Gates: Microsoft IP Finds Its Way Into Free Software

Andy Tai writes "While speaking to financial analysts and commenting on the SCO lawsuit, Bill Gates made the claim that Microsoft's IP is also included in Free/Open source software. Without being specific, he said "There's no question that in cloning activities, IP from many, many companies, including Microsoft, is being used in open-source software. When people clone things, that often becomes unavoidable." Considering Microsoft's claims of ownership over technologies like CIFS, does this mean Microsoft may also launch SCO-style attacks against Free Software/Open Source?"

Comments

Stupid!

[pueywei]

This is plain stupid. Who do they think they are? Reverse engineering isn't illegal.

Re:Stupid!

[saden1]

Hay, if they clime open source stole some of their IP, then they'll just have to open up their source codes so we can see if they've stolen any GPL'ed code from OSS.

Re:Stupid!

[darien]

I suspect that the IP they're referring to isn't just source code. Off the top of my head, for example, check out this fvwm95 screenshot. I'm sure MS considers the Windows UI as its intellectual property, and though IANAL I suspect they may be right.

Re:Stupid!

[ichimunki]

I'm with the others who say "they can have it back". I find that the themes intended to imitate Windows and Mac OS are annoying-- and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find things like icons, etc, being clipped out of screenshots. While Microsoft can't lay claim to "look and feel" they can certainly lay claim to actual pieces of artwork within a UI. And if you ask me that's a legitimate complaint. Making icons is non-trivial and not mechanical. Shading a title bar is a different story.

It's also possible that Gates refers to things like the downloading of MS-produced DLLs and incorporating them into otherwise Free programs-- mplayer would be a perfect example. For my part I think that is legal (and if it isn't, it should be)... but I've been wrong before. :)

As far as the whole patent thing goes: I hate to defend Microsoft, but they've never seemed to be real big on the whole patent side of stuff. In fact, I've never heard of them using their own patents aggressively, but they've certainly been the subject of a lot of IP complaints themselves (including two pending patent cases that are fairly important, IIRC). Bill Gates might be a fanatic about "piracy" (going back to his "open letter to hobbyists" back in something like 1978), but I've always had the impression he felt that ideas themselves should be somewhat more fair game.

Oh, my.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cue 1000 posts about BSD netcode in Windows.

Re:Oh, my.

[BoneFlower]

BSD code is in there, in full compliance with the license.

Microsoft actaully does use GPL code as well in some of their unix interopability software. Again, believe it or not, they actually comply with the license.

With the pressure on Microsoft, I don't think they would risk getting caught stealing code. If such an accusation came up and had even the slightest whiff of legitimacy, I'd expect to see several MS developers fired immediately and MS offering a large settlement deal.

Re:Oh, my.

[rekoil]

GPL code is always owned and copyrighted by the developer(s) - the GPL doesn't change the root ownership of the code; remember, it is a license, not a giveaway. As such, I would expect that any financial settlement stemming from a GPL violation would be paid to the developer(s) of the misused code.

Re:Oh, my.

[Eric Smith]

They're in full compliance with the BSD license only because the the UC Regents dropped the advertising clause. For many years Microsoft was flagrantly violating the license.

Re:Oh, my.

[hacker]

BSD code is in there, in full compliance with the license.

Yet another confirming reason why the GPL is "more free" than the BSD license.

If you use the BSD license in your code, any company can use it for any reason, make changes to it, improve it, add features, and basically tell you to piss off, while at the same time, closing off your code, and using it in a proprietary capacity. This stifles innovation, and stops the ability of others to benefit from modifications to YOUR code.

Having a license which permits "Free" code to be closed off, and "taken" from a developer, is not my idea of an open license at all.

Again, the GPL prohibits this, and for this reason, will always remain the better choice if you wish to keep your code out in the open, where others can continue to benefit from it, regardless of who modifies it or what changes are made to the core codebase.

Re:Oh, my.

[hacker]

My code cannot be "closed off" or "taken" from me! My license ensures that what I wrote will always be free.

[fade back to reality]

1. You write "Project Foo".
2. You release "Project Foo" under the BSD License.
3. You host "Project Foo" on your web/ftp server for download.
4. "Some Company, Inc." looks at "Project Foo", and sees that by using it, they can save millions in development costs, and speed up their time to deliver a similar project being written in-house.
5. "Some Company, Inc." downloads "Project Foo" from your web/ftp server.
6. "Some Company, Inc." makes HUGE improvements to your code, adding a bunch of new features, and fixing some outstanding bugs, increasing performance by 20%.
7. "Some Company, Inc." then creates "SuperWidget 5.0" using your code inside it, and it becomes their sole proprietary flagship project.
8. The only way to obtain "SuperWidget 5.0" is through a very expensive licensing agreement, $5,000 per copy, and no, you don't get the source.

Yes, "Your" version of the code is still available on "Your" web/ftp server. Your code is now 20 features and 50 bugs behind "SuperWidget 5.0". Nobody can benefit from "Your" code with these new features, without paying "Some Company, Inc." $5,000 per copy for "SuperWidget 5.0".

How does the BSD license guarantee that the improvements made to the code, remain available to everyone who wants to benefit from them? It doesn't.

Explain to me again, how this still is a better license, when the code was closed off after improvements were made? What if it takes you 2 years (alone) to match what "Some Company, Inc." took 2 months and 10 programmers to do?

Re:Oh, my.

[nathanh]

With the pressure on Microsoft, I don't think they would risk getting caught stealing code.

Stac. Timeline. Syn'X.

Microsoft have "stolen" code more than once. But because it's closed source, it is difficult for the victims to discover and prove the infringement.

If such an accusation came up and had even the slightest whiff of legitimacy, I'd expect to see several MS developers fired immediately and MS offering a large settlement deal.

History has shown that Microsoft chooses to fight the accusations in court. Whether the Microsoft developers were fired or not, I don't know.

Re:Oh, my.

[Anonymous Coward]

You my friend are a moron.

Your idiocy is painfully apparent in your statement

"Some Company, Inc." makes HUGE improvements to your code, adding a bunch of new features, and fixing some outstanding bugs, increasing performance by 20%."

If the company makes such huge improvements should they not be allowed to sell it? HELLO? ANYBODY HOME? You don't walk into the grocery store and demand that all your groceries be free do you?

How on earth do you expect "Some Company Inc" to pay it's software developers?

Nobody loses anything from having BSDL code out there. If people want to use the free version they still will. If they really need the extra features they'll pay of it. Can you imagine how much more they'd have to pay if "Some Company Inc" had to code the BSDL portion as well?

Nobody loses from BSDL code.

Take your ignorance elsewhere.

Re:Oh, my.

[Sexy Commando]

If you can write a piece of software that would take other people to spend millions of dollars in R&D to get the same thing. You should consider more suitable job like ruling over the universe or something.

