Microsoft Details FOSS Patent Breaches 576
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.'"
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is no friend of Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
http://tv.truenuff.com/mac/gaming.php [truenuff.com]
It is clear both Mac and PC despise Linux in this insightful video.
(Warning, some coarse language.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not a friend, or an enemy, it's a company. (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
I think Apple and Microsoft have a patent cross-licensing agreement. (They certainly seem to have an informal one, but I suspect it's been formalized at some point, maybe in one of their lawsuit-settlement stock trades.)
From the NY Times: "In Its Case Against Microsoft, U.S. Now Cites Note From Apple [nytimes.com]," Oct 28, 1998It's been widely alleged that Microsoft got the patent cross-licensing agreement, and the IE-preinstall deal, by threatening to kill Office for Mac back in the late 90s, when a lot of people were ready to stick a fork in Apple.
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Did they patent the location of every button and menu option?
Short answer: yes (Score:5, Informative)
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
What sucks is that yesterday they only had 151...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?p=1& e dit_alert=&srch=xprtsrch&query_txt=AN%2FMicrosoft+ and+ABST%2F%22user+interface%22&uspat=on&date_rang e=all&stemming=on&sort=chron&search=Search [freepatentsonline.com]
PS: come by my site (www.t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"A System and Method for Selecting Options from a List"
"A System and Method for Choosing Between Several Options"
"A System and Method for Displaying Information on a Video Device"
"A System and Method for the Representation of Electronic Documents on a Video Device"
&c.
In short, just a lot of nonsense, overbroad, long-after-the-fact patents that they managed to squeeze through that goatse.cx-like orifice that is the Patent Office, and they believe will cost too much for Free Software
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
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.
to quote Vizzini (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, Microsoft, SCO called. They want their business model back.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
Since some EU companies are involved could this get Microsoft into even deeper hot water with the EU?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's debatable whether any of the MS software patents would stand up in the EU anyway. Although the Europe-wide patent body has awarded a few patents that might be described in those terms over the years, as a general principle we don't currently have them, and the enforceability of the odd few in European countries is doubtful.
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
Not true. The U.S. patent system is based on a "first to invent" doctrine, not "first to file."
Applying for a patent often serves as proof that you had indeed invented something at a certain time (at least the filing date), and creates a bit of a barrier for someone else to prove that they invented it earlier (since they'd need to conclusively demonstrate that they had done it before you had), but it's not unheard of or even especially uncommon historically.
That's the whole idea behind 'prior art' in the U.S.: if you can demonstrate that you, or somebody else, had invented something and published it before the person who got the patent for it did, then the patent can be ruled invalid.
There are some (IMO, really poorly thought-out) proposals that would change the U.S. system to a "first to file" one, which is more common throughout the rest of the world, but it hasn't happened yet.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That may be the theory behind the patent system, but it is not how it behaves in practice. The high cost to prove a patent owner was not the first inventor is prohibitively high for most people to pursue, especially against a corporation.
Additionally, most patents (particularly in software) are issued for things that are not genuine innovations. That is, there is no net benefit to the country for these paten
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because the other guy -- Elisha Gray -- wasn't able to prove that he invented it earlier. It's pretty clear now, in hindsight, that Gray really did invent it first, and what occurred was really a miscarriage of justice on a grand scale, but at the time he couldn't show sufficient evidence of earlier inventio
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
They could. (Score:4, Interesting)
Funny you should bring that up. You should take a look at this page [bpmlegal.com], in particular, to the broadside that's reproduced about 1/3rd of the way down the page. The "Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers" (holders of the infamous Selden Patent [wikipedia.org]) frequently threatened to sue not only the manufacturers of unlicensed autos, but also their owners, since "use" of (not just manufacturing) an infringing device constitutes patent infringement by law. I don't know whether they ever actually bothered to do it though, because like Microsoft, their aim was to funnel business into the coffers of their financiers.
So anyway, the reason Ford might sue Chevy for patent infringement, rather than going directly after Chevy drivers, is mostly because Chevy is a much bigger (and deeper-pocketed) target.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the Lanham Act [lectlaw.com] deals with trademarks not patents, but IANAL.
