SQL Server Developers Face Huge Royalties

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SQL Server Developers Face Huge Royalties

Posted by michael on Friday February 21, 2003 @02:32AM from the relying-on-microsoft-never-a-good-idea dept.

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.

20 of 461 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

This is wrong... by jlharris_50010 · 2003-02-21 02:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Microsoft should be responisble... THEY infringined on the patent by selling it outside of the agreed scope!

--
www.superdorf.com
1. Re:This is wrong... by Skinny+Rav · 2003-02-21 02:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Hmmm... how about customers suing MS on a basis that they were misinformed? I am not sure if EULA covers this - and if it does then it is a good opportunity to challenge it in court. If enough big customers have to pay huge enough royalties we may see some interesting things happening in near future
  
  Raf
2. Re:This is wrong... by ClarkEvans · 2003-02-21 03:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Microsoft is not a law firm
  
  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
3. Re:This is wrong... by civilizedINTENSITY · 2003-02-21 03:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yes, but since Timeline is not a law firm, any slashdot reader who relies on Timeline's assertion have also failed to cover their butts. Looks like its time to let loose the dogs (lawyers) of war (litigation) and let the games begin...
4. Re:This is wrong... by mitheral · 2003-02-21 03:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  According to the article MS issued a press release, that was inspected by their legal department 11 times, and posted it on their site. Doesn't seem like there'd be many people the promise wouldn't apply to and the evidence has already been entered into court.
  
  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 :)
5. Re:This is wrong... by TopShelf · 2003-02-21 03:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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...".
  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.
  
  --
  Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
6. Re:This is wrong... by barryfandango · 2003-02-21 03:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  My employer owns SQL Server 2000 license and we develop applications around it. I can tell you that my boss has no idea who made the components of the software, any more than an average consumer cares that that their Dell computer has a Fujitsu CDRom and a Maxtor HD, or that the frame of their Toyota Matrix came from a Pontiac assembly line. Microsoft is selling an integrated product and I don't want to worry about where the various parts came from. I bought one box and agreed to one license - i've never heard of TimeLine and I've never seen their logo or copyright anywhere in the product. If Microsoft illegally include patented technologies in their product without informing me I just can't see logically how I could be liable. But then the law can be illogical sometimes. At the very least, I think a suit against Microsoft on behalf of its customers would have a great chance of success.
  
  --
  In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
7. Re:This is wrong... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2003-02-21 03:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Scenario 1) You go into a computer store in a strip mall and a guy in a Babylon 5 T-shirt sells you a CD-R with Win 2K Pro and a serial number written on it in Sharpie. You ask him "Is this legit?" and he says "Absolutely, we're a licensed Microsoft distributor. We ran out of the packaged copies, so we burned a few until the next shipment comes."
  
  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
Re:Whoo. by CrudPuppy · 2003-02-21 02:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm not one of these extremists who will advocate free software for everything in the world, even if it doesnt fit a given situation, but this is a case in point for free software like MySQL et al.

--
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
OSS Licencing by ClarkEvans · 2003-02-21 02:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

If these companies can sue Microsoft for distributing code which is burdened by patents; and if they win what does this do about OSS licenses? Does it matter if the developer knows a given peice of software violates a patent? We'd all stop making OSS software if we were liable for retroatively paying patent licensing fees for users to operate the software we contribute to.

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:Whoo. by afidel · 2003-02-21 02:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Hehe, funny thing is if it wouldn't raise the ire of antitrust lawyers is that the easiest and quickest solution would be for MS to buy this company. Why they didn't after incorperating their patented tech into their products and instead turned around and bought this companies biggest rival I have no clue on.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:Whoo. by ManUMan · 2003-02-21 02:47 · 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!

--
If you are never moderated, do you really exist?
Pray that Microsoft is *NOT* liable by ClarkEvans · 2003-02-21 02:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

Microsoft should be responsible...

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...
1. Re:Pray that Microsoft is *NOT* liable by mlong · 2003-02-21 04:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  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.
  
  --
  //m
WRONG by MORTAR_COMBAT! · 2003-02-21 02:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

If MySQL was using patented code, just because it was open source licensed to you doesn't make you a valid user of that patented code. This is a case in point for using software which contains 0 lines of patented code. While in most cases that happens to be free software rather than proprietary, patents can encumber free software projects as well (and have many times).

--
MORTAR COMBAT!
1. Re:WRONG by gmack · 2003-02-21 03:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  In this case the fault was with a development tool that created software that Microsoft knew to be covered by patents.
  
  It's an aguement to use something written by a company who actually cares about it's customers.
2. Re:WRONG by Reziac · 2003-02-21 03:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Even with OSS, in fact with ANY software, the problem is -- how can you be SURE that every line of code is "safe"?? After all, some obscure function may violate some abstruse or ridiculous patent buried under legalese, deep in the patent archives.. there's just no way to know for sure without parsing each and every software patent. :(
  
  --
  ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
MySQL/PostgreSQL, take note... by Raleel · 2003-02-21 03:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Now would be the perfect opportunity for you to look at what features you are missing against MS-SQL and start implementing them. Nothing like a market waiting to be tapped.

--
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
Right, YANAL by ackthpt · 2003-02-21 03:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Microsoft is not a law firm
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.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Developers... by guacamolefoo · 2003-02-21 04:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Osenbaugh appears to be threatening legal action against some SQL Server developers

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.

--
Lots of petrified grits