[fade back to true reality]

1. You write "Project Foo".
2. You release "Project Foo" under the GPL License.
3. You host "Project Foo" on your web/ftp server for download.
4. "Some Company, Inc." looks at "Project Foo", and sees that by using it, they can save some development costs, and speed up their time to deliver a similar project being written in-house. But are they going to use your code? Hell no.
5. "Some Company, Inc." reverse-engineered your code
6. "Some Company, Inc." makes HUGE improvements to your idea, adding a bunch of new features, and fixing some outstanding bugs, increasing performance by 20%.
7. "Some Company, Inc." then creates "SuperWidget 5.0" using your code inside it, and it becomes their sole proprietary flagship project.
8. The only way to obtain "SuperWidget 5.0" is through a very expensive licensing agreement, $10,000 per copy, and no, you don't get the source.

Yes, "Your" version of the code is still available on "Your" web/ftp server. Your code is now 20 features and 50 bugs behind "SuperWidget 5.0". Nobody can benefit from "Your" code with these new features, because nobody knows about your code. Those programmers in Some Company Inc. probablly got family to feed.

BSD is just as free as GPL except BSD gives the everybody else free beer and GPL gives YOU free beer.

The fact that...

[tomstdenis]

windows inet tools use BSD source, many use other open source libs [libpng, zlib, etc...] doesn't phase them. The fact that they rely on them for success...

But if someone copies a MSFT design element, omg, end of the world, OSS must die!

Hmm hypocrites!

Re:The fact that...

[TopShelf]

Besides, using the term "clone" is so vague as to be meaningless. There's a big difference between copying something directly and achieving the same results through reverse engineering.

Re:The fact that...

[the gnat]

windows inet tools use BSD source, many use other open source libs [libpng, zlib, etc...] doesn't phase them. The fact that they rely on them for success...

The BSD TCP source is used by just about everyone, because when it was written it was the best. The 4.4 version is pretty much the reference product. And the Berkeley people had the wisdom to release it under the BSD license, which means that everyone else quickly adopted it and thus followed some sort of standard.

There is no hypocrisy involved. Microsoft's campaigns against open-source are misguided and misleading, but they have made it clear that they think a package like the BSD TCP stack should be released under a very liberal license. It would be a disaster if it had been released under the GPL- companies would have used their own inferior implementations, which would probably end up being somewhat incompatible or would break the standard. Although it's arguable whether Microsoft has played fast and loose with the protocol, I think we can agree that it's far better that they start out with the same implementation as everyone else rather than code their own...

As for libpng, same deal. The PNG team simply wanted to replace GIF with something that wouldn't get people sued, so they release libpng under a BSD-like license. If they hadn't, Microsoft simply wouldn't have supported PNG at all.

Re: The fact that...

[Black Parrot]

> Besides, using the term "clone" is so vague as to be meaningless. There's a big difference between copying something directly and achieving the same results through reverse engineering.

And what the heck would we copy anyway? If I am going to clone a MS product would it be any easier to hack their code to change it from using the Windows API to use Qt or GTK+, than it would be to write the whole thing from scratch? Or to use code from the Windows morphodite bastard spinoff of the VMS architecture as part of a UNIX clone?

Get re-al, Bi-ill.

Re:The fact that...

[bockman]

they have made it clear that they think a package like the BSD TCP stack should be released under a very liberal license

If they were honest in this, they would have released their own protocol implementations under a similar liberal licence. So, where is the library to handle word documents? Or the reference implementation for SMB? What about .NET?

Re:The fact that...

[homer_ca]

Windows XP's built-in zip uses zlib. When zlib had the double-free bug last year, XP had to be patched too. Otherwise I don't think many people would've known about Microsoft using zlib.

Re:The fact that...

[Vicegrip]

The stack could have been released under the LGPL and accomplished all the benefits you described.

In fact, this GPL FUD Microsoft loves to spread around like a nasty fart always fails to make mention of the fact that significant elements of Linux are in fact LGPLed and available to companies that wish to write commercial software for the OS. Witness the incoporation of khtml into Apple's Safari browser.

There are some very interesting and compelling technologies coming to linux in 2.6 that, in my opinion, obviously have certain competing OS companies running scared.

IP FUD was the expected strategy Microsoft would undertake; Take this statement from Mr Gates:
"One thing about the GPL is that you can't just license IBM Linux, or Red Hat Linux, The way the GPL works, if you license any Linux, you have to license all Linux."
This leaves an un-informed person the impression that they might have to make deals with everysingle Linux vendor/software writer out there. Total utterly dishonest bullshit and a blatant missrepresentation of the GPL.

Re:The fact that...

[Overly Critical Guy]

What do you mean, OSS must die? Did Bill Gates say that anywhere? Oh, you're just arbritrarily deciding what Billy said.

Microsoft has a long history of allowing things like WINE to exist. People have been cloning their products for years into free and shareware versions. As a matter of fact, they are the least litigious company in that department that I can think of.

The only thing they did due was sue for use of the name Lindows, which in my opinion was understandable.

But, of course, Slashdot needed a controversial paint-Microsoft-as-bad article today. So the only thing this article did was take a quite logical quote by Gates--people who clone someone else's products are likely copying their IP in doing so (note that he didn't say anything about code, people)--and end with a question out of nowhere that there was no reason to bring up, and past history contradicts. Oh, and end with the obligatory SCO reference to ensure postage to the front page.

These kinds of articles are formulaic, as are their inevitable responses, as yours illustrates. People fall for it time and time again. "+5 Interesting!"

Re: The fact that...

[harvardian]

He could also have been referring to design patents. If you write a cloned program from scratch you can't copy any copyrighted source, but you can definitely copy patented UI elements.

Re: The fact that...

[Haeleth]

The "start button" is almost an exact copy of the Apple menu. But let's not go into how Windows rips off Macs _again_, okay?

As for Samba, I think we're okay. I'm pretty sure reverse-engineering is protected for interoperability purposes even under DMCA.

Re: The fact that...

[Anonymous Coward]

We copy the protocols their servers uses to talk to clients. That's what his pissed about.

Microsoft is a stagnating company. The share holders expect continued growth. They rule the desktop, but can't seem to break into any new markets. The server market is one they are fighting hard to win.

They know how to play dirty and leverage one monopoly to make a new one, so they keep making windows clients only work well with windows servers.

The open source people clone the server protocol and Bill gets steams. The funny thing is they can't really sue. If they sue, they have to make claims on the record in court and those claims would be great in the next anti-trust suit.

Re:The fact that...

[cooldev]

Yeah, Slashdot should recognize that although Microsoft has a large (and growing) patent portfolio they've been pretty good about only using those patents for defensive purposes. Give credit where credit is due.

For as much as Microsoft's livelihood depends on IP, they've shown an amazing amount of restraint (IMHO) when it comes to clones of their products. (Not just borrowing elements, or arguably unintentional patent violations, which all companies do, but blatent end-to-end ripoffs like Evolution.)

FUD Wars, Episode n, n=?

[netsharc]

Well, I guess this is the new FUD Wars. MS and its friends will be spreading this "Linux stole some copyrighted code/idea" propaganda to slow down adaptation of Linux. Strange that we didn't see it in a Halloween Document, this must be stuff they kept a tight secret about.

Re:FUD Wars, Episode n, n=?

