Linus Responds To Microsoft Patent Claims 496
An anonymous reader writes "Linus Torvalds has a sharp retort to Microsoft executives' statements in a Fortune article that Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents. In an emailed response to InformationWeek's Charlie Babcock, Torvalds writes: 'It's certainly a lot more likely that Microsoft violates patents than Linux does.' He added: 'Basic operating system theory was pretty much done by the end of the 1960s. IBM probably owned thousand of really "fundamental" patents... The fundamental stuff... has long, long since lost any patent protection.'" Torvalds also commented on Microsoft's stated intention not to sue Linux users: "They'd have to name the patents then, and they're probably happier with the FUD than with any lawsuit."
Sad or Telling? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem here is not that MS would ever dream of going to court, it's that the FUD could be very effective at slowing adoption. I suspect that if anything, it's OpenOffice that would feel the wrath of being dragged into court. Going after the kernel is ludicrous, and would likely turn up absolutely nothing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as it's in the realm of the willing hacker, MS is quite safe.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The only other patent I know of on CIFS is not owned by Microsoft, it's a Cisc [patentdebate.com]
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is compatibility even an issue here? I thought you could reverse engineer or the equivalent thereof, to make systems compatible. Isn't this even one of the tennents of the DMCA? I know that isn't really patent related, but, is it against the patent law to interoperate with another system?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft is not a bit player, and it's FUD will have an effect. Legal advisors are going to be telling their clients and/or bosses to stay far away from open source, or at the very least look into paying MS's license extortion (which is almost worse than not using open source at all). It might even mean that some commercial contributors may even have second-thoughts.
At best, this is going to be a roadblock. At worst, it's going to mean very tough times. Microsoft is not SCO. It's a powerful and deep-pocketed corporation that has ran over almost every attempt to slow it down.
That's actually an awesome idea (Score:4, Insightful)
With enough eyes, all patent violations are visible. Chances are, many large companies that hold patents that MS infringes upon don't even know the infringement is happening. If users were to discover and publicly document a few thousand tidbits such as, "Windows Vista's user-account control database clearly violates IBM's patent 1,559,664 of June 29, 1997," why, companies like IBM would almost be obliged to sue MS for damages.
I like this idea a lot. It's elegant as hell, because it takes advantage of the fact that Microsoft has more to lose than anyone from software patents.
Re GoodWay:Sad or Telling? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, who will be the first to flinch in this obvious game of chicken/standoff. I suspect, that M$ is looking to be another dickless empty SCOrotum.
I ain't good enough with code, but I will continue to put some loss money on the Linux Foundation, FSF-GPL, EFF
!HAVEFUN!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and the ironic thing is that, by making all these spurious accusations, M$ is only validating Linux as a viable competitor.
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:4, Funny)
SCO TO FIRM
SCO FROM IT
SCO OF TRIM
and permutations thereof.
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:4, Funny)
Little did he know... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, the damage is done. I work for a large financial organization that was *just* venturing outside of Microsoft operating systems and the lawyers sent out a notice today that we are to remove all traces of "open source" software, effective immediately.
I suspect that lots of organizations were in such a boat and Microsoft played their cards accordingly.
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For those companies who do get Open Source, this is latest round of Microsoft FUD is nothing more than, to joke about during lunch time.
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:5, Insightful)
He works for a large financial company - one large enough to have its own law department. While eliminating open source software from their infrastructure is certainly unreasonable, it's unlikely that they'll be "damaged" by it. There are plenty of good closed-source solutions out there.
As for having to change jobs, well, changing jobs on the basis of software morality (a dodgy proposition at best) might be reasonable in a very select few markets. Lots of people can't simply throw a tantrum and quit just because they don't get their way.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet they were hit every time a Microsoft worm was on the loose. They spent countless hours recovering from these break outs. So if you choose to close your ears and eyes, and insist on using microsoft only products, then you CAN have damages.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet most institutions would be dead in the water if this advice were taken quite literally, as Microsoft used BSD code in there TCP/IP stack for a long time. Goodbye 95/98/NT/2000. Even if your not totally literal, there are tons of open source stuff that every company makes use of everyday, even if it doesn't register in the minds of the layman.
