be learned in minutes by your developers and follows a unique interface concept
- helpful wizards and assistants that make use of DataBOB possible by even clerical employees
We're confident you'll find DataBOB not only very useful, but will recognize its value in reducing your information technology costs as even the most novice computer users will find DataBOB simple and straight forward in application.
In order to obtain your license, see an authorized DataBob [telecommander.com] distributor today.
Actually, Oracle should buy them. (Score:4, Interesting)
...And then Microsoft would be in the unenviable position of advising its customers to migrate to free Sybase for Linux (11.0.3.3), since it is compatible with SQL Server 6.5.
Why isn't Sybase having this problem? SQL Server and Sybase were at one time the same product (v 4.8).
Re:Actually, Oracle should buy them. (Score:5, Informative)
As an example, the tools required to build a web store front end that interfaces with the SQL back end is covered by the pattent, the back end itself is not.
-Rusty
Re:Actually, Oracle should buy them. (Score:4, Insightful)
Because for the most part Sybase develops its own software. ;-)
Re:Whoo. (Score:4, Insightful)
Great. I can just see it. Now my boss is going to have EULA's examined by the company lawyer before we can think about installing software.
Now after you design a solution and pick the products, you get to hear the legal department say; "I'm sorry, the EULA for that software doesn't provide us enough protection. Find another platform."
Sheesh!
Re:Whoo. (Score:4, Interesting)
For the companies that just now start looking at licenses, I see this as a good thing. After all, would you rather your boss be aware of the licensing options of OSS vs the licensing options of other software, or would you rather him blindly choose one or the other?
I say that awareness is a better solution, and the fact that he's aware of the EULA will encourage him to shop around.
Manager's will still make a decision yea or nay based on their own reasons (or reasons handed to them), but at least it's not as much of a shot in the dark.
Re:Whoo. (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit.
The company is liable for any software that is installed on their machines. Whether they knew about it or approved it is irrelevant. That has already been held up in court on multiple occasions.
And BTW, any time you are installing software on a company machine or for the purpose of doing company work you are acting as an agent of the company. There is no need for any formal or official declaration that you are a "legally vested agent", it's implied when you are employed by them.
This is wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Raf
Re:This is wrong... (Score:5, Informative)
Cha-ching! [yahoo.com]
Re:This is wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bull. Microsoft's legal division is probably larger than most law firms. And since when do you have to be a law firm to break a promise.
*If* they had made representations to customers that they need not license patents from Timeline, then Microsoft should be responsible, *but* I really doubt Microsoft did so in a way that can be proven in a court of law. Also, it doens't follow that a promise to one customer is a promise to all customers. So, it is possible Microsoft could be liable to a handful of customers which were made that promise, but no other customers. IANAL
Re:This is wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sound like legal at MS together with management decided to willfully misrepresent the situtation. I'm Shocked! Shocked I say that the honest corperate citizen that MS is would make this mistake
Re:This is wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably the best part of that strategy for Timeline is that they can go after the various users, rather than try to gouge money out of Microsoft itself. Microsoft could easily tie the case up in court for a decade or more, and make it apparent to Timeline that they'll never be able to make it worth the effort.
Re:This is wrong... (Score:3, Funny)
No, honest, I promise I can sell them to you. What's that you say
*cough*
Re:This is wrong... (Score:5, Informative)
> Timeline's point (which will surely be argued in court) is
> that Microsoft isn't qualified to make that promise in the
> first place, so the users can't get off the hook by saying
> "but Microsoft said...".
One of Timeline's statements in a press release said that, yes. The court argument over it took three and a half years and is now over.
Timeline also noted how Microsoft mislead its users, and they basically laid out the beginnings of a case users could put together (with a bit of research and a lawyer) and go after Microsoft to recoup the money they had to pay Timeline. That's kind of nice (to the users) of Timeline to do that, especially after Microsoft's deception kept them from getting paid for three and a half years.
