SQL Server Developers Face Huge Royalties

Whoo. by bigfleet · 2003-02-21 02:33 · Score: 5, Funny

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?

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.
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?
Re:Whoo. by silverbax · 2003-02-21 04:30 · 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?
Re:Whoo. by mmol_6453 · 2003-02-21 04:40 · 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?

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

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
Re:This is wrong... by TopShelf · 2003-02-21 02:50 · Score: 4, Informative

If you READ THE ARTICLE, it notes that Timeline's position is that Microsoft is not a law firm, thus customers who relied on Microsoft's assertion that everything was OK failed to cover their own butts properly, and are potentially open to treble damages in court.
Cha-ching!

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
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
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...
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 :)
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
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
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:This is wrong... by Melantha_Bacchae · 2003-02-21 04:45 · Score: 5, Informative

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!)

Embrace, extend, destroy? by JBMcB · 2003-02-21 02:44 · 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.

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:OSS Licencing by broken_bones · 2003-02-21 03:07 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Looks like Microsoft got some of its own medicine by Jack+William+Bell · 2003-02-21 02:50 · Score: 4, Informative

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?

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...

Re:Pray that Microsoft is *NOT* liable by Rich0 · 2003-02-21 03:55 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
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

Re:Question by blowdart · 2003-02-21 02:57 · 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.

query... by ptaff · 2003-02-21 02:57 · Score: 4, Funny

SELECT max(money)
FROM ms.customers
WHERE ms.cant_read_EULAs
AND ms.really_wants_to_lose_market
HAVING Slammer;

Patent only for data warehouses by MojoRilla · 2003-02-21 02:59 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

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!

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.
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?
Re:WRONG by Reziac · 2003-02-21 05:37 · Score: 5, Funny

Coding team of the future:

13 lawyers (8 of 'em specialists in patent and copyright law)
27 managers
63 marketing analysts
9 outsourcing contracts, paid in advance
1 programmer (optional)

(No, I *didn't* forget the testing and QA guys :)

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?

Before people start pushing Postgres and MySQL by zjbs14 · 2003-02-21 03:02 · Score: 5, Informative

It appears that most of the patent issues center around the data mart capabilities in Analysis Services and its multidimensional query processing capabilities for SQL Server. Timeline doesn't have a problem if you're not using AS.

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.

Spyglass by esme · 2003-02-21 03:08 · Score: 5, Informative

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

A victory for anyone? by Badgerman · 2003-02-21 03:08 · 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

indirect slashdot effect? by msouth · 2003-02-21 03:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

--
Liberty uber alles.

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

cost of ownership? by bracher · 2003-02-21 04:14 · Score: 4, Funny

so, how do the cost of ownership comparisons look now? ;-)

Tangled Web by serutan · 2003-02-21 04:31 · 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?

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

Announcing Microsoft DataBOB by scoove · 2003-02-21 05:02 · Score: 4, Funny

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.

Re:Actually, Oracle should buy them. by rusty0101 · 2003-02-21 05:48 · Score: 4, Informative

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...

Re:Bad Faith -- I don't think so. by the+eric+conspiracy · 2003-02-21 06:20 · 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.

Slashdot Mirror

SQL Server Developers Face Huge Royalties

42 of 461 comments (clear)