I'm sure there are more, but I believe that if all the admins of the world who got this request complied, Microsoft would be lynched in a heartbeat.
In fact, there should be a "Open Source or Die!" day where all machines that run open source software turn off. The inability to do anything would boggle the corporate mind.
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft to this day, still has many tidbits of BSD code sprinkled throughout its Windows and Visual Studio codebases. I used to work on the Visual Studio team, and I'm still friends with a number of the devs over there. You can always do the classic:
strings c:\windows\system32\ftp.exe |grep Regents
and be treated to...
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
(note this is still present, even in Vista)
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Could you give me a hint of which financial company? I'm worried that I'm keeping my nest egg funds in a company who lets idiocy run its course without actually checking the facts. I suppose such a company would likely panic for any non-serious market trends which leads to me being poor because someone freaked out over something that was simply not true.
you don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is an opportunity to educate. Don't waste it.
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:4, Insightful)
Class Action Lawsuit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:5, Informative)
It was lots worse than that:
Re:Sad or Telling? (Score:4, Informative)
Caldera bought DR-DOS from Novell in 1996, for $400 thousand, long after the alleged damage to the product had been done. The company settled with Microsoft over the DR-DOS lawsuit for an 'undisclosed sum' in January 2000, which Microsoft valued at $155 mn, but others speculated was actually 'much higher'.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/600488.stm [bbc.co.uk]
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/ArticleID/804 5/8045.html?Ad=1 [windowsitpro.com]
In August 2000, Caldera agreed to acquire the Santa Cruz Operation's Unix products, including UnixWare and the SCO name. Caldera later changed its name to The SCO Group, but Caldera management remained in charge, i.e. the company was actually Caldera, not the old Santa Cruz Operation, which became Tarantella, and in 2005 was acquired by Sun Microsystems.
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/00/08/02/ 000802hncaldera.html [infoworld.com]
http://www.sun.com/software/tarantella/index.xml [sun.com]
Caldera's financial statements (see www.sec.gov) show it lost more money in 1999 and 2000 than its total revenue for each year, and had negative cash flows from operations. How was such a company able to issue equity that investors actually bought, pay for its ongoing losses and come up with enough money to acquire and sustain UnixWare, another loss-making business, along with the SCO name, in a deal valued at $91 mn? The answer is that the entire operation was funded by the DR-DOS lawsuit.
http://practical-tech.com/operating-system/linux/c aldera-buys-sco-unix-professional-services/ [practical-tech.com]
http://www.newsforge.com/os/04/03/30/0047220.shtml [newsforge.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IMPORTANT NOTICE (Score:5, Funny)
Re:IMPORTANT NOTICE (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Please note that this article violates 207 Microsoft patents. Anyone commenting on it will be violating a further 703 patents. Except me.
I think that 42 [informationweek.com] will just do. Isn't that the answer for everything [wikipedia.org]? I bet this number isn't a coincidence.
constitutional lawyers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't a patent law which does NOT promote science and arts be unconstitutional? Or am I misreading the constitution?
Re:constitutional lawyers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Software patents that were reviewed by qualified examiners and only granted if they were truly novel and non-obvious would promote science and the useful arts. I think far fewer people would have trouble with the concept if that were the reality -- in that case the intended bargain (the patent makes public the details of an idea that nobody else would have thought of on their own) would apply.
But the "grant first, ask questions later" approach of today's patent office, where one can patent an implementation that any programmer of above-average skill might come up with when presented with the same problem, means that we'd be better off with no software patents at all.
I'd be happy with either fixing the examination process or dumping software patents.
An example of a software patent that would reasonably be granted under a good examination regime, even though it did irk a bunch of people back before it expired, would be the RSA patent. That was not obvious to 99% of the skilled practitioners of the art until it was published. (And even now I expect most programmers have at most a high-level understanding of why it works, me included.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:constitutional lawyers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Software is obsolete in 5-10 years.
A patent last for 20 years.
Copyright lasts for 95 years.
When the incentive monopoly lasts well beyond the life of the invention, the effect is obviously not promoting innovation. The effect is innovation suppression and wheel reinvention.