> Probably the best part of that strategy for Timeline is that
> they can go after the various users, rather than try to
> gouge money out of Microsoft itself.
The users are the ones owing money, not Microsoft, thanks to Microsoft, their cheapskate ways and their lying. Timeline tried to offer Microsoft a package that would cover the users, but Microsoft would rather pay less, lie about the agreement, and pull a legal delay. Now its customers owe millions, and Microsoft walks away with some court charges (and a perjury offense to go with all those anti-trust offenses they are not having to be punished for).
> Microsoft could easily tie the case up in court for a
> decade or more, and make it apparent to Timeline that
> they'll never be able to make it worth the effort.
Microsoft didn't have to tie it up for more than three and a half years. Microsoft isn't the ones that owe the money, their users are. Read the article.
Oh, and everyone keep in mind, SQL Server is soon to be the file system called Yukon, and join Palladium and its amazing friends in Microsoft's next operating system. Does this mean anyone who writes software for that OS that accesses files will be liable for these royalties?
"Your way of thinking is completely different from mine!"
Mac user Shinoda to PC user Katagiri, "Godzilla 2000 Millennium" (Japanese version)
(From the world's biggest switch commercial, starring Apple's biggest fan: Godzilla!)
Re:This is wrong... (Score:3, Informative)
Right, YANAL (Score:5, Insightful)
Bull. Microsoft's legal division is probably larger than most law firms. And since when do you have to be a law firm to break a promise.
IANAL, YANAL. If Microsoft retains one or one thousand lawyers, they are still responsible for notifying customers that certain value-additions to the server, sold or licensed by those customers (thus sub-licensing, what Microsoft has stated they are free to do 'unencumbered') those customers are liable. Apparently from evidence, Microsoft consulted on this statement before issuing it. That's what we call a smoking gun. I expect customers, if pursued will place the burden of treble damages, plus their own expenses and damages costs on Microsoft.
This of course all depends upon Timeline pursuing a list of all customers and investigating their products for infringement. They could bankroll the process with a settlement from Microsoft, however, I suspect to protect their underhandedly won and significant market, Microsoft will attempt to settle with Timeline, paying some hefty fee and renegotiating the terms of licensing. Since Microsoft has attempted to cut Timelines own legs off (buying their main distributor) expect Timeline to request a pound of flesh.
Lacking a settlement, here's yet one more argument in favor of buying software and services from Anybody-But-Microsoft. One would think they were coached on this whole preposterous strategy by the same team that coached them initially in the antitrust trial. i.e. some truly stupid, arrogant and overconfident lot.
Re:This is wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
They *aren't* a law firm? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Scenario 2) You buy enterprise level database software from Microsoft, one of the largest corporations on the planet. They assure you that everything is legit and that you can do what you want with the software as a foundation of your small business.
In scenario 1, you're an idiot. Just because the guy lied to you doesn't get you off the hook. You should have realized that things were fishy.
In Scenario 2, you were acting in good faith. You have an expectation that a giant company is going to handle these kind of legal issues for you before you hand then 5 to 100 thousand dollars for a few CDs worth of software.
So what other huge corporations that I deal with will require me to pay a lawyer 600 bucks before I do any business with again?
-Barry
pay a lawyer 600 bucks (Score:3, Informative)
Pray that Microsoft is *NOT* liable (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope not. Beacuse if they are responsible for patent violations of their software by users then open source developers are going to be in for a world of hurt.
THEY infringed on the patent by selling it ouside of the agreed scope!
I'm sorry, but distributing code which violates a patent should definately not be infringing behavior; but IANAL. If it is, that is the nail in the OSS coffin. Now, if Microsoft explicltily claims that they will indemnify their users for patent violations... this is a different issue; but I very much doubt that Microsoft made any representations to this.
God help OSS developers if Microsoft is responsible. The PTO is who is responsible... for most likely (given their track record) allowing a bull-shit patent to go through.