However using unsupported claims to weaken competition could be a violation of anti-trust law.
Of course since Microsoft Just sold thousands of copies of Linux to Dell, they have distributed any possibly infringing material under the GPL. As the owner of that material it is legal for Microsoft to choose the distribution license, but Microsoft now has to abide by the license they have chosen.
From this Groklaw interview with an EFF lawye [groklaw.net]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's the crux of this, really - because of the lawsuit-happy world we live in, people have gotten the idea that you can actually sue anyone for anything; you can't. You have to cite what civil law was violated, how it was violated, when it was violated, etc.
So yeah - give me an example
MS has a LOUSY legal record (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:First to file (Score:5, Informative)
Not in the United States. [wikipedia.org] In the U.S., first-to-invent is the rule, not first-to-file.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:First to file (Score:4, Interesting)
C//
Too general, that's not protected. (Score:3, Interesting)
Layout and form aren't patentable or even copywritable (aside from specific logos and words). That's how Microsoft got away with copying Apple.
This is all settled law; it was beaten to death in the 80s and 90s. The fact that Linux uses some of the same general design elements that Windows (and in many cases the Classic Mac OS, and OS
Further reading (Score:5, Informative)
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.)
Apple v. eMachines (Score:3, Informative)
If you take a look at the eOne [wikipedia.org], it's pretty blatantly iMac-like; I kinda wonder what their lawyers were thinking when they green-lit that.
At any rate, that suit, like most things that Apple seems to get involved in, was eventually settled out of court [com.com], and no precedent resulted. But
Re:Devil's Advocate... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Zoom in... (Score:5, Funny)
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Zoom in... (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
I, for one, trust Microsoft on this (Score:4, Funny)
Microsoft's customers too...they get used to having their breaches around their ankles on a daily basis
No new details (Score:5, Informative)
That is NOT specificity.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're Giving Them What They Want (Score:5, Insightful)
We all know that this is a ruse. We know it.
We can do our part by ignoring this non-event.
--Richard
Re:You're Giving Them What They Want (Score:4, Funny)
Step 1: Troll slashdot.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!!!
My patents (Score:4, Funny)
Now, where have I heard this before?
They are afraid. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know why you never saw something like this from Microsoft before? They didn't think it was worth their time.
In any case, it is FUD; there might be a vulnerable project or two but there is basically a stalemate on this one. That is why they are pushing for licensing instead of filing a lawsuit.
This is a good thing. Most MBA's will see right through both the motivation and the push for licensing.
And who are they going to sue? (Score:5, Insightful)
In case you haven't realized, "Linux" is not a single entity. When you say Linux breaches patents on email or graphical user interfaces, are you aware that:
Best Regards from Sweden,
Someone who doesn't care about your patent claims.
Microsoft will win everytime (Score:5, Funny)
Abstract
A click is made when someone's finger presses down on a mouse
Inventors: Microsoft
Assignee: Microsoft
Filed: March 14, 1929
See!
Of course! (Score:5, Funny)
Me too! I prefer people to just give me money rather than have to go through all the hassle of producing something of value.
Hey, Microsoft! I've got a bunch of patents that you're infringing and I would prefer that you go ahead and license them from me rather than starting an ugly legal battle. I'll even give you a deal (just this once, because you like a nice kid): $100 Million for the lot. This offer won't be repeated, so take advantage while you still can!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Pull a Microsoft on Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Giving counts is pretty useless. Calling it more detailed it like saying you'll release the personal information of the vicitms and just giving a list of nationalities; you really don't know more than you did before, but the feed got you to stay tuned.
Infringements in optional modules (Score:3, Interesting)
If we ever get a full detailed list of patent issues, I can foresee the day that one of the first questions in the kernel configuration is whether to include portions that may violate patent rights, and the help text on various options would cite specific patent numbers that have been claimed. Or, perhaps more generally, it could ask what legal jurisdiction you're in, so that it can block the modules that are protected in that country.