Re:constitutional lawyers? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:constitutional lawyers? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:constitutional lawyers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:constitutional lawyers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Essentially what I am saying is that the part "To promote the progress of science and useful arts" is meaningless and the only important part of that section is: "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
Re:constitutional lawyers? (Score:4, Insightful)
In much the same way "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is meaningless and the only important part of that section is: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Re:constitutional lawyers? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, but what you fail to notice is that the intent of the writers is irrelevant. First, the draft you cite was not the final, approved draft. You would have to look into the intent of those who _ratified_ the amendment, as they obviously approved the present Second Amendment. As far as the Constitution proper is concerned, there were
Re:constitutional lawyers? (Score:5, Insightful)
I work in a software company, and I can assure you that we would be writing just as much software if there were no software patents.
Also, we have NEVER wondered how to write a particular algorithm, then found the solution in some patent disclosure document. Do you realize how absurd that sounds?
Re:constitutional lawyers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Patents are intended to promote progress by rewarding publishing of a method with a time-limited monopoly on using the method.
But, infact, literally *NOBODY* uses published patents as a source of learning new methods.
To the contrary -- if you learn there's a patent on a certain way of solving a problem, you do your best to stay the hell away from that method, and you actively try to *avoid* reading software-patents, since knowing them could make you liable for willfull infringement.
Linus, Linux, IBM, and patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Gotta love Linus (Score:5, Funny)
If I didn't know better.... (Score:5, Funny)
It looks like Linus has been reading Slashdot the past couple of days.
Schwartz (Sun) responds (Score:5, Informative)
You would be wise to listen to the customers you're threatening to sue - they can leave you, especially if you give them motivation. Remember, they wouldn't be motivated unless your products were somehow missing the mark.
All of which is to say - no amount of fear can stop the rise of free media, or free software (they are the same, after all). The community is vastly more innovative and powerful than a single company. And you will never turn back the clock on elementary school students and developing economies and aid agencies and fledgling universities - or the Fortune 500 - that have found value in the wisdom of the open source community. Open standards and open source software are literally changing the face of the planet - creating opportunity wherever the network can reach.
That's not a genie any litigator I know can put back in a bottle."
Source: http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/what_we_did [sun.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
+2, Hilarious
The Community is doing MS's work for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux = Patent Violation = Unreliable
Instead the Linux community should turn the tables on Microsoft and find a patent that MS has broken and feed the media the story that Windows users are going to get sued, hence making getting sued for using any OS a null point.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know, but I doubt you're supposed to be posting on Slashdot using technical terms like "shit" and lots of dollar signs to spell the names of companies. But hey, I'm sure free software is all better off thanks to you.
patents are not that ancient (Score:5, Informative)
I worked for IBM developing operating systems during the 1960s. Software patents did not exist at the time and IBM patented no software. However there is a huge amount of unpatented prior art from about 1963 onward that can be used to invalidate any operating system fundamentals patents claimed by Microsoft.
------------------
Steve Stites
Novell has replied to Microsoft's claim as well (Score:5, Informative)
From the Novell press release [novell.com], issued yesterday:
The commentary on Groklaw [groklaw.net] is interesting as well
The assimilation of Linux.. (Score:5, Funny)
I doubt M$ can claim that GNU is breaking any patents. As Linus as stated, its hard to imagine what internals of Linux that could intruding on a M$ technology, except maybe the Fat32 and NTFS compatability layers.
I remember reading one of the previous reports on this issue, and one of the claims was that user interface designs for things like the web browser and email clients were guilty. I was under the impression, when M$ stole from Apple (or when Apple stole from Xerox) all of this got settled.. It certainly strikes me funny M$ suing another company for stealing the UI. Besides the fact that the original IE looks a lot like Netscape's browser, and I'm pretty sure there were email clients before Outlook. Or the fact that Word looks pretty simlar to that of Wordperfect.
M$ might be right about the infringement
Re:The assimilation of Linux.. (Score:5, Informative)
Although it makes a good, dramatic story, the one about Apple stealing the GUI from Xerox was never true. Xerox sued for more money when they realised what they'd given away, but there was a licence in place and Xerox profited from the Apple shares it was given.
