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. Embrace, extend, destroy? by JBMcB · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Someone needs to start a list of companies Microsoft has screwed over. It needs to be the first site that comes up when someone googles for "Microsoft Business Partner"

    Let's see:
    Citrix ("Yes, we're building virtual desktops into Windows now...")
    Sendo ("Hey, nice phone tech, we'll just be taking it, then. Enjoy your chapter 11.")
    Timeline, Inc. (New, from article)
    VMWare ("Oh, and virtual system imaging is going in, too. Thanks Connectix!")

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  2. Re:Question by blowdart · · Score: 4, Interesting
    very

    Every SQL "distribution" has it's own quirks. For example, Oracle isn't (or wasn't last time I looked) ANSI SQL 92 compliant. MS SQL does a better job of this.

    Everyone implements triggers diferently, or not at all, some SQL databases don't have stored procedures, locking mechanisms vary, even connection methods vary. The optimisations you have learnt, and coded for on one database server generally fail on another.

    I've been on the sharp end of migrating Oracle to MS SQL server, and in the end we threw the Oracle stored procedures away and rewrote the SQL.

  3. A victory for anyone? by Badgerman · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I've seen various posts about who 'wins' from this and my assesment is - no one.

    • End developers can get screwed by this.
    • There are probably other "time bombs" of this nature out there in other software, Microsoft or not. This may well start a round of "fad" lawsuits.
    • The idea this is going to hurt Microsoft and move people to Open Source is something I question. Microsoft is well-hated enough anyway, and not enough companies pay attention to Open Source - The latest SQL Server migration I've seen is to Oracle, not Open Source.
    • I can't see this having a big effect on patent reform because A) It's Microsoft, people are used to them being surrounded by legal gobbeldygook and B) It's not the kind of thing the general public gets riled about.


    Winners? Victors? I don't see any, I'm afraid.

    Though this WAS worth a hell of a laugh.

    Just my 1/250 of $5.00.
    --
    "The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
  4. indirect slashdot effect? by msouth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder if this news will slashdot mysql.com and postgresql.com with people looking to switch...

    --
    Liberty uber alles.
  5. Re:Whoo. by silverbax · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you read the article, Microsoft bought Timeline's biggest competitor and tried to develop technologies that would replace Timeline's. Amazingly, even though Microsoft has the resources to buy companies they can't develop anything worthwhile on their own?

  6. Tangled Web by serutan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is a good example of what I call peeing in the pool. Timeline claims that because Microsoft is not a law firm, SQL developers who believed Microsoft's statements about SQL licensing were acting irresponsibly. Wow! Score one for the ludicrous vision of each of us having a lawyer accompanying us everywhere like a guide dog.

    So SQL Server developers, fearing legal harassment, start lookin into alternatives like MySQL, encouraging the development of new features like triggers and native stored procedures, and making MySQL even more attractive as competition. See how IP encourages innovation? Uh, sort of?

  7. Re:Whoo. by mmol_6453 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For the more risk-conscious companies, there shouldn't be any difference. For the companies that still don't look at licenses, it doesn't make any difference.

    For the companies that just now start looking at licenses, I see this as a good thing. After all, would you rather your boss be aware of the licensing options of OSS vs the licensing options of other software, or would you rather him blindly choose one or the other?

    I say that awareness is a better solution, and the fact that he's aware of the EULA will encourage him to shop around.

    Manager's will still make a decision yea or nay based on their own reasons (or reasons handed to them), but at least it's not as much of a shot in the dark.

    --
    What's this Submit thingy do?
  8. Re:Bad Faith -- I don't think so. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Bad faith is "not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather it implies the conscious doing of a wrong" -- Black's Law Dictionary.

    Microsoft is not legal counsel, so any reference to them has no standing in a bad faith claim. It's the same as asking your dead grandmother via seance if she thinks it's ok. In fact I bet the Microsoft EULA specifically disclaims patent liability issues of this type.

    I find this case highly ironic because it has been Microosft who has been making claims about use of Open Source being dangerous from a potential patent infringement point of view. Now they are found to have a problem.