And this is from a *confirmed* ANTI-MICROSOFT junkie, not one of your astro-turfers...
Re:Pray that Microsoft is *NOT* liable (Score:4, Interesting)
But still, if someone is going to get a beJebus sued out of them here its got to be Microsoft. Why you ask? Think of this little scenario.
Suppose Microsoft wants to target unofficial Xbox developers (Xbox Linux and the like). All they need to do is: Create a subsidiary, have them patent a piece of code, stick it in a desired product (bootloader anyone?) and open source it.
Then six months later they can sue the entire Xbox developers group into the poorhouse for not only using patented code but distributing it to potentially an enormous audience.
Suddenly Xbox Linux dies out.
Re:Pray that Microsoft is *NOT* liable (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, no. Customers do not have access to Microsoft source code and there is no way for them to be able to determine if the product infringes patents. Microsoft was able to determine this and they should be held responsible for it. While I see your point about open source developers being hurt if they were made responsible, you also need to consider software ethics. If I make something that is illegal or hurts someone, etc. I should be held accountable, not the customer. The customer simply purchases it...the customer has no involvement in the creation of the product. But it seems slapping a EULA on there changes all of that.
Re:Pray that Microsoft is *NOT* liable (Score:5, Informative)
Developers are potentially liable for using or distributing patented code. Users are as well. Patents grant much stronger protection to intellectual property than copyrights do - but for a much shorter duration and they are (in theory) harder to obtain. However, submarine patents and the PTO's tendency to allow somebody to patent the practice of eating and breathing have caused all kinds of problems which shouldn't be there.
There should be a balance between intellectual property rights for innovators and giving those same innovators the ability to suck others into their claims unawares. I don't think the balance is correct now, but I don't advocate completely scrapping the whole concept of patents. Maybe in specific instances, such as software, it might make more sense - or maybe software should have a patent term of two years. The whole idea of patents is to give innovators a chance to make some money before cheap clones come in - in software you're probably done making your legitimate income within a year or two of product release, which isn't the case with a new lawnmower design.
Re:A possible solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Patents should be treated like trademarks. If you fail to vigorously defend your trademark, you lose it. If patents were treated the same way, this might put an end to patent mills, and it would also prevent someone from patenting an idea, sitting on it while someone else unknowingly develops an infringing product, and then extorts money from them in the form of royalties after the product is proven successul.
Re:This is wrong... (Score:5, Interesting)
Er... No they didn't. Thir licence allowed them to sell it. It didn't allow their customers to resell it. Microsoft should still be liable because they lied to their customers about this fact.
More frightening than this is what MSFT did to try to destroy Timeline:
Dud FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
Hoist by your own petard, boys.
Paul.
Re:Dud FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
But doesn't this ruling suggest that MS indeed had a valid point, and that the argument wasn't just FUD (because if it was FUD, SQL server customers wouldn't have been hit with this) ??
Re: Dud FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
> > They argued that you couldn't rely on OSS because someone might have a patent on it.
> But doesn't this ruling suggest that MS indeed had a valid point, and that the argument wasn't just FUD (because if it was FUD, SQL server customers wouldn't have been hit with this) ??
It was FUD because they portrayed it as a problem specific to OSS. (Remember what "FUD" stands for.)
Re:Dud FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Had MS indicated that they would indemnify MS SQL Server developers against a patent lawsuit, the FUD would have been justified; as it is, the argument is invalidated in this instance, since the purchasers of MS SQL Server still have to audit it as thoroughly as they would have had to audit an OSS solution.
MS Does Promise to Indemnify -- Sometimes (Score:5, Interesting)
Ooops. They said "copyright" and "trade secret", but they forgot to say "patent". Oops.
Re:MS Does Promise to Indemnify -- Sometimes (Score:4, Informative)
One of the terms is that goods or services must be adequate for the purpose they are supplied for.