I've always thought that the story was put about by Microsoft apologists, keen to muddy the water on the Microsoft-Apple UI lawsuit. Now it's taken on a life of its own, and people just assume it's true.
Why not start debunking FUD now? (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft's patents [uspto.gov] (6723 patents)
Microsoft's UI patent [uspto.gov] (155 patents)
(for example)
Why not start debunking the FUD to prove how spurious their claims are? Is it because this would be too much work? (Admittedly, 6723 >> 235)
Let them show it (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not debunk it? Nothing to debunk until they play their cards. They are being told to show cards after a call, and they want more rounds of betting. That is normally a bluff.
Re:Why do their work for them? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I think this idea has merit in a bigger sense. Think about it, post where I'm wrong if you see an error.
Ok, Microsoft threatens Linux/OSS with a patent fudbomb. Now the world is waiting for a response. But lets focus on the part of the world that matters here, large instituitional shareholders of Microsoft stock. If our response is to just start at the most recent patent on record and devalue it by documenting weaknesses (prior art, obviouslness, whatever) and showing every intention of moving backward until we hit the expired ones what sort of potential paper losses would that involve? Remember that they derive a non-trivial income by cross licensing that patent portfolio and the size of it reduces the cost they pay to license other companies patents. Directly attack that treasure chest and they would certainly feel pain. Even a credible threat of a concerted distributed attack on that valuable balance sheet line item would get the interest of the professional investors. Remember the one thing they dislike is uncertainty when assessing risk.
In summary it is one of the only ways we can demonstrate a counter attack that would do more than simply annoy them. Microsoft only understands force and the threat of it. They ruthlessly attack when they see weakness and deal when they encounter strength... and look for ways to undermine the foe and then attack.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It would take s
If it could it would (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems to me that it is just more noise from a blowhard company that is losing steam in the arena of operating systems. Sound and fury signifying nothing. Too bad the general public won't recognize it for what it is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"We're not going to have a discussion publicly with that level of detail," he said.
This and other similar quotes were what turned on my FUD warning light. The fact that they don't want to be specific is quite telling. They just want a dark cloud to hang over Linux, so that people wouldn't look that way when they are disappointed by Microsoft's latest offering.
I know MS trolls and fanboys won't like this, but the fact remains: If Vista and Office 2007 were booming and replacing Linux and other F/OSS in the marketplace, why care about it at all? Why risk their in many circles very posit
Show the proof! (Score:5, Informative)
also people have repeatable and publicly been requesting that microsoft identify what patents they think are being infringed. M$ should tell them or loose the right to get remedies.
35USC287:
TITLE 35--PATENTS
PART III--PATENTS AND PROTECTION OF PATENT RIGHTS
CHAPTER 29--REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT, AND OTHER ACTIONS
Sec. 287. Limitation on damages and other remedies; marking and notice.
says "(3)(A) In making a determination with respect to the remedy in an
action brought for infringement under section 271(g), the court shall
consider-- (i) the good faith demonstrated by the defendant with respect to
a request for disclosure,
(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the following are evidence of
good faith:
(i) a request for disclosure made by the defendant;
(ii) a response within a reasonable time by the person receiving
the request for disclosure; and
(iii) the submission of the response by the defendant to the
manufacturer, or if the manufacturer is not known, to the supplier,
of the product to be purchased by the defendant, together with a
request for a written statement that the process claimed in any
patent disclosed in the response is not used to produce such
product.
The failure to perform any acts described in the preceding sentence is
evidence of absence of good faith unless there are mitigating
circumstances. Mitigating circumstances include the case in which, due
to the nature of the product, the number of sources for the product, or
like commercial circumstances, a request for disclosure is not necessary
or practicable to avoid infringement.