I didn't know US patent law (Score:5, Insightful)
The implications for all this are interesting. Does Microsoft really want European software slowly to drift away from its link to the US? Because they are exposing more and more to European legislators that, in effect, they want to enforce a charge on European businesses based on US law that is not applicable in the EU. They already have done themselves no favours with the Competition Commission. Given that the Open Document format is now an international standard, the EU is quite free to use free software to implement it while the US might end up having to pay a Microsoft tax. That is an interesting possibility.
Many years ago at a seminar on patent and trademark law, I asked the lawyer who was acting as convenor what, in his view, the position would be if a manufacturer attempted to claim that only their patented technology was able to create an instance of something complying with an international standard which was embodied in European harmonisation. To which his reply was "You're just being a smartass." It looks like there could yet be a test case.
Nothing to see here, move along... (Score:5, Interesting)
Until they tell us specifically which patents are being violated by what software, we cannot take any remedial action.
There are two possible cases: 1) no free software violates any MS patents; and 2) some free software violates some MS patents, but we don't know what software violates what patents because MS refuses to tell us.
Ergo, it is reasonable to assume that since MS has made it impossible for potential infringers to take any action to avoid infringement, that they have an interest in any infringement that occurs. That is, MS is promoting infringement of their own patents.
Indeed, the article says, "But Augustin also acknowledged that it's not in Microsoft's interest to do so: Open-source programmers could rewrite their code to avoid infringing on specific patents, or the courts could find that Microsoft's patent isn't valid."
I am not a lawyer, but when a party promotes the infringement of their own patents it might be reasonable to assume that they may be estopped from ever enforcing those patents in the future.
MS needs to tell us specifically which free software is violating what patents. If they do not tell us that we are justified in assuming that either no free software violates any patents, or that MS is entirely ok with all the free software that violates any of their patents. If they were not ok with it, they would tell us exactly which free software violated exactly what patents.
Re:Nothing to see here, move along... (Score:4, Insightful)
That is true of copyright law, but not patent law. See, for example, the GIF fiasco.
Re:Nothing to see here, move along... (Score:4, Interesting)
How is this detailed? (Score:3, Informative)
So lets be pre-emptive (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
No patents actually specified (Score:3, Interesting)
Objection. So far MS hasn't actually specified any patents which they claim are infringed. They've given numbers, but they've declined to say which patents are on the list. I think I'll have to borrow the phrasing from IBM's very first few interrogatories to SCO: Please identify with specificity which patents held by Microsoft are alleged to be infringed, and which code (by software project, file, version and line) is alleged to infringe upon those patents.
Despite their accusations of infringement, they state they would rather do licensing deals instead of any legal action.
A prerequisite for licensing is to identify exactly what the licensee will be paying for a license to. Until MS places that on the table, why should I pay good money for a pig in a poke?
Don't be blind (Score:4, Insightful)
This is probably the most effective way to protect their bottom line. Going into court isn't what they want. They want doubt in prospective OSS adopters. With doubt comes the likelihood of sticking with what's safe. It's the same sort of campaign they "allegedly" helped SCO take-on to help stifle OSS adoption. From what I can tell, it had a impact for quite some time.
I am sure Microsoft knows that quite a few patents may not hold up. They'll only get bad publicity in the tech world, but to shareholders and the rest of the world, they'll look like they're protecting their assets. They had record profits last quarter and will continue to do so by spreading doubt in prospective adopters minds. It's so simple and yet so effective.
Unenforceable if it's Incomprehensible (Score:4, Insightful)
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
There is not a judge in the world, much less a jury, that could possibly even comprehend the text of this patent.
And there is no way in hell that the patent examiner could possibly have comprehended what the patent application was about.
There are no infringments.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
This isn't news (Score:3, Insightful)
We need to be proactive (Score:4, Interesting)
My take on this (Score:3, Interesting)
This is just a net being scattered far and wide to try and turn some of their (now worthless) patents into revenue before anyone has the chance to challenge the validity of those patents.
My suggestion? Don't take the bait.
Question about Timeliness (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, don't get me wrong, I think this is a great evil and I want it to get lots of attention, but even I think there are more pressing issues in the world right now.
Re:The Camerons are spot on: (Score:5, Insightful)
Strategically, though, the US is comitting seppuku if it allows a few fat cats to patent obvious things, stifle innovation, destroy productivity, and otherwise distract from useful work.
