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.
Time for Microsoft to step up to the plate. Why would you think that you had to read a EULA if they can get away with this kind of $hit?
Microsoft should be responisble... THEY infringined on the patent by selling it outside of the agreed scope!
www.superdorf.com
Judging by the number of lawyers working for them, they might as well be.
Money for nothing, pix for free
Now I have yet ANOTHER good reason to push MySQL over MSSQL Server.
Time to start forgetting all the VB I had to learn.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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.
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?
How hard would it be for those companies using MS SQL to switch to a different SQL distro? That should eliminate the infringement, but how difficult is switch between one SQL distro and another?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
This article just demonstrates the tip of the iceberg for the problems that are going to be cause by software patents. Its about time patent offices woke up and refused to patent *any* software or software techniques otherwise the only winners will be lawyers and the only losers will be consumers due to restricted choice.
This is what happens when the patent office changes its mind and starts allowing something new. Since no one had been sending in software patents over the last 50 years, they don't have a ready supply of prior art in the form of thousands (or millions) of declined patents.
Once the business rules patents get into full swing, no small business will be allowed to operate at all without some risk of being sued out of existance. Once that happens, then the patent office will get fixed but I figure thats a few decades away.
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?
The patent seems to govern the collecting of data from multiple sources and storing in staged areas for manipulation and/or writing back to the original database(s) or deploying to a new target (the example given is OLAP cubes).
I worked for Broadbase (when they were still Broadbase) and that seems to describe there ETL (analytics) pretty well. Mind you it also covers a whole raft of other ETL tools that are out there
--My sig is bigger than your sig--
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...
They said people who 'added code' to the SQL server. Does this mean altering the source, or just using it from inside a program (ie, not SQL Explorer or whatever)?
The article says:
Who is to decide this? Another court ruling? MS? Timeline?
I don't even understand this enough for IANAL. I need a new acronym: IHNFCATL. (I have NFC about the law)
/syle
This should not affect any MS SQL user even if they developed customized code to run with it. This will affect companies that sell third party add-on/customization software for MS SQL. I suppose Timeline could press the user community for royalties and damage one of the best alternatives to Oracle but I doubt they will try. This is really about developers skirting royalties to Timeline by trying to piggy back onto Microsoft's developers lisence purchased from Timeline. The bad guys here are the unscrupulous or Imbicile third party developers.
The truth suffers more from convictions than from lies.
SELECT max(money)
FROM ms.customers
WHERE ms.cant_read_EULAs
AND ms.really_wants_to_lose_market
HAVING Slammer;
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.
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!
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.
Sybase's Adaptive Server Enterprise. All of the SQL Server, none of the royalties. :)
However, in a situation to where the customers had no way of knowing the goods were stolen (i.e. the difference between buying from some shady character next to a dark alley and Wal-Mart) then I fail to see how there can be a legal precedent to punish (or at least ONLY punish) the buyers. Granted, the argument that folks should pay attention to legal preceedings is valid to a point yet from an engineering perspective it is silly to force any architecture analysis to throw in a full legal and social analysis. Basically, MS should have made it CLEAR to its customers and potential customers. Because they did not do so then it falls to them to pay. IMHO what SHOULD happen is that MS has to pay in full and will have to recoup the costs from their customers through a separate court battle.
Users (and developers) should never have to worry about anything else except what is on the included license. If a company refuses to do its duty and inform customers of known flaws or problems then it is the company not the customer that is responsible. Let all those folks that have been using SQL Server for those years now get full or perhaps pro-rated refund. I would be happy to recommend PostgreSQL (or MySQL depending on what they were actually using SQL Server for)
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
So what've they been doin in the courts so often? I thought they were just the best defense attorneys money could buy.
Never attribute to Hanlon that which can be adequately attributed to Heinlein.
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
Is nice to use the TCO argument against Microsoft.
"MS SQL Server initially cost less than Oracle, Informix, etc, but if you use some features you could face aditional costs".
Anyway, I don't think that this is the first time that Microsoft sold something that they don't really own.
And you, sir, are full of shit.
I'm a huge mysql fan but it in no way compares to mssql or oracle or postgres. You CAN use innodb or another table type but the default table type has none of the features that mssql or any other ACID compliant database has.
If you want something comparable in the OSS arena, use postgres or hell even SAPDB but don't spout ignorance in a feeble attempt at fanboy karma whoring.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
The big losers here are going to be the vendors of large systems running on MS SQL and their customers. A good example would be some of the major ERP/CRM vendors who run on top of MS SQL. Those companies also are going to be targets of lawsuits. It most likely will not be the small shops who purchased MS SQL that will be hunted.