(4)(A) For purposes of this subsection, a ``request for disclosure''
means a written request made to a person then engaged in the manufacture
of a product to identify all process patents owned by or licensed to
that person, as of the time of the request, that the person then
reasonably believes could be asserted to be infringed under section
271(g) if that product were imported into, or sold, offered for sale, or
used in, the United States by an unauthorized person. A request for
disclosure is further limited to a request--
(i) which is made by a person regularly engaged in the United
States in the sale of the same type of products as those
manufactured by the person to whom the request is directed, or which
includes facts showing that the person making the request plans to
engage in the sale of such products in the United States;
(ii) which is made by such person before the person's first
importation, use, offer for sale, or sale of units of the product
produced by an infringing process and before the person had notice
of infringement with respect to the product; and
(iii) which includes a representation by the person making the
request that such person will promptly submit the patents identified
pursuant to the request to the manufacturer, or if the manufacturer
is not known, to the supplier, of the product to be purchased by the
person making the req
Linus nails it. Again. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they had patents that could kill linux, what would Microsoft do? Would they hem and haw and bluster about unspecified patents, or would they drop everything and file suit so they could get restraining orders against all the distributors of this "cancer"?
Microsoft's duty to their shareholders is to maximize value and exploit their IP. Of course they must choose the latter.
Therefore, they ain't got diddly or the blabbing would be done and the lawsuits begun.
First, they don't, and secondly they can't sue (Score:3, Interesting)
If they sue, it will be against major distro makers that aren't otherwise indemnified (like Novell, it's believed). If they sue end users, they will rue the day, and it will become like the RIAA except that there'll be alternatives to software, where there is a monopoly on music distribution.
Who will suffer? Microsoft. They're already in trouble with sliding OS sales because they can't make a quality prod
Past infringement? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, infringement wasn't willful and developers would address it quickly, so any compensation would be for damages. And it would be hard for Microsoft to claim significant damages since most Linux users also have Windows licenses (for now).
Surely Linux 2.6.x is more modern than 1960s technology, right?
Not by much. Neither is Windows for that matter. Sad but true.
Re:Past infringement? (Score:5, Interesting)
Cause of monopoly: Government granted monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cause of monopoly: Government granted monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo!
MOD parent up!
And government granted monopoly means that the Free Market cannot fix the problems. The government will have to do that.
all the best,
drew
Duty to Mitigate (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Duty to Mitigate (Score:4, Informative)
I suspect legal types are going to be in the same bind as anyone else. Unless Microsoft specifically states what each of these 235 patents are, it's like boxing with the wind. SCO did the same thing, and for precisely the same reason. A moving target is going to last a lot longer than one that's nailed down.
hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAL either.
Judging from the SCO case (where the unspecified claims were based on copyright instead of patents) this is probably not possible in the US.
But most other countries take it very serious when a company tries to distort the market with such claims. In Germany a settlement [infoworld.com] after a temporary restraining order on Germany meant that SCO could no longer spread their lies in
Needs to be said (Score:5, Funny)
I had hoped Linus would have said this, but I guess it's up to me:
Hey Microsoft! BRING IT ON, BITCH!
Accusation - substantiation = slander (Score:5, Interesting)
Just raising the threat is enough to swing business into MS's camp. Without a single company to take point and sue MS for slander they'll get away with it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Heck, they could use the SCO lawsuit as a template.
To sum it up. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Heavens, the breaking news! (Score:5, Insightful)
What distinguishes his comment from all of the ones here on
Re:Heavens, the breaking news! (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you think it's an accident that OpenOffice was the only OSS project specifically named? Put this in the perspective of MS fighting various governments to stop OpenOffice file formats from becoming the defacto document standards. Hey hey Mr. Massachussetts, that document standard your talking about, well the baseline software that produces it violates a bunch of our patents. Now the talking heads that get into public meetings will have a new and very potent tool in the arsenal, the threat of legal repurcussions if a switch to open software is made.
Re:Heavens, the breaking news! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Its not exactly random. The Popular Electronics issue that introduced the Altair microcomputer kit was the obvious beginning of a major opportunity. I recognized the moment as being a pivot point where someone with the right idea could leverage a fortune. I talked about it with friends
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That doesn't make him smarter than the rest of us (any more than Linus Torvalds or Tim Berners-Lee smarter than the rest of us.
I know first-hand that Linus is a brilliant engineer, a legendary bug hunter and more skilled with the English language than I am. The last being a pretty good trick since English is not his first language, or second even. The thing I hope to see before the end of this Mordor-against-the-world story: a head to head debate between Billg and Linus, if Billg has the nerve. I know Linus does.