[glockenspieler]

Actually... if you check out halloween 7, you will see that this was foreshadowed. Indeed, the brush up with SCO has every sign of being just an opening skirmish in a long battle. Note Eric Raymond's comment in the intro to Halloween 7 - "The risk that Microsoft will go on a patent-lawsuit rampage, designed more to scare potential open-source users than to actually shut down developers, is substantial. The language about "concrete actions" in relation to IPR has the same ominous feel that the talk of "de-commoditizing protocols" did in Halloween I and II." This is partly based on the following comment within the Halloween doc: "Linux patent violations/risk of being sued" struck a chord with US and Swedish respondents. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Americans and 82% of Swedes stated that the risk of being sued over Linux patent violations made them feel less favorable towards Linux. This was the only message that had a strong impact with any audience."

I highly doubt it!

[rkz]

Although OSS does try to clone Windows "Look and Feel" (KDE themes etc..) and even Windows features in the form of WINE, the community is very pedantic on making sure they do not use Microsoft code or break any laws.
If developers of Open Sauce software disregard IP laws they are shooting themselves in the foot, because the whole paradigm of Free software relies on users sticking to the IP/Copyright laws and complying with the licence.

I believe this is the regular Microsoft FUD, trying to kick Linux when it is "down" .

Re:I highly doubt it!

[Alan Partridge]

and how do you know that Microsoft is actively poisoning OSS projects with MS code SPECIFICALLY so that it can legally destroy them? What do you know about project contributors other than their email addresses?

Re:I highly doubt it!

[Billly Gates]

" how do you know that Microsoft is actively poisoning OSS projects with MS code"

Cough cough Mono.net cough cough

What about Xerox?

[joel8x]

Wouldn't Apple then be able to claim that the Windows GUI is their IP, and then Xerox could claim that everyone's is theirs?

What about the guys who invented the Abacus? Shouldn't they get a cut too?

How true!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no question that in cloning activities, IP from many, many open-source products, is being used in closed-source products. If people at SCO and Microsoft have access to source code, that kind of thing often becomes unavoidable.

And so it begins...

[sjbe]

I was wondering when the intellectual property attacks would come. It's really the only place open source is vulnerable. I'm really just surprised it took this long.

Any takers on a pool for how long before our good buddies at Microsoft start some legal action?

Choice of license

[kurt555gs]

this is a perfect example on why you should use the GNU/GPL license instead of BSD or other open source models.

It means that big companies will find it more difficult to steal and bury.

Of course it does

[sholden]

With the garbage that gets a software patent there is certainly IP from microsoft in Linux.

Then again, there's cetainly IP from microsoft in first year programming assignments, "Hello world" probably violates microsoft's IP by now.

Re:Of course it does

[Alsee]

"Hello world" probably violates microsoft's IP by now.

Only if it crashes.

-

perfect PR statement

[gokubi]

Actually, this is exactly what Bill would say at this time. When Gartner says to hold off on Linux development, the business world pricks up its ears. When a few days later, Bill makes a casual statment that Microsoft code has been SCO'd, all of the sudden this is a trend. Linux has major IP problems, is what business will hear.

Bill won't probably ever give details about what IP he's talking about--he doesn't have to. The value of his statement is that it highlights MSFT's long shadow looming over OSS. Specific threats would be refutable--his statement is not.

Net effect? A wonderful chilling effect (in Bill's eyes) on open source development with no costs for MSFT.

Re:perfect PR statement

[idlethought]

If proprietary source (effectively secret) can leak into Open source, then it is certain that Open Source has leaked into proprietary codebases.

The protections against it happening OSS -> Prop. are far far weaker- for one thing the end result isn't there public for anyone to inspect. All SCO had to do to evaluate their claims was download the source. No one else has the chance to do the reverse to check to see if UnixWare is ripping of Linux code.

The incentive is also far greater- Most OSS coders are motivated by the challenge and pride in their own acheivements. Engineers working on proprietary code are more driven by their paychecks, difficult to acheive deadlines.

It's reasonable to assume that if SCO and the FUD from Gates is even slightly true that MS, SCO and many many other companies are guilty of IPR violations galore.

The only reason it might be less of a risk to these companies is the lack of power (in terms of lawyers and political clout) the OSS teams have.

This is slightly countered by the lack of accountability over distribution of the source the openness of OSS encourages

One thing I've learned in the "real world"

[imadork]

If any manager or businessman begins an assertion with "There's no question", "Clearly", or "It's obvious", that assertion is nothing of the sort. It's a wild-assed guess at best, and a lie at worst. They say these things to give their statement a false measure of authority, and because they can't stand not appearing to know everything all the time. These are the phrases that shift my BS meter into overdrive...

The next great FUD campaign

[_KiTA_]

Well, there you have it.

MS recently paid SCO a liscense for UnixWare. Why? Well, I'm no Microsoft PR Troll, but if I were them, and planning on a new "Linux users are dirty lousy thieves" campaign, I'd do my best to let the little freaks at SCO be heard, even if everyone who has the slightest bit of knowledge in the subject knows SCO's full of it. Just long enough to be heard by most people, and get the community whispering in doubt in places. "SCO keeps shouting that Linux stole their IP, what if they're right?"

Because now MS can run "Us too!" ads and FUD Linux in interviews at will. It doesn't have to be true, or even slightly true, all they have to do is put the idea out there and the PHBs of the world, already a bit put off by the SCO mess, will buy it hook, line and sinker.

It's not like the various Open Source people (ESR, the FSF, etc) are given nearly as much press time in contrast to Gates.

How to fight this? Demand MS put up or shut up. Loudly. Whenever anyone is within earshot. Fight their FUD with honest, biting truth -- Linux is open source, we have nothing to hide, and is MS thinks we've stolen something, they're welcome to show some proof. Mention Kerebos, HTML 3.2, and whatever other instances of IP that MS has "Shifting Standardized" or "Embrace and Extended" into being a royal pain in the arse to use.

Of course, this is all assuming that Gates won't sneak some GPLed code into Windows now, and just claim that we stole it from him instead... Which is a decidedly more frightening prospect.

They can't beat us technology wise, they can't beat us pricing wise, but they can lie about us until everyone's too scared to use us.

Re:The next great FUD campaign

[gwernol]

Because now MS can run "Us too!" ads and FUD Linux in interviews at will. It doesn't have to be true, or even slightly true, all they have to do is put the idea out there and the PHBs of the world, already a bit put off by the SCO mess, will buy it hook, line and sinker.

As someone whose job it is to make complex technical and business evaluations of the software platform my company uses uses, let me point out that this patronizing and ill-considered rant hardly endears you or your view to "PHB"s. Your attitude that elite OSS coders are way too smart to be suckered in, but anyone who has to live in the real world is a fool who buys into any ridiculous story, can hurt OSS as much as SCO and now Microsoft can. If you want to influence the people who make the decisions, try talking to them instead of talking down to them.

