Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SQL Server Developers Face Huge Royalties

Posted by michael on 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.

8 of 461 comments (clear)

  1. This is wrong... by jlharris_50010 · · 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 · · 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 barryfandango · · 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
  2. Re:Whoo. by CrudPuppy · · 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.
  3. OSS Licencing by ClarkEvans · · 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?

  4. Re:Whoo. by afidel · · 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.
  5. Pray that Microsoft is *NOT* liable by ClarkEvans · · 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...

  6. WRONG by MORTAR_COMBAT! · · 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!