I'm glad my systems don't run on MS SQL.
Of course we torture people, we need the information --Gen. Pinochet
I wonder if this news will slashdot mysql.com and postgresql.com with people looking to switch...
Liberty uber alles.
Trumpet ("We're making our own TCP/IP stack.")
Novell ("We're making our own file sharing.")
Adobe ("We're putting in our own type manager.")
Exact same deal as the Citrix or VMWare examples you gave.
You know, as little as I like MS SQL Server (for it's licensing, and price points vs. scalbility), it's REALLY powerful. MySQL does NOT do subselects. It's default installation doesn't support transactions. Splitting tables across files is not supported. The developer tools are nothing compared to the combination of Prolier (for tacing all events, and selectivly reporting on events, and execution times) and Query Analyzer (which allows you to display/edit/run queries, and can also diagram the internal execution, and optimizations of a query).
Basically, although the price may be nice, and the fuzzy feeling of using software which is created by a company nice enough to release it for free, it's simply not condusive to quick development of large applications. Which, if you're a dedicated individual with limited means, means that you'll just have to invest time into getting it right. Most developers, and development houses I work with really need to be able to get quick answers to their many problems, and MySQL would be innapropriate for them.
That said, all my businesses run off of MySQL.
- Dan
What else do you call a company that has more lawyers than engineers? ... Rambus
Oh yeah
If you want to compare databases, check out this comparison chart.
o mparison%20chart.tml
http://developer.mimer.com/validator/comparison/c
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
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? --
The vast amount of people who use pirated versions MS SQL must be having a good laugh. This is like a company charging me for extra miles on rental car that I stole.
2) Develop something useful
3) Sell it to MS with a restrictive license
4) Threaten MS customers
5) Watch MS buying your small company
6) Profit!
For MS employees watching Slashdot: is there anyone at MS interested in including in the next Windows version my penis enlargement technology, so that I can finally stop spamming people? Naturally your customers cannot use this technology to develop anything else than their penis size without infringing my license. You can call the next revision of your OS 'Windows XL'.
Signatures are for stupids.
And I thought Slammer was going to be the way MS's SQL swerver was going to cost this company the most money this month....
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
Let's see if that still holds after this, eh?
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
Sure thing, chicken little. That would be why most free developers avoid patented garbage. You are familiar, I'm sure with some of the efforts such as Portable Net Graphics format? While it's disgusting that there would be patents on something so obvious as a file format that uses well know compresion routines, free developers obey the law even when it's stupid.
The irony is that you can trust the major distributions of free software more than you can trust M$. M$ knew that their developers would be in violation of Timeline's patents and licenses, yet told them they were OK. That's right, the people taking your money LIED to you, while the free software people with nothing but their reputation at stake, have not. Well, what do you expect from closed source crap? It's a lie from start to finish.
The sooner people give up trying to make money off silly patents and closed source binaries, the better off everyone will be. The result of this kind of business model has been massive waste, from overpriced code that everyone has to use to keeping people from using reasonable techniques to the cost of the litigation to tell the difference. And all of that is before you count the costs of the Microsoft upgrade train and the massive intentional waste of changed document formats. Barf!
And this is from a *confirmed* ANTI-MICROSOFT junkie, not one of your astro-turfers...
You post looks like pure FUD to me.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Ahh, but you forget how few countries accept the idea that code can be patented.
Ahh, but you forget how much of the global gross domestic product is tied up in countries that allow patents on algorithms running on generic computers. For instance, Fraunhofer holds patents on MP3 in Germany, most of the rest of Western Europe, Canada, the USA, Korea, and Japan.
Will I retire or break 10K?
This is the most insightful comment I've seen on the subject of software patents. Thinking back to my introduction to patents, for something to be patentable (in the UK at least) it must be:
1. Novel
2. Inventive
3. Capable of physical embodiment.
And over many decades (centuries even) patent practice has developed and matured. The same case can be made of trademark and copyright law - there is a long trail of established case law. This body of case law will help not only in dealing with disputes but also in guiding the patent offices when awarding patents. And not only case law, but maturity in the process of examining and granting patents.
The advent of software patents (in the US, still don't have them over here) is a step change, and introduces the patent process to an arena where there is no case law, and no established maturity in the process of examining and granting patents.
Now, the US patent office could tackle this in two ways:
a) they could set the bar for the granting of software patents very high, and themselves get involved in wrangling with big corporations about patents which they have declined, or
b) they could just grant any application which comes in, in which case they will not be involved in any disputes between patent holders and alleged infringers.