It also doesn't help to go round shouting "SCO and Microsoft are liars". You may see the world as black and white, but it really contains many shades of gray and most of the PHBs who you so despise see that. Like it or not, given the current laws there are ideas that are covered by patents and other IP protection and you can't just re-implement those ideas without legal repercussions. You may want a world with no or different IP laws but pretending you live in that world now is naive. If OSS software contains illegal code then it is monumental irresponsibility for a company to use that software.

Of course, no-one has yet proved that there are any OSS infringements, and until they do I am going to continue to run Linux servers. But I will keep a close eye on the unfolding legal situation and if SCO wins its case the world will have changed radically. You may think there is no chance of that happening. I think there is a slim chance there is a real case there.

historically speaking

[yorkrj]

If we look back at the early suits involving Microsoft and Apple, there may be indicators of how this might turn out. In that case Apple was suing Microsoft for duplicating the look and feel of their GUI but Apple didn't win. I don't know the details of what MS is claiming but does this qualify as a bonafied legal precident?

WTF?

[Feztaa]

Gates's main argument here is basically "if you make a clone of one of our programs, it becomes impossible to keep our code out of your program."

Yeah, I remember that time that I made that clone of IE, and then Gates himself showed up at my home, pointed a gun at my head, and forced me to copy and paste code right from IE into my browser. Right...

Last time I checked, it's not illegal for two programs to do the same thing, while having absolutely no code in common.

Let's think about this, anyway: how the hell does MS code get put into linux? MS's code is closed, we can't access it. I bet Linux gets a lot of kernel patches coming from billg@microsoft.com. On the other hand, Linux code is open, you can see all of it, if you want. It would be trivially easy for some coder at MS to see some linux code, and put it into windows without anybody noticing.

If there is any overlapping code in both linux and windows, it's far, FAR more likely that MS stole it from linux, not the other way around. It's also possible that they both came from BSD.

How the hell?

[SharpFang]

Sonce all their software is not only proprietary but also "closed-source" so nobody can see the source code, automatically nobody can copy or include their sources into other software.

Technically impossoble.

Unless of course you come with the same solution to the same problem and your code looks very much alike. But then I want to sue Gates for violating copyright of my software. Back in the times of Atari I wrote a screen blanker that looks similar to one of Windows blankers. I never released my code, just showed it to several friends, but no doubt one of them told Gates about it and he stole my program!

Re:A possible first step on a very long road.

[telecaster]

If you can't beat them, sue them.

Microsoft is seeing the end. The end is near and they are starting to prepare for it by using the courts as a an offense instead of building a better product. The only defense (instead of building a better product) is to sue the product thats beating the shit out of you and tie them up legally.

This exact thing is happening to me. I created a product that is better than my one competitor out there. I sell it for a fraction of the cost and it's better technology (of course it's based on Open Source). I've taken 20 - 30 new customers from my one competitor in the last six 5 months. Not bad.

Well, what does the competitor do? They pull a credit report on my company, start making "wild claims" (read: FUD) about me and the company to their existing customers, even went as far as changing their product to make it hard for their existing customers to leave. Recently, I'm hearing that they are using lawyers now to find out information about me and my company... It's an ugly world.

What am I going to do? hahaha. Ignore eveything and keep going on. I won't stop. They'll have to show up with the Sheriff's to pull me out of my office. My belief, this is not about winning a court case, it's about "killing the little guy by legally strangling them."

The days of innovation and competition are over.

He's probably right

[darnok]

Under the present IP and patent laws, he's probably right - given MS holds zillions of patents, it would be very surprising if some Linux stuff didn't step on these patents.

However, I don't think he'd be silly enough to try to enforce these patents. Given IBM's love and support for Linux, and given that MS is almost certainly stepping on some of IBM's even larger set of patents, then he'd potentially be setting MS up for a world of hurt.

There's been a gentleman's agreement for years between IBM, MS and many others that sharing their patents via cross-licencing agreements is the only way to advance the industry as a whole. If MS tries to go against this agreement, IBM could give them a world of hurt (and get a lot of pain in return).

Dear Bill: Put up or Shut up.

[Dan Crash]

If there's "no question" that your IP is being used in open source software, tell us where. If you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is, the world should rightfully assume that your attacks are baseless and without merit.

I hope you continue on with this approach and name a specific distro or Open Source project so they can sue you for defamation.

It's not just the code, it's patents and concepts

[Pavan_Gupta]

But it's not just the code! That's where you're missing the most critical part of his claim. When you patent softare concepts, you're patenting every array of copying that can happen, and that's the sad part of the matter. Open Source, though only out there for non profit means (until you arrive at Redhat, and the such), has to be aware that it can't trample the rights of big companies, even if it's being sucked dry of all of it's code at the same time.

We live in a capitalistic world, and frankly, an attack like this should be expected. It's a great idea to have people working on open source software for the fun of it, but it has to be original ideas. OSS is like the product of a company. If it's created and it tramples the rights of others, then companies that have been trampled will have the right to come back and request damages from ANYONE that uses the software.

It's a frightening world out there for Open Source Software, but it's a real world. We need not just look past these claims as "Micro$oft hogwash" or anything of the sort. SCO and Microsoft might be making VERY valid points, and it's something the OSS community MUST watch out for.

I love Open Source Software, but I also respect the rights of others, however evil they might be.

My first thought...

[SharpFang]

...when I saw XP first, was "Finally one of the guys at M$ saw Gnome and understood Windows UI was years behind current standards".

RMS may sound like a broken record but he's right

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

From the article:

"One thing about the GPL is that you can't just license IBM Linux, or Red Hat Linux," Gates said. "The way the GPL works, if you license any Linux, you have to license all Linux."

What a bunch of crap. This is disinformation at its best.

- Linux is a Unix kernel clone.

- There is no such thing as Red Hat Linux or IBM Linux. There are IBM or RH distributions that make use of the Linux kernel

- Wtf does "licensing any Linux" and "licensing all Linux" means ? I'm assuming Gates mean licensing any Linux-based distro, in which case you adhere to whatever licensing terms the distro is released under, licensing terms which in turn are compliant with the GPL (since Linux is included).

That blurb from Gates means rigorously nothing whatsoever. But most people aren't even aware of what the GPL is, and when they quickly read something like that, they decude "uuh, Linux is dangerous to my business" or something. That's just ridiculous.

As much as I hate RMS' rants, flamewars and stubbornness, I must admit we need him more than ever today.

One Thing

[carrier lost]

What Gates and people of his mindset continue to miss (or ignore) is the fact that 90% of software developers work on code that is never sold. They work for brokerages, shipping companies, hospitals. For code that is never meant to be sold, licensing is rarely an issue.

The GPL only threatens software companies whose primary source of revenue comes from shrink-wrapped proprietary applications.

MjM

I only mod up...

IP is not just CODE

[blastedtokyo]

Intellectual property is not only code (covered by copyright) but anything in the patent portfolio, trademarks, or trade secrets. The way that things are coded or the way that features behave can be patented so with the number of patents MS holds, Gates's statement is almost undeniably true.

Also, copyright covers the right to make derivative works. So if there's an icon or other UI element that was a tweaked Windows element then that's technically copyright infringement. It's awefully hard to prove though (given the Apple v. MSFT precedent.

