Slashdot Mirror
SQL Server Developers Face Huge Royalties
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.
After reading the article it seems clear that Microsoft's worst mistake lay in taking the legal route (attacking Timeline) instead of resolving the issue with new licensing when it had the chance.
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.
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
Cha-ching!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
If you read the memo on the timeline site, the patent only covers "automating the production of data warehouses/marts and the downstream delivery and enhancement of the information so obtained". Only a small amount of Microsoft customers probably use these features.
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.
No sig, sorry.
Acording to Prof. Eben Moglen (general counsel for the Free Software Foundation) in this Slashdot interview:
"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 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)
Never disturb your enemy while he is busy making a mistake.
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
I believe that Linus had commented that he did not want to be made aware of any patents the linux kernel potentially infringed. The argument went that if the kernel was found to infringe there would be no liability for the developers if they were unaware of the original patent, and they would have to cease and desist distribution of the infringing code immediately. They would then work around the patent and relase new code which did not infringe. If they knowingly violated a patent they could be liable for damages even if they ceased and desisted immediately.
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.
TopShelf wrote:
> 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!)
The reason SyBase is not having this problem is that the code that is encumbered by the pattent is not the code required to run the database, it is the code Microsoft licenced to allow developers to develop applications on top of the database.
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
You never know...