SQL Server's developer edition should be able to produce software to develop and redistribute - that is the point of a development edition.
Thus Microsoft would be failing to fulfill its contractual requirements in the UK, and would be liable for contractual loss
I would have thought that the US would tend to have a similar requirement. It is, after all, the land of the lawsuit.
Re:PKZIP (Score:3, Informative)
Frex,
PKZIP (R) FAST! Create/Update Utility Version 2.04g 02-01-93
Copr. 1989-1993 PKWARE Inc. All Rights Reserved. Shareware Version
PKZIP Reg. U.S. Pat. and Tm. Off. Patent No. 5,051,745
Timeline says (Score:5, Funny)
Who exactly would this affect? (Score:5, Interesting)
So this doesnt affect people who merely bought SQL server and use it as is, but people who modify it?
And by modify, do they mean extending it via SQL-DMO, writing your own libraries to wrap the server? Do they mean writing custom triggers or stored procedures? Creating your own tables?
I, and my clients, have already licensed to use the technology once. If anyone owes Timeline anything its Microsoft.
I mean Ford doesnt sell you a car, and 5 years down the road AC Delco pops up and says "hey you owe us 200 bucks for that CD player!"
Re:Who exactly would this affect? (Score:5, Informative)
BUT, if you create custom code for it, and then SELL that custom code, then you could be in for some trouble.
HOWEVER, if you keep your custom code for "in house" use ONLY, then you should still be alright.
But don`t count on my advice, speak with an attorney.
Re:Who exactly would this affect? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, from what I read, there are specific places you have to put that custom code. It didn't appear to mean if you created a stored procedure or made a program that accessed the database that you were infringing.
The claims appear to be focused around the analysis services and the data transformation services. So if you used these things as a user by pointing and clicking (i.e. you imported a comma delimited text file into a table using DTS), you didn't do anything. If you wrote a middleware driver that, for example, created a data cube automatically from multiple sources, then you're liable.
I work in a part of the industry that develops applications for their Great Plains ERP systems. The use of cubes and analysis services, at least from what I know in this particular corner of the industry, was not a wide spread thing. I do know a few vendors that did some analysis packages, and this will probably affect them.
Re:Who exactly would this affect? (Score:3, Funny)
That's why I don't want to buy, sell, or process anything. I don't want to buy anything sold or processed, sell anything bought or processed, or process anything bought, sold, or processed, or repair anything bought, sold, or processed as a career.
I don't think I can sum it up in one night sir, I just want to hang with your daughter.
Re:Who exactly would this affect? (Score:4, Informative)
If something is sold, or given, to you, it's only truly yours if the person doing the selling, or giving, had the right to do so.
Actually, it's my understanding that if you buy something in good faith, you may keep the right to it, even if the seller didn't have the right to it. (IANAL, but a friend of mine is a law student and explained this to me.) The rationale for this is to encourage commerce.
A quick search of Google turned up a brief treatment of the matter here [ilrg.com] (HTML version available through Google here [216.239.37.100]). Search for O'Keefe v. Snyder.
Jokkey
Re:Uh, no. (Score:3, Insightful)
the CD player.
Ownership rights do not end with theft or fraud.
SQL Servers nasty viral nature! (Score:4, Funny)
Seems that SQL Server is viral and a threat to some organizations wallet
Who's in trouble? (Score:4, Insightful)
D
Don't worry, this isn't about the customers (Score:4, Insightful)
What I wonder about the most is : if msft willingly noodles up legal, hardcash contracts, I wonder how seriously they take the GPL & co... How much public source has been 'embraced' allready withou telling anyone ?
Bill is not a crook (Score:4, Funny)
Judging by the number of lawyers working for them, they might as well be.
Embrace, extend, destroy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's see:
Citrix ("Yes, we're building virtual desktops into Windows now...")
Sendo ("Hey, nice phone tech, we'll just be taking it, then. Enjoy your chapter 11.")