In short, Gates is right but it doesn't mean they'll start firing lawsuits against open source...They didn't previously sue their other competitors unlike how Sun/Oracle lobbied and/or sued MSFT.

We don' need no steenking halloween documents!

[leonbrooks]

We see it in TimeLine suits, the shafting of SpyGlass Systems, Blue Mountain Greeting Cards et al, the clone wars beteen MS-DOS and DR-DOS, the emBorgment of STAC Systems to settle yet another suit, and so on ad nauseum. Heck the company started by dumpster-diving for printouts of other people's software, and probably also had a copy of the Dartmouth BASIC source in hand while they wrote their 4K ROM BASIC (which they had already sold as pre-existing; ie, their first product was vapourware, the start of a long tradition). This is the company that copied the Mac interface right down to details like throwing away variable-sized elevators in order to look more Mac-like (and got sued for that one too).

This is a severe case of the event horizon casting aspersions about the kettle's colour! "Chutzpah" isn't a substantial enough concept for this, it isn't even in the running!

Re:We don' need no steenking halloween documents!

[Mainframes ROCK!]

I agree with most of your points but I doubt BG really made up his Basic by looking at the Dartmouth Basic source code. The source code for Dartmouth Basic is at dtss.org and IMHO it is very difficult to understand; about one comment every 300 lines and in assembler for a GE mainframe (these machines are alleged to have a very large and complex instruction set). Most of all Dartmouth Basic was a compiler, not an interpreter.

Re:We don' need no steenking halloween documents!

[Reziac]

Linked from User Interface Copyright:

In March 1995, the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the 1993 decision of Judge Keeton of Boston in Lotus' lawsuit against Borland. Lotus sued Borland for copyright infringement on Lotus 1-2-3. In its decision the appeals court determined that Lotus' menu structures, incorporated into Borland's Quatro Pro spreadsheet, are "an uncopyrightable method of operation".

Another throw them in the clink moment

[Crashmarik]

What delightfull fud

The good mr. Gates completely fails to identify the nature of the IP. He completely fails to identify how the IP is protecteted. And, He completely fails to explain how it got away from microsoft.

Lets consider the possibilities

1. Source code copying
The usual suspect. As always its much more likely that microsoft stole from the open source world than the other way around. You can completely discount the historical incidents and still come to this conclusion. Its just to easy for Microsoft to take something thats publicly available and hide it in its code bloat. OSS developers, would have to somehow purloin Microsfts source and include it into existing projects. NOT LIKELY

2. Look and feel

Microsoft more or less destroyed this argument in their lawsuit with Apple. Apple still owns Xerox Parc and is releasing Darwin under GPL.

3. The ever popular patent system
This is where the pain can come from. Our patent system is seriously broken. Between business method patents, Patents for devices that never get built and the ever popular overly broad but legal patent, are microsofts best weapon against OSS. The sheer cost of prosecuting a lawsuit makes it an effective weapon. On the other hand the organizations developing OSS in general have no assets, they have allready released the code to the world, and theres nothing to stop them from reorganizing in saner parts of the world (PGP excellent example).

As usual this type of action makes me happy I am an NRA member and support the 2nd ammendment to the hilt. The reason smaller government is best is because it belongs to whoever is willing to buy it.

dark ages?

[Ender Ryan]

While many /.ers believe we are entering the "digital dark ages", it looks like we may also be entering a "business dark ages." In the great US of A these days, litigation is equally as important as producing a product; to some companies it's MORE important, eg. SCO, Rambus, etc.. Claims such as the one made by Gates are common practice among business execs. Enron, MCI, SCO, Adelphia, MS, etc. Name a large business that is honest? There are a couple, but it is not the norm. Perhaps it never has been.

In any case, it is obvious to me that there are still a great many hurdles humanity must face before individuals actually have the freedom so many millions of people have died for in the last century alone. Or something... It is just painful to watch as large corporations push smaller companies and people around, all the while receiving the blessing of our "representatives." I don't know what else to do. Vote, write your representatives, protest. Anything we can legally do only marginally works, if that...

"Civilization is only skin deep"

Re:i'll probably get flamed for this, but...

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

If coca-cola brings out a new drink, i do a chemical analysis on it and duplicate it, then bring it out at half the price in a remarkably similar bottle, i'd get sued to death. I don't see why people think the software world should work differently.

Because free software cloning doesn't work that way. When someone write a clone of some Microsoft product, it is assumed that they don't disassemble the original and copy the code (the equivalent of your chemical analysis). The clone is a completely different piece of code with the same capabilities as the originals. Pepsi Cola similarly clean-room engineered their version of sugared water without analyzing the chemical composition of Coca Cola, and they're still around.

Be careful what you wish for

[sjbe]

I'm seeing a lot of people saying something to the effect of "put up or shut up". Are you sure you really want that? How would it affect your life if the Samba or Apache projects were shut down for patent infringement? I'm not saying this is likely, or even possible, but just think about it for a moment. MS could cause a LOT of problems without even having a valid legal leg to stand on. They certainly could convince a lot of companies to question adoption of open source. And it's not as if they are exactly convinced about it now...

SCO is the last gasps of a desparate company. Any legal action from Microsoft will be very calculated and a much bigger threat. Remember, $40 billion buys a lot of time from your friendly neighborhood legal team. That's pretty hard to fight, even if you are right.

Re:Be careful what you wish for

[AndroidCat]

How would it affect your life if the Samba or Apache projects were shut down for patent infringement?

I'd spend the rest of my life puzzled as to how something Microsoft patented could have ended up in Apache without it automatically being prior art either in Apache or httpd.

This is why he won't.

[suso]

If his goal is to destroy Linux, then he's going to delay showing us the source code as long as possible. If he showed us now, we would just change the code and move along. Same goes for SCO, but I'm not sure what SCO's true intentions are.

Re:It's not just the code

[Pavan_Gupta]

We might not want to live in a world where the patent office "pushes innovation by ownership," but it's the reality of Capitalism. You can't turn off cash flow, or you essentially turn off innovation and invention.

Of course Open Source Software is the best example of my previous statement put to the test, but I can still hold to it, because even the best OSS people still have to go out and get jobs to make their OSS Lives work. I've seen examples of OSS projects failing all over the place becasue it costs money to even do OSS. The best place to look is the old Linux Router Project.

All I'm saying is, OSS is a very idealistic set of projects. Idealism is an awesome thing, but when it faces reality, it sometimes less than perfect.

Microsoft, and everyone else that has patent claims, has to be respected. It's part of the REALITY of our world today. If OSS software is unfairly stealing the work of Microsoft, then it's liable; I'm liable.

More good news...

[ffatTony]

I realize everyone thinks SCO's actions are sleezy and MS is being oportunistic, but I really think this lawsuit is good for linux as a whole and me in particular. Why? The chicks. The current scenario is:

random girl: can I check my email?
me: sure...
girl: your desktop looks weird, I want to go home now. I'm confused...

but if linux does include stolen code it becomes dangerous:

different girl: mmmm, is that linux you're using?
me: why yes... it is (sly smile)
girl: you're so dangerous, take me now.... on the keyboard...