Ellsworth Toohey [wikipedia.org] would be proud of those cretins.
Re:The Camerons are spot on: (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, all your credibility was lost with the reference to Ayn Rand.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Essentially, yes. One may as well quote Marx (a noted racist) when discussing the economic pitfalls of modern-day Africa. It isn't merely that she wrote a caricature, it is that the idea itself is a straw man to begin with, she uses this idea to push an agenda, and finally that her agenda has been thoroughly discredited on historical, scientific, and philosophical grounds. If you want to score an intellectual point,
Re:The Camerons are spot on: (Score:5, Insightful)
I encourage people to do so. Shooting for the average never helps, it lowers the average in the wrong direction.
(Also, I think your view that tries to be realistic is exaggerated)
No, no, no: (Score:3, Funny)
The InterNet is a little red fox curled around a blue sphere.
There, fixed that for you...
Violation of Patents for Ideas They Stole??? (Score:5, Insightful)
2 cents,
Queen B.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If so, then this country's in more trouble than I'd realized before, and I thought it was in a sorry shape *then*.
Re:The Camerons are spot on: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
homosexuality and abortion are much bigger life changing events in my book, and touch a far greater proportion of the population than patent law.
Patent law reform, while it should still be addressed, pales in comparison to the big issues in society.
Re:The Camerons are spot on: (Score:4, Insightful)
As a gay man who wants to marry, I think that software patents are a bigger issue.
The artistic and literal aspects of software are already covered well by copyright.
But the mechanisms used in software and controlled by patents are indeed pure mathematics. Any functional description of software can be reduced to uniform symbolic relationships, pcode, which is math. Avoiding the encumbrance of mathematics has long been one of the most basic intellectual freedoms in our society-- so basic that very few people ever discuss it today.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The direct effect of patents is that US$ 50 digital camera could cost US$ 49 if it weren't for the patents, which is quite acceptable.
The indirect effects, on the other hand, although less obvious, run deep in the way our society works.
I suppose many
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I am not an American, so this doesn't affect me directly, but here's my two Euro-cents anyway...
I consider the software patent issue an important one -- like the majority of peopl
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Moving along: detail the rest of 'em, and we'll give a shit. No seriously. You can't just say, "You infringe on 25 of my patents. Can I have my licensing fee now?"
It doesn't work like that.
Of course, the reason MS won't name names is that they want their license fees. They don't want Linux and its related projects going, "Ok, we'll code around that, thanks."
Re:Nothing new here (Score:5, Interesting)
What about PR? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nothing new here (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean really, are they going to claim that outbreak's calendar integration is patentable, I can think of 15 mailers that do calendar integration, no bother and that covers the 15 breaches of their patent.
As for UI/Menus really guys do you think you'll get "Heirarchical menus" past a wide awake patent court?
Don't Sun have a cross licensing deal over Star Office, so there go those
And if your trying to tell me that the Linux kernel infringes, where, in the drivers?
- SMB/NET Bios was an IBM technology from '84
- vfat, I heard you intend suing camera/flash card manufacturers for this too, but do you really want to start a war with (the much derided) Sony, they're also part of the OIN [openinventionnetwork.com]
Look I could go on playing guessing games but unless you are willing to stand up a case why in the name of Xenu should I take you at all seriously?Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Its really sad to see this happen. A lot of people predicted something like this, but I was really hoping (naively) it wouldn't happen. I could see projects like Mono being hit really har
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:E-MAIL????? (Score:5, Funny)
I dunno, executing JavaScript in emails was a pretty novel idea. Mostly because nobody else was stupid enough to think of it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft Patent Could Hamper E-Mail Authentication Group [eweek.com]
John R. Levine provides an analysis [johnlevine.com]
Microsoft patents E-mail addresses as clip-board objects [theinquirer.net]
Microsot patents eternal E-mail [nwsource.com]
Another link [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe they patented automatic execution of trojan programs, when email is displayed in a preview pane.
I'm pretty sure they came up with that first.
Re:Quick !! Lets examine and change them all !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Quick !! Lets examine and change them all !! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's called the doctrine of laches (Score:3, Informative)