Timeline, Inc. (New, from article)
VMWare ("Oh, and virtual system imaging is going in, too. Thanks Connectix!")
Re:Embrace, extend, destroy? (Score:4, Interesting)
There used to be a list on my BBS way-back-when that started with Seattle Software....
Here's a partial list:
http://five2one.org/stdio/index.cfm/daddy/show/
Spyglass (Score:5, Informative)
You forgot Spyglass -- the company setup by UIUC to manage and commercialize the Mosaic source code. When they negotiated with Microsoft, they thought they had done a really good job. They got a fixed percentage of the gross.
And then MS gave it away for free, screwing not only Spyglass, but Spyglass's only other customer -- Netscape.
-Esme
Re:Spyglass (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Embrace, extend, destroy? (Score:3, Informative)
If enough of us link to it from our personal web pages, We could probably make it come up first on google.
Be sure to use the words "Microsoft Business Partner" in the link!
Re:Embrace, extend, destroy? (Score:3, Informative)
OSS Licencing (Score:5, Insightful)
In particular, the BSD license doesn't say anything about patents, should it have a clause like:
THIS SOFTWARE MAY BE COVERED BY PATENTS
AND THUS MAY NOT BE USEABLE WITHOUT
APPROPRIATE LICENSING BY THE OWNERS OF
THOSE PATENTS; THIS LICENSE IS NOT A
GRANT OF PATENT AND THE DEVELOPER
EXPLICITLY DENIES ANY RESPONSIBILITY
FOR PATENT LICENSING REQUIRED TO USE
THIS SOFTWARE.
Just wondering? How do other licenses handle it? Is there a clause in the GPL for this?
Re:OSS Licencing (Score:5, Informative)
"Free software should be freely modifiable and redistributable by its users. Of course, any code once modified may practice claims of a patent about which the modifying user is uninformed. So anyone distributing free software is unable to assure his users that each and every modification they may want to make is noninfringing. But when someone distributes apparently-free software under actual but undisclosed legal restrictions preventing modification or redistribution, the software is not really free. GPL [fsf.org] tries to deal with this problem through section 7, which says that if code you are distributing is actually under restriction that is incompatible with the terms of the GPL, you can't distribute under GPL at all. So if you have accepted a patent license that prohibits you from reusing some of your code, or code you have received from others, in different contexts, GPL section 7 means that you cannot distribute under GPL. " (Emphasis and URL added)
Question (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Question (Score:5, Interesting)
Every SQL "distribution" has it's own quirks. For example, Oracle isn't (or wasn't last time I looked) ANSI SQL 92 compliant. MS SQL does a better job of this.
Everyone implements triggers diferently, or not at all, some SQL databases don't have stored procedures, locking mechanisms vary, even connection methods vary. The optimisations you have learnt, and coded for on one database server generally fail on another.
I've been on the sharp end of migrating Oracle to MS SQL server, and in the end we threw the Oracle stored procedures away and rewrote the SQL.
Software patents - bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
This is jsut the tip of the iceberg (Score:3, Insightful)
Once the business rules patents get into full swing, no small business will be allowed to operate at all without some risk of being sued out of existance. Once that happens, then the patent office will get fixed but I figure thats a few decades away.
Re:This is just the tip of the iceberg (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Novel
2. Inventive
3. Capable of physical embodiment.
And over many decades (centuries even) patent practice has developed and matured. The same case can be made of trademark and copyright law - there is a long trail of established case law. This body of case law will help not only in dealing with disputes but also in guiding the patent offices when awarding patents. And not only case law, but maturity in the process of examining and granting patents.
The advent of software patents (in the US, still don't have them over here) is a step change, and introduces the patent process to an arena where there is no case law, and no established maturity in the process of examining and granting patents.