One can always dream :)

(And before you make wild geek accusations, yes I do have a girl friend and this was intended to be funny :)

Hoo, boy, it would do a LOT more than that!

[leonbrooks]

If it can be shown that Microsoft deliberately contributed (for example) several MS-Windows components to the Linux kernel, there would be grounds for subpoenaing the MS-Windows sources so that every kernel contributor had access to check for similarities in code.

/* This patch to fix pluralisation in usb-storage submitted by [insert countless email addresses here]. */

What about Germany?

[Idou]

Can they now close down the MS German office just like they did the SCO German office for making unsubstantiated claims?

I am not sure how smart this is for MS. I would think they would want to be distancing themselves from SCO at this point. SCO has obviously been manipulating the financial system by their outrageous and contradictory claims. If SCO is found guilty for pumping up its stock price by making claims about Linux IP, wouldn't MS then be in a difficult situation? Not even going into anti-trust issues . . .

Days of Linux are counted

[srk]

I remember the days when Linux was a small esoteric system and most people simply did not know about its existence. Others who knew did not treat it seriously. For the first time I had installed Linux some time around 1993. People were laughing at me and asking why I am wasting my time on it. The reason I did it is that I was looking for a way out from MS crap and from overly expensive Unices from Sun, HP, etc. I wanted to have something that is Unix and that is always with me and I can use it on cheap hardware. It was pretty clear then that all non-MS OSes will be dead soon. Linux for me was a sort refuge from Microsoft repression and I hoped that it will remain an esoteric system for foreseeable future.

This is very regrettable that Linux has got so much attention these days especially from Microsoft. We know perfectly that Microsoft was able to muscle out any other competitor (IBM, Lotus, Borland, Netscape, DR DOS just to name few). Linux is unusual in that sense that it does not rely on the usual commercial cycle of investment-production-sales. But this does not mean that it is not prone to Microsoft tactics. Microsoft did not always use only economic means against its competitors. It was able to fend off antitrust lawsuit without much trouble. Sometimes the tactics was to hire competitors' execs or similar variation. It means that MS has something except for FUD to fight Linux with and there is no doubt that it will do, and it will win.

Using IP laws against Linux is indefensible tactics simply because Linux community is not able to afford to hire enough lawers to defend itself. Probably the only viable solution is to take Linux development and use out of the US and Europe. And this is where globalization plays a bad role: if IP laws are used then they are enforceable pretty much everywhere. Probably China is the most promising country because it has a rather independent policy and its government does invest into Linux.

There is much trouble ahead fro Linux, it had become a victim of its own popularity.

These rights of which you speak

[Anonymous Coward]

". If it's created and it tramples the rights of others, then companies that have been trampled will have the right to come back and request damages from ANYONE that uses the software."

I'm sorry these rights are a recent fabrication - mostly by America - they did not exist when I entered the business 20 years ago in England.

Why should I recognise them now. I sure as hell didn't vote for them. Did you? I doubt it!

Re:These rights of which you speak

[Alsee]

these rights are a recent fabrication - mostly by America - they did not exist when I entered the business 20 years ago in England.


Exactly. They didn't even exist here in America when I began programming.

Why should I recognise them now. I sure as hell didn't vote for them. Did you? I doubt it!

Nobody voted for them except the head of the patent office. It wasn't approved by congress at all.

-

No, Gates is probably right

[0x0d0a]

He's not claiming reverse engineering.

What he's claiming is very interesting for people that aren't familiar with the nastiness of big business, though. Sort of an eye-opener for me a few years back, and tech folks should be aware of this if they're interested in IP.

See, you know how most Free Software folks complain bitterly about (at least some) software patents, saying that it makes things really hard to operate? They aren't lying. Engineers working at big companies ran into the same problem *years* ago. You simply cannot build things in a world with this many tech patents. It's impossible. You'd have to check through huge numbers of patents to do anything.

So big business came up with a solution. They just cross-license *everything*. One company is free to use all of another company's (or organizations...for example, MIT and Microsoft cross-license) patents. Most tech companies with decent IP portfolios do this with their competitors. For example, Seagate, Western Digital, Maxtor, etc, all cross license each others' patents.

This seems, at first, counterproductive. After all, isn't the point of patents to give you a short-term edge over competitors, to encourage new development? Nope. Patents in a situation like this still provide one big benefit to their owners -- they maintain oligopolies. If a new hard drive manufacturer comes along and wants to make hard drives, they can't. Seagate, WD, etc own masses of IP, enough to keep the new vendor from entering the market.

This is why patents are pretty frusterating in the world of big business. Go work at a corporate research lab...any patents you come up with don't do your company any good against their competitors. They just keep anyone else from entering the arena.

Now, Gates is troubled enough by Linux to pull the patent oligopoly card out of his sleeve, which normally doesn't get played. MS cross-licenses with *huge* numbers of organizations. They own massive amounts of IP. And yes, it's almost certain that they have rights to a large number of patents that Linux does not have rights to.

Hell, last time Slashdot ran a contest asking for silly patents (a ways back, maybe a year ago), I searched for "computer". First ten hits contained the just-granted patent on the table-lookup optimization for computing CRC-32s. Now, *everyone* does this...modem manufacturers, lots of hardware vendors. Not doing it is stupid. And maybe this patent would have gotten challenged if the owner went after, say, 3com with it. But instead, it's almost certainly in a large patent portfolio somewhere, waiting around for a day when its owner feels threatened by a newcomer to the industry. Then it can pull out its portfolio and start beating folks up.

This is not a trivially fixable feature of the patent system. Most US corporate research (probably foreign as well...I'm just not that familiar with non-US legalities) depends upon the oligopoly benefits provided by patents.

And just throwing out the patent system has other problems. I'm not sure that, say, RSA encryption would *ever* have been developed without a patent system to provide encouragement.

The best thing to do, I think, would be to cap tech patents at seven years, so that companies have to keep frantically coming up with new tech. Wastes more on lawyers -- it costs a couple of thousand per patent, and more patents would have to be produced to compensate -- but that at least alleviates some of the effect.

Re:No, Gates is probably right

[dnoyeb]

You are wrong on 1 point. Their is no cross-licensing. Their are only gentlemans agreements. They just dont sue each other. Mutual assured destruction.

It goes on it most inductries. Heck, I suspect most companies have no idea what their engineers have patented until its time to go to battle with someone.

Re:No, Gates is probably right

[fanatic]

patents you come up with don't do your company any good against their competitors. They just keep anyone else from entering the arena.

This sounds like it could be an OSS killer, since OSS would probably have a hard time entering into cross-licensing agreemants, and certainly hasn't yet. So the questions that arise in my mind are:

1. If this is a large problem for any OSS project, why is IBM so gung-ho on Linux?
2. Why hasn't MS used this *already* on Linux? Or are we just hearing the opening shots?

Re:It's not just the code

[VersedM]

Thank you for the first comment in this thread that strikes to the heart of the matter.