Whatever the merits of the two cases, it is now too late: there is a large body of software patents which, instead of being use to protect an inventor from having his ideas copied, is used by large corporations to selectively bully other corporations (large and small) in a game of bluffing poker played with legal fees.
The only silver lining is that all patents expire, and being able to cite an expired patent which covers what you're doing is a cast iron defence (assuming you waited until it expired before distributing your version).
And the dark cloud on the horizon? The possibility of patent terms being extended, in the same way as copyright terms, by similarly Mickey Mouse organisations.
Dunstan
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
Anyone else notice that the document on the Timeline website that is linked to is titled "Elegent Memo". Kinda funny, they wrote it in Word XP (aka Word XP) using one of the built-in letter templates and exported to HTML. Didn't bother to change the title of the document. Just makes them look a little silly if you ask me.
so, how do the cost of ownership comparisons look now? ;-)
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?
Hey, you develop for Microsoft software, you get what you deserve. :-)
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
IP law is expensive and time consuming. I doubt you will get any assurance of anything from an IP lawyer for $600.
...And then Microsoft would be in the unenviable position of advising its customers to migrate to free Sybase for Linux (11.0.3.3), since it is compatible with SQL Server 6.5.
Why isn't Sybase having this problem? SQL Server and Sybase were at one time the same product (v 4.8).
A prime example of why Software Patents are just wrong. These types of works are copyrighted. Software apparently gets to have it both ways. Why is it in the better interests of the public to encourage legal action on a grand scale for work that should be only copyrighted, not also patented? Of course, its copyrighted too, but once a corporation gets that patent on a little piece of the work, it doesn't matter if somebody can reverse engineer it. It's still "theirs". You stole their idea!
from Article I, Section 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Software programming patterns and techniques are a discovery? Does anyone really believe that? Perhaps only legislative action can fix this. I imagine it will cost the economy at large billions of dollars before that happens. I suppose it comes down to whether the big guns in software marketing with lobbying dollars and political influence (Hi Bill!) swing for/against the issue. A court may take issue on whether this qualifies as Invention, but I doubt it they'll see it the right way.
Anyone seen my low uid? last seen 10 years ago while panning the #@$# out of Taco's 'web based discussion system'
Dear Microsoft SQL Server Customer:
On February 20 2003, Microsoft entered into a settlement agreement with Timeline Inc. regarding certain intellectual properties of Timeline and licensing matters associated with Microsoft's use of Timeline technology in its SQL Server system.
Pursuant to the collective agreement between Microsoft and Timeline, Microsoft recognizes that while it had purchased a right to use the Timeline technologies in its SQL Server system, end-users of the respective technology were not licensed to do so, and would be liable for the purchase of such licensed use directly with Timeline Inc.
In order to provide our customers with a cost-effective alternative to licensing of Timeline Inc technology, Microsoft is pleased to announce that it is making its powerful, internally developed database technology available for immediate download. This product, Microsoft DataBOB, includes:
- a powerful database capable of listing your favorite contacts
- a GUI administration console that can be learned in minutes by your developers and follows a unique interface concept
- helpful wizards and assistants that make use of DataBOB possible by even clerical employees
We're confident you'll find DataBOB not only very useful, but will recognize its value in reducing your information technology costs as even the most novice computer users will find DataBOB simple and straight forward in application.
In order to obtain your license, see an authorized DataBob distributor today.
I still remember days when being a programmer meant legal concerns were far distant from me.
Now, I'm following news like this, and wondering what it means for my job. It means a time where patent law, copyright law, business games, and acts of Congress can vastly affect my job, and lawsuits and patent claims can suddenly pop up and change the playing field.
I wonder at the CIS majors coming out of college are aware of the bizarre amount of issues that they may confront.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
And then MS gave [IE] away for free
Only on Mac/PPC, Solaris/SPARC, and HP-UX/PA-RISC platforms. Microsoft Internet Explorer for x86 is licensed under a "supplemental EULA" that requires a copy of Microsoft Windows to be present, even if you're running it in Wine.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Can I pay less if I don't want the gaping security holes?
They do pay whopping big (by normal standards) fines. The problem is that MS has something like $4 billion in the bank, so even the harshest fines don't faze them.
Personally, I think that taking Microsoft's money isn't punishment enough, future fines should have to be paid in patents. If the feds levy a $5 million fine on MS next year, they should have to go through their patent portfolio and release $5 million worth of IP to the public domain.