Now, the US patent office could tackle this in two ways:
a) they could set the bar for the granting of software patents very high, and themselves get involved in wrangling with big corporations about patents which they have declined, or
b) they could just grant any application which comes in, in which case they will not be involved in any disputes between patent holders and alleged infringers.
Whatever the merits of the two cases, it is now too late: there is a large body of software patents which, instead of being use to protect an inventor from having his ideas copied, is used by large corporations to selectively bully other corporations (large and small) in a game of bluffing poker played with legal fees.
The only silver lining is that all patents expire, and being able to cite an expired patent which covers what you're doing is a cast iron defence (assuming you waited until it expired before distributing your version).
And the dark cloud on the horizon? The possibility of patent terms being extended, in the same way as copyright terms, by similarly Mickey Mouse organisations.
Dunstan
Looks like Microsoft got some of its own medicine (Score:5, Informative)
So, basically the problem is Microsoft hubris; first they signed a crap contract, then they refused to negotiate a better one. But Timeline seems to have ego (and truthfullness) problems of its own; spreading FUD among MS customers in a kind of 'good for the goose, good for the gander' approach. So this looks like a situation where there are no heros and Timeline may be the only winner.
I wonder what long term effect this will have on MS SQL Server sales? The funny part is, this only directly affects a small number of developers modifying SQL Server in very specific ways. But the marketplace often operates on emotion rather than rational principles and this tarnish on the MS crown may have significant ripple effects.
timeline (Score:4, Interesting)
They said people who 'added code' to the SQL server. Does this mean altering the source, or just using it from inside a program (ie, not SQL Explorer or whatever)?
The article says:
Who is to decide this? Another court ruling? MS? Timeline?
I don't even understand this enough for IANAL. I need a new acronym: IHNFCATL. (I have NFC about the law)
query... (Score:4, Funny)
FROM ms.customers
WHERE ms.cant_read_EULAs
AND ms.really_wants_to_lose_market
HAVING Slammer;
Re:query... (Score:3, Funny)
ORA-20665: insufficient money to execute patented SQL command
(I'd post a SQL Server equivalent, but I don't know SQL Server.)
Patent only for data warehouses (Score:5, Informative)
Before people start pushing Postgres and MySQL (Score:5, Informative)
So, for most SQL Server users it's not an issue, and since neither Postgres or MySQL have multidimensional capabilities, they're not really an alternative either.
A victory for anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Winners? Victors? I don't see any, I'm afraid.
Though this WAS worth a hell of a laugh.
Just my 1/250 of $5.00.
TCO (Score:3, Interesting)
Is nice to use the TCO argument against Microsoft.
"MS SQL Server initially cost less than Oracle, Informix, etc, but if you use some features you could face aditional costs".
Anyway, I don't think that this is the first time that Microsoft sold something that they don't really own.
Major Software Vendors Major Losers (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm glad my systems don't run on MS SQL.
indirect slashdot effect? (Score:5, Interesting)
MySQL/PostgreSQL, take note... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pirated copies (Score:3, Funny)
Wow. (Score:3, Funny)
Nobody ever got fired for choosing Microsoft (Score:3, Funny)
cost of ownership? (Score:4, Funny)
Tangled Web (Score:5, Interesting)
So SQL Server developers, fearing legal harassment, start lookin into alternatives like MySQL, encouraging the development of new features like triggers and native stored procedures, and making MySQL even more attractive as competition. See how IP encourages innovation? Uh, sort of?
Developers... (Score:5, Insightful)
So...will Ballmer and Co. decide to indemnify the DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS when the DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS get SUED SUED SUED?
Maybe, just maybe, this (or the Caldera situation) might spur some reform of the patent process vis-a-vis software and busines processes. I'm not holding my breath, though.
GF.
How things change . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I'm following news like this, and wondering what it means for my job. It means a time where patent law, copyright law, business games, and acts of Congress can vastly affect my job, and lawsuits and patent claims can suddenly pop up and change the playing field.