All the people discussing "intellectual property" on this thread need to review the history of intellectual property, the original reason for its creation, and the social contract that it encompasses when analyzing the current situation in the the field of computer science (and frankly within the entertainment industry as well.)

Intellectual property does not exist to guarrantee the rights of a particular person or group to make a living in a certain way. Rather it is a grant of limited monopoly as an inducement for innovation. In fields were the monetary barrier to entry is small (computer science, music) or where the majority of innovation is government sponsered (biotech, genetics), intellectual property in its current form has ceased to serve its purpose and has instead become an anti-competive bludgeon that quashes innovation. The current system of intellectual property in the US is thus in severe need of reform but such reform is hampered by the business models that it currently protects (as reflected by several postings in this thread.)

the natural consequences

[sjames]

It is fairly clear that IP law in the U.S. is out of control. We have companies who spend millions foisting their ideas off on society then complaining thet their ideas are treated as part of the cultural background. We have companies that think it is possible to own the commons. We have legislators and judges agreeing with them (possibly for pay in some cases).

The quickly developing morass is expensive to navigate and makes real innovation nearly impossible. It is rapidly expanding to cover every aspect of life and technology.

What will the U.S. do when the time comes for a cost/benefit analysis and the result is that it is cheaper to leave the U.S. entirely? There are a number of countries out there with a much saner IP situation (even if only by virtue of not really considering IP at all) that would really love to expand their economy and influence by becoming the home of technological innovation.

Up until now, their lack of infrastructure has removed them from consideration. There will come a point where the cost of dealing with stupid U.S. style IP law will exceed the cost of building your own infrastucture in these countries. The decision to move will be a simple matter of economics. After all, corporations do not have patriotism, they know only cost and benefit (read profit).

Looking at history, the U.S. benefitted greatly from being on the other side of that equasion in it's first two centuries. The opportunities presented by a country where one could have a good idea and develop it into a reality free of a million rules and regulations and laws favoring the entrenched dinosaurs were enough to cause innovators and businessmen all over the world to pull up roots and move to the 'the land of opportunity'.

The same legal and economic forces can just as easily drive innovation and business elsewhere.

Re:RMS may sound like a broken record but he's rig

[Billly Gates]

Agreed. I do not understand what Bill is trying to say when he says "The way the GPL works, if you license any Linux, you have to license all Linux". Is he refering to the so called "viral nature fud" of Linux?

Anyway THE GPL IS NOT AN EULA. How many times has it been stated here. All it is is a simple copyright notice. Yes this code is copyrighted do not copy it unless you show all the code thanks. Thats basically what the gpl is in simple terms. MS is so obsessed with EULA's because this is how they extort, oops I mean maximize profits.

He does not get the gpl at all. You are right about misinformation.

The only thing MS may be right in is linking to GPL code. This is a gray area. For example I was reading the Reiser comments in an earlier story yesterday and the BSD community will refuse any fS that is gpl. Why? Because they fear if you link to a gpl product then the kernel must turn gpl as well. Isn't the copyleft license specifically for situations like this? Perhaps more developers should use that.

Patents, not copyright, are the real danger...

[borgheron]

All,

The term IP is confusing and I would urge that it not be used. It is confusing since it is often used to lump desparate laws of Copyright, Patent and Trademark as well as others together.

By using this term Mr. Gates is raising questions about all of these things lumped into that term, not just Patents or Trademarks.

The real question here is, can any company give us complete assurance that copyrighted or unlicensed material is not present in their software? Most companies DO NOT indemnify you for their infrigements (including MS even with their new license).

The answer to the above question is NO. Why? Because while Copyrights are easy to avoid infringement on in most cases, Patents are not. With Patents, it's like walking throught a mine field. There is no way of telling, short of doing an exhaustive search, if something is patented or not. In fact *MOST* patent attorneys will advise against doing such as search (really!!).

To learn more about patents and their evils in the software industry, please see the petition in my URL.

Thanks, GJC

Microsoft was already caught stealing code

[Darth Daver]

Microsoft was convicted of software piracy in France in 2001. They were fined 3 million francs.

You can check out the details here. - Microsoft winds up on both ends of software piracy stick

I would think that the facts discovered during the anti-trust trial would make it painfully obvious to everyone that Microsoft is not overly concerned with things like ethics or laws. For them, it is an accounting decision. What are the chances we will get caught AND convicted, and what will it cost if we are convicted. Intentionally break our competitors' products, even if it hurts our own customers? Sounds like a good idea to me!

The start of software patents

[alangmead]

It wasn't some guy suddenly deciding to patent software. The Supreme Court decided in Diamond v. Diehr that the USPTO's regulations at the time were unconstitutional. In case you don't follow the link, Diamond v. Diehr was about a method for vulcanizing rubber that used software connected to sensors to determine how best to heat the rubber.

So the USPTO (part of the executive branch of government) was prohibited (by the judicial branch) from following their current regulations. They got no help from Congress (the legislative branch) by creating new laws to help them guide new regulations. The USPTO can't unilaterally revert to their previous rules. Either someone needs to bring a new case to the Supreme Court to challenge the current USPTO regulations, or Congress needs to pass laws that will pass a judicial challenge.

Re:The start of software patents

[Alsee]

It wasn't some guy suddenly deciding to patent software.

Yeah, it was.

First of all note that Diamond v. Diehr was a 5 to 4 decision with strongly dissenting opinion. I could give links explaining why Diamond v. Diehr was in error, but lets ignore the dissent and assume the decision was entirely correct.

The question before the court was "Can one patent a machine that transforms materials physically under the control of a programmed computer?"

The court ruled that: "When a claim containing a mathematical formula implements or applies the formula in a structure or process which, when considered as a whole, is performing a function which the patent laws were designed to protect (e. g., transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing), then the claim satisfies 101's requirements."

They further state "Transformation and reduction of an article `to a different state or thing' is the clue to the patentability of a process claim".

The court quoted another case and affirmed that "a mathematical algorithm must be assumed to be within the "prior art", though they did not agree with the way Diamond tried to apply it. All software is in fact nothing more than a mathematical algorithm.

Therefore Diamond v. Diehr upheld that ALL POSSIBLE SOFTWARE AUTOMATICALLY FALLS INTO PRIOR ART.

The head of the patent office latched onto a few specific comments in this decision and ignored the rest of what the court said. He directly violated their specific warning that "insignificant postsolution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process. Ibid. 14 To hold otherwise would allow a competent draftsman to evade the recognized limitations on the type of subject matter eligible for patent protection."

The entire patent granting process was overhauled in in exactly the manner the court warned against. Now a patent can be granted on a wordprocessor.

Most quotes came from here, and some from here.

-

What what whaaat?

[geekster]

"Under the GPL, all tweaks and applications developed for the operating system must be released to the community. That restriction does not hold true on commercial versions"

All applications must be released to the community? That's just plain untrue. Isn't there a way to let the people reading that article know that he's lying?

Re:It's not just the code

[gilroy]

Two bits. First,

if you say they can't control their creations you're saying they have no right to make a living.