0 1 - just my two bits
Oh sod it, I'll go get more drunk and try to forget all the problems that are out there because of MS, eventhough its just for one night.
Software is a written work, protected by copyright law. The strong protection of Patent law was not drafted with such works in mind.
If we held all writing to this standard, one author might patent the "murder mystery" and sue other authors for royalties.
This is a broken law, and all coders are victims. Let's not be happy now just because MS is getting burned.
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.
Patents should be treated like trademarks. If you fail to vigorously defend your trademark, you lose it. If patents were treated the same way, this might put an end to patent mills, and it would also prevent someone from patenting an idea, sitting on it while someone else unknowingly develops an infringing product, and then extorts money from them in the form of royalties after the product is proven successul.
Anyone really believe that Microsoft was unaware that they were selling product features that they had no right to sell? Anyone believe they will compensate the injured clients without a long legal process?
Using open souce software won't solve the fundemental problem here.
Sure, Microsoft potentially screwed their customers. They'll fix it. Reason? If they don't, then *noone* will buy their software anymore. Stuff like this could kill Microsoft if they don't deal with it. No worries, either way.
I own a small software company. I use microsoft sql-server (and, honestly, don't have much of a choice if I want to *sell* my software, but that's a whole different problem). Without reading the patents, I have no clue if my software infringes on Timeline's patents.
But then again, none of us have any clue if MySQL violates patents. I'm willing to bet that it does. Someone out there has a patent for pretty much everything. Even if the code was written on a planet orbiting Vega, and, assuming for the moment that no-one on Vega's planet ever even heard of the earth, they could still write code on their computers (go with it, they have computers, ok?) that do something substantially similar to something that someone has patented.
It's a fundemental flaw in our patent system... and ignorance is no excuse.
Most software developers just ignore the whole thing, thinking (and in general, rightfully so) that they are safe if they didn't steal an idea from somewhere. And they are safe. No one notices most infringments. Occasionally, if you make it big, someone will notice your infrigement, and will basically want a piece of your action (i.e., a big settlement) and they will get it... even though you didn't steal the idea, you invented it yourself. Hopefully you can find prior art.
Until Microsoft finds a way to adequately compensate Timeline, there is simply no way out of this. Timeline is not about to initiate vast numbers of individual lawsuits -- they don't have to. All they have to do is cherry-pick a few customers here and there and use BSA-style intimidation tactics. The publicity from the lawsuits or payoffs in lieu thereof will trigger a crippling Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt about SQL Server, AND ALL THE OTHER MICROSOFT PRODUCTS THAT MIGHT HAVE LATENT PATENT ISSUES! No reasonable person can have confidence in ANY Microsoft product until this issue is settled and some reassurances are given about how future patent issues are to be handled.
I can't help but think this entire situation would have been quietly settled if the offender was anyone other than Microsoft.
You might look a PostgreSQL....it beat out Oracle as the DB for the .org name servers....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
For what it's worth: this only seems for US citisens, since f.e. in europe we don't have software patents nor are we affected by US only patents.
Futhermore, how can a USER of a piece of software, which the user licensed in full (payed a license fee to MS), still be charged for patent-infrigment while USING the piece of software? This doesn't make sense. IF there is one company who has to pay for this patent infrigment, it's Microsoft: after all, it's not the end-user's problem MS didn't license enough from Timeline so the end-user is licensing software from MS which in fact isn't covering the whole package.
What also seems odd is that the article mentiones SqlServer '7', not SqlServer 2000. '7' had an Add-on OLAP package while SqlServer 2000 has everything integrated. IANAL but this seems only to be about the add-on OLAP package for SqlServer 7, not about the integrated logic in SqlServer 2000.
To the people who don't have a clue about databases and cry about MySql: please... come back when MySql has the features SqlServer provides.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
IF microsoft DID in fact mis-represent themselves to their clients about their legal ability to write custom code on top of SQL server and market it themselves, then I believe (IANAL) that that is FRAUD, my friends. Yes our old friend FRAUD. Now my interpretation of how this can play out is this:
1) Developers violating patents must pay. They must pay without protest
2) Said developers should be able to collectively or individually SUE Microsoft for fraud. For specifically the amount of the patent payments.
This seems like an end around Justice, but I believe that the two issues are separate. Simply because Microsoft chose to misinterpret the licencing agreement, does not mean that the developers are free to do whatever they want, but IF they were told that they could do so, the developers have a case to make that MICROSOFT should be responsible for said costs.
Just my $.0002 (adjusted for inflation)
hmmmm?