I wonder at the CIS majors coming out of college are aware of the bizarre amount of issues that they may confront.
Wonderful... (Score:3, Funny)
Using open source software won't solve the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, Microsoft potentially screwed their customers. They'll fix it. Reason? If they don't, then *noone* will buy their software anymore. Stuff like this could kill Microsoft if they don't deal with it. No worries, either way.
I own a small software company. I use microsoft sql-server (and, honestly, don't have much of a choice if I want to *sell* my software, but that's a whole different problem). Without reading the patents, I have no clue if my software infringes on Timeline's patents.
But then again, none of us have any clue if MySQL violates patents. I'm willing to bet that it does. Someone out there has a patent for pretty much everything. Even if the code was written on a planet orbiting Vega, and, assuming for the moment that no-one on Vega's planet ever even heard of the earth, they could still write code on their computers (go with it, they have computers, ok?) that do something substantially similar to something that someone has patented.
It's a fundemental flaw in our patent system... and ignorance is no excuse.
Most software developers just ignore the whole thing, thinking (and in general, rightfully so) that they are safe if they didn't steal an idea from somewhere. And they are safe. No one notices most infringments. Occasionally, if you make it big, someone will notice your infrigement, and will basically want a piece of your action (i.e., a big settlement) and they will get it... even though you didn't steal the idea, you invented it yourself. Hopefully you can find prior art.
Who is the victim of FUD this time? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't help but think this entire situation would have been quietly settled if the offender was anyone other than Microsoft.
US Only, plus the whole thing doesn't add up. (Score:3, Interesting)
Futhermore, how can a USER of a piece of software, which the user licensed in full (payed a license fee to MS), still be charged for patent-infrigment while USING the piece of software? This doesn't make sense. IF there is one company who has to pay for this patent infrigment, it's Microsoft: after all, it's not the end-user's problem MS didn't license enough from Timeline so the end-user is licensing software from MS which in fact isn't covering the whole package.
What also seems odd is that the article mentiones SqlServer '7', not SqlServer 2000. '7' had an Add-on OLAP package while SqlServer 2000 has everything integrated. IANAL but this seems only to be about the add-on OLAP package for SqlServer 7, not about the integrated logic in SqlServer 2000.
To the people who don't have a clue about databases and cry about MySql: please... come back when MySql has the features SqlServer provides.
Re:HAHA ! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's licensed to Oracle, Hyperion, Crystal Decisions and others.
Apparently they think they own RDBMS's, have 511 pretty little USPTO-stamped file folders and now a judge to back them up.
This could turn out to be BAD for everyone.
Heres some meat from the patents:
"A number of claims cover using a driver to interrogate a source (e.g. transaction systems), use the information from the source to determine its structure"
"Pulling data from multiple sources ending up in the same target structure" (imagine a beowulf cluster of lawyers)
Re:Postgres, MySQL unaffected (Score:3, Interesting)
Looks to me that if they wanted to make life miserable for Postgres or MySQL they surely could.
In fact, it looks to me like MSFT may have been fighting the good fight this time around (albeit for their own interests).
Timeline may very well be the bad guy at the end of the day.
Re:MySQL (Score:4, Informative)
I'm a huge mysql fan but it in no way compares to mssql or oracle or postgres. You CAN use innodb or another table type but the default table type has none of the features that mssql or any other ACID compliant database has.
If you want something comparable in the OSS arena, use postgres or hell even SAPDB but don't spout ignorance in a feeble attempt at fanboy karma whoring.
Re:Bad Faith -- I don't think so. (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft is not legal counsel, so any reference to them has no standing in a bad faith claim. It's the same as asking your dead grandmother via seance if she thinks it's ok. In fact I bet the Microsoft EULA specifically disclaims patent liability issues of this type.
I find this case highly ironic because it has been Microosft who has been making claims about use of Open Source being dangerous from a potential patent infringement point of view. Now they are found to have a problem.