Although I happen to feel creators should have rights, I'd like to point out -- though everyone labels the anti-IP crowd as "communistic" -- it is things like "a right to make a living" that are actually closer to the Communist way of speaking.

But more relevantly,

Artists, writers, musicians, programmers. They're selling ideas and expressions of ideas

This betrays a very fundamental (and possibly intentional) misunderstanding of intellectual proprty. As a matter of fact, no one is "selling ideas" -- or rather, no one is granted a state-fabricated artificial monopoly to sell them. You want to pay for an idea, go ahead. But the idea isn't protected by IP law. Only the expression of the idea is. That's the major thing messed up with patents on software algorithms and on business methods.

Let's get over this.

[mindstrm]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could get journalists to stop reporting stupid claims of "IP" theft?

It's like saying "They stole our karma".. it's a fictional thing that can't be proven.

Intellectual Property takes one of several specific forms, well defined by law. It's not a general thing.. like "Hey I had that idea, and you used it, so you stole my IP".

Copyright - Original works cannot be copied verbatim. This doens't protect ideas, just specific works. Example: You can't make copies of Windows and sell it without permission.

Patent - Must be registered. Gives absolute protection over the use of a mechanism. Example: firewire. Every firewire device pays Apple a royalty.

Secret (trade secret) - A method where nobody who knows your secret is given access to it except under strict contract. Not really a form of IP.. if someone figures it out and is not under contract, they are free to disclose it. The only value of this kind of so-called IP is if you can manage to keep it a secret. Example: Formula for Coca-cola.

All these companies running around saying "our IP has been taken" is just a bunch of stupid spin-doctoring, and the media should stop catering to it. If SCO has a valid case, they can take it up in court. The same goes for Microsoft, or anyone else.. but running around claiming "IP" theft without specific details is like saying "some people got some ideas from us". Well.. guess what MS.. you and every other software developer out there free or not, got ideas from someone else at some point and used them in their software. big deal.

Not quite.

[Groo Wanderer]

You are close. It may be the property of MS, but applying the phrase 'intellectual' to the MS Windows UI stretches credibility to the breaking point. I wonder if there is any case law to challenge them on false use of intellect? Any lawyers out there know?

-Charlie

(Yes, for the sarcasm impared, this was meant as humor)

Everyone is talking about code

[Tokerat]

...and how Microsoft is claiming we SCO'd them. I dont' believe that has been said. Gates refered to Microsoft IP, not code. Microsoft's IP can (and surely does) cover more than code (look and feel, networking techniques, crappy vague patents, etc.). I'd be worried more about that than I would be about MS trying to be sneaky and steal some GPL'd code and put it in Windows, or submitting Windows code to the kernel or something like that. Why pull a big elaborate scam when a violation of a vague patent will do just fine?

Monopoly at it's best. Instead of eliminating the competition through inproving your own products, simply bash and sue the others using what should probably be unlawfuly aquired IP ("Method for rasterization of a rectangle through means of an electronic device...OK *stamp*". Scary how much even that parody might be factual given the USPTO, even though I bet that one belongs to IBM ;-) ).

If there is any reason to be afraid, it's that. "FUD" could turn into "deep shit", if they really put their minds to it.

Own Medicine...

[Temsi]

This accusation sounds rather ironic and hypocritical, considering that pretty much everything Microsoft has ever put out is a clone or a copy of something else.
That's how Microsoft has always done business: if you can't buy the innovators, clone their product and give your version away for free until the innovators goes out of business or is otherwise unable to compete.

Is there OSS in Windoze?

[LuYu]

Okay, that is finally it. I have been holding onto this idea for too long. In a way, I am surprised that I have not seen or read anything like this idea, but here it goes:

What about Open Source/Free Software code having been used by Micro$oft?

Given what is known about Micro$oft, it is reasonable to suspect that Micro$oft has used Open Source/Free Software code to enhance its software.

What do you we know about Micro$oft? We know:

1. Micro$oft's programmers are lazy. (What programmers are not? :)
2. Micro$oft's programmers are subject to deadlines, and therefore are probably more willing to cut corners or engage in shady practices to meet those deadlines.
3. Micro$oft's programmers have access to all Open Source code (as does everybody else).
4. Open Source/Free Software is a great source (pun not intended) of well documented, well written code.
5. Micro$oft has a history of appropriating other companies' innovations.
6. Micro$oft is willing to break the law to improve their bottom line. (This has been amply demonstrated by their activities before, during, and after their antitrust conviction.)
7. Micro$oft considers Open Source/Free Software to be a direct threat to its very existence.
8. Micro$oft is incapable of competing with the speed and quality that results from Open Source/Free Software programming methodologies.
9. Micro$oft's source code is not subject to review outside of the company. Appropriated software in unaudited source code may as well be written from scratch for all the general public knows.
10. Micro$oft did not apply to the Open Source/Free Software community for a licence to use GPL'd software.

Given all this, it seems more than reasonably likely that Micro$oft has unlawfully appropriated Open Source/Free Software code into its operating system and tools.

This brings me to the question:

Can the Open Source/Free Software community audit Micro$oft's source code for GPL compliance?

If they did use GPL'd code, is the Micro$oft now required to Open Source all of the code that depends on the appropriated code? In this case, Micro$oft might finally be able to acurately claim that Open Source/Free Software is "viral".

Can the Open Source/Free Software community receive a billion dollars from Micro$oft, as SCO is asking from IBM? (A billion dollars would go a long way for the EFF :)

Micro$oft may be using its closed source approach to conceal illegal activities. It seems it is time for the Open Source/Free Software community to ask Micro$oft to demonstrate that their code is free of taint before they can continue to accuse Open Source/Free Software programmers of "stealing" code.

Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? Or worse, the pot calling the white porcelain cup black?

BSD license needs to change

[Anonymous Coward]

The (Free)BSD license must be changed. It's no secret that ms is using code from BSD in their 2000/XP code base. While the ability to do so shouldn't change, the BSD team should do what it can to prevent sco/ms type actions.

One of the sco leeches has already stated that they will be looking at BSD next.

The BSD code should be changed, where they revoke license rights if the company using any BSD code either instigates, or supports another company instigating, sco type tactics. They can lay out a roadmap of sorts, where prior to any lawsuit, prior to any contacts by any attorneys, the company's (who adopted the BSD code) engineers will show all code in question to BSD, or to any affected entity, and will be given ample opportunity to replace the code, suggest a mutually agreeable alternative, delete the code, or take some other action that the parties can agree upon. And if they do take the case to court, the complaining party must agree to refund attorney's fees if they lose all, or even part of their case.

Refunding attorney's fees even if they only lose part of their case is important because it makes sure the complaining company's case is damn solid, which in turn will give the affected company/entity more motivation to come to an agreement with the complaining company.

It's up to BSD to do this. Not the linux kernel maintainers. It is the BSD code which can be (and is) adopted by proprietary companies for use in their own code. And they are permitted to not reveal the source code. That's why ms is using BSD code, and why they are getting their OS's to some semblence of stable (they have many miles, and years to go).

So what say you BSD?