Slashdot Mirror
HP Memo Predicts MS Patent Attacks on Open Source
Roblimo writes "A two-year-old internal HP memo has just surfaced that talks about how 'Microsoft could attack Open Source Software for patent infringements against OEMs, Linux distributors, and least likely open source developers. They are specifically upset about Samba, Apache and Sendmail.' NewsForge has the story, including the memo's full text, a response from Eben Moglen (who says the memo's author misinterprets part of the GPL), and a statement from HP saying they love open source, really they do, even though 'Microsoft continues to be one of HP's strongest partners.'"
so that would explain the 26,000 patents that MS has been busy filing to lock down everything in the world.
ahhh..
world domination..
never would have thought MS would stoop so low..
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
as the rest of the world couldn't really care about US patents, and why pander to a nation of 280m when 5.5bn have the real purchasing power
enjoy your circle jerk, the rest of us will move forward without you
This kind of fluff makes front page news? Anybody COULD do anything. Why don't you report on it when MS does? In the meantime, isn't there better stuff to report, like real news?
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
That is probably about right, though you never know with Microsoft.
Cheers!
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
This is worth about as much as a slashdot comment saying much the same.
So far, Microsoft's position, as far as anyone can tell from public comments, is that they are patent crazy to avoid being submarined by competitors or "IP companies". They refer to it as a defensive patent portfolio.
I have yet to see any action or statement from Microsoft (official or no) that contradicts this.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
But what people constantly forget is that america is not the world. Even if MS manages to lock down Linux and OSS development here in the United States, that does not necessarily stop the rest of the world from pulling ahead of US.
That is, of course, assuming that IBM doesn't decide to stand up to MS and pull a few patent tricks of their own.
Come on, Microsoft. Attack with that shit, and we fight back with prior art. No contest. End of story.
"They are specifically upset about Samba, Apache and Sendmail." Hmm ... perhaps becasue Samba, Apache, and Sendmail are better constructed than their Microsoft counterparts?
In soviet russia, You ask not what country do for you, but what you do for country!
Oh wait...
From the article: Demonstrating unwavering commitment to meet the needs of its customers, HP was the first major Linux vendor to offer indemnification protection against SCO-related lawsuits, thus enabling HP's customers to continue their Linux deployment plans with confidence. Elizabeth Phillips - HP spokesperson.
Oh yeah, i'd almost forgot about SCO. What's Darl up to these days? I love how HP jumps on the pro open source bandwagon by reminding everyone how they were the first to scoff at SCO.
Two years old and we're just now seeing it.
Gotta wonder what they are saying now. Think about the original Halloween documents. Those'll be six years old soon. Think how much Linux has improved since then. I'm sure Microsoft's internal memos are lot more interesting now. (Probably something along the lines of oh shit...oh shit...oh shit) Wow, to be a fly on the wall of Ballmer's office...
Unknown host pong.
Only Microsoft could be up set by sendmail use of patent pending security holes.
The journey is better then the end.
I would sooner seppaku than let Linux be killed from a flaw in the GPL. But first, spend every last penny I have trying to save it ;)
Why else would they be applying for 5 patents a day? Not only are they trying to keep the patent office swamped so stupid crap goes through, they want to make sure they have enough patents to hold onto their dominance. They can't (and never have) been innovators, they have to use "other techniques".
I and millions of other developers and sysadmins have a looooooooooooooooonnnggg memory. If you MS decide to do this, we will do everything we can to make it cost you. You would be well advised to compete on the merits of your products and services. FOSS software being as large as it is today is largely a reaction to customers and developers being sick and tired of being bullied and treated like cash cows. More bullying can only help you in the short term. Pissing off your customers like a version of SCO on steriods will only assure your slow death.
If I absolutely positively have no choice but to run all proprietary software on all proprietary platforms (Which is a situation I won't tolerate. You can buy senators till the cows come home. I still won't tolerate it.), I will be damn sure my dollars go to your most credible competitors.
Do yourselves some favors. Make products people actually want without sleazy lock-in tactics and start diversifying. Your products are rapidly becoming a continuous cost center to those who use them. Any sane business will try to allievate this. No amount of lawyers will prevent it.
This can extend patent rights across borders and force participating countries into a 'lowest common denominator' sort of scenario, much as its starting to do with the restriction of free-speech.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
HP saying they love open source, really they do, even though 'Microsoft continues to be one of HP's strongest partners.'"
The fact that Microsoft partners with HP doesn't diminish it like for Open Source. HP is mostly hardware company and they want to sell their hardware to everyone. If the customer likes open source then there product will work on Open Source if their customer like Windows then their product will work on windows.
HP Has the recourses to be committed to Open Source and to Microsoft. The same with IBM, IBM actively competes with Microsoft and they generally don't like Microsoft but Microsoft is still one of IBMs biggest partners.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
so that would explain the 26,000 patents that MS has been busy filing to lock down everything in the world
What, you thought they were going to donate them to the Vatican or something?
Didn't Digital Equipment Corporation invent SMB and first deliver it through Pathworks?
Also, let's say HP knew M$ had patents that they could attack OSS on. If HP knew, M$ also knew. If M$ knew, and has waited 2 years before enforcing them, they've essentially given them up. You must make a reasonable attempt to enforce your IP, which means stopping it early, and not letting it go on, as opposed to just letting the damage build up. As they haven't enforced this IP, which they probably knew about, they can't enforce it now.
Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
Microsoft could embrace Open Source Software.
Microsoft could be eating babies.
Microsoft could make commercials that make no sense.
Microsoft could attack Homer Simpson.
Microsoft could be fucked in Europe and Asia.
Microsoft could cure cancer.
Microsoft could do a boat load of things
Is there really an article based on couldas? What? People aren't allowed to speculate without it being a World Domination plot. Businesses do discuss their competition. Look around here...
Your move Bill.
My blog
This memo is a bit old to take it seriously, but looking at the OSS-Attack as a whole, I wonder if OSS community has enough resources to win the battle?
It's all good to talk about prior art, this and that, but please remember to destroy a competitor, you don't necessarily have to win the lawsuit, sometimes you just need to be resourceful enough to drag on and throw money at the case.
It's like poker games, you might have the best cards but if you don't have enough money to call and raise, how many times can you win?
Novell
IBM
Redhat
ILM
Google
Oracle
etc.
Any company that contributes to or heavily relies on open source.
One other thought occured to me. That memo stated that MS could target HP, Intel and other "partners". It must really suck to be an MS "partner". You do what they tell you and you can have some of the extra cash that falls down. Step out of line once and you can be squashed. Maybe that is why Dell is low key with their (small) Linux offerings.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Conversely, Microsoft also has to realize that if they were to shun big names like HP and IBM in the slightest way, they could get throttled...
What'd happen if the hardware to go with Linux suddenly because cheaper than hardware that supports Windows? Would anybody write a free non-official driver for Windows? I think not...
Microsoft's got to partner to players with both sides of the ball... there still are companies big enough to give them headaches otherwise.
Both Apache and Sendmail predate similar offerings from Microsoft. If they are able to castrate both of these fine products via the legal system, I will help form the armed revolt myself.
This is not about cost-free software; it's about the ability of garage coders to continue to code freely.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The memo is two years old. ok. And it mentions several softwares that it's unhappy with and want's to do something about.
What's happened in two years? Microsoft has lost (/is losing) the web server market. Samba has cost them revenue. And Sendmail? MS is not competing well. They haven't turned the ship around and it's heading for the rocks. ok, it's overly dramatic. But I believe that Microsoft is looking at some very unpleasant future pictures and looking at *drastic* actions.
Why did this memo pop up now? Maybe MS is getting desparate? big legal actions against OS operations would perhaps shut them down (or slow them down) at a cost tons of ill will. Which is why I don't think it's happened yet. This might be an easier out for MS than fixing it's problems.
eric
MSFT vs. Rest Of The World
Who will win?
If it ever came to this, it would turn into: The United States vs. The Rest of the World, which, given our current standing in foreign countries, probably wouldn't go very well if nothing is done to change that.
Seems to me that Apache and Sendmail are pretty likely to have prior art on anything important that also happens to be implemented on IIS or Exchange, given that both were fairly entrenched at a time when Microsoft still considered the Internet to be a passing fad. I suppose they may have bought some patents somewhere, but it still seems like a pretty remote chance.
Not only that, but those two aren't even licensed under the GPL, which is ostensibly the target here.
This all sounds vaguely like something this Gary Campbell fellow pulled out of his ass...
Microsoft will use any tactics at their disposal to stop Open Source. We have already seen their tactics with Baystar. My guess is that Microsoft would use a similar tactic to attack open source. Is it time for the Open Source community to consider switching to another license model.?? Or changing the GPL....?? Another option is for the OSDL to begin establishing defense fund. Another possiblity to take out liability insurance to fight a lawsuit. If nothing else it should give the OSS community reason to contemplate it's weak side.
Actually the whole problem is that it is black and white, because in the "eyes of the internet" there is no difference between free speech content and say copyright content. You either half to attempt to manage controll over all of it, or none of it.
In every industry, in every sector - there are emerging two groups. One that want's to secure content controll in one form or another, and the other who doesn't want the burdon of imposing it. The simple fact is that the forces pulling them apart are far greater then the forces holding them together. Things have been pulling apart in a serious way for the last 20 years, but now with the internet reaching extreme proportions, and linux, and p2p - hold on because all hell is about to break loose.
Only they have a chance to win in the 'legal poker' game.
Everyone else would either be forced to fold or be bought outright and silenced.. Regardless of how good a hand they may have...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
who has the most patents and money to ram them down everyone else's throat instead of who has the best product. Our whole system of Intellectual Property needs a serious rethinking and revision. The paradigm is broken. Litigiousness is choking innovation instead of encouraging it. Let's get behind organizations like Pubpat and Electronic Frontier Foundation to move forward.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
The authors can always re-release it under another license, or the FSF can release a "GPL 3" that avoids whatever legal trickery they pull... and since GPL software almost always includes a clause including "any later versions" they'll be covered.
Yep yep, I screwed up. :-/
Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
MS is doing alot more than just filing patents. They are making other preparations as well. The SCO suit was just a litmus test.
burnin
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It may be time to update my thoughts on the Anderer/MS timeline
McBride took over in late Summer of 2002. From ESR's Halloween VII, we know that in Sept. 2002 that MS was talking about attacking Linux via patents and the risk of a lawsuit. From Halloween VII:
"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.
Now, my personal opinion is that Morgan Keegan got wind of this and introduced SCO to MS--though it could well have been someone at SCO or MS who started the introductions, but the timeline of this HP memo fits.
MS preparing to do battle
burnin
I've been looking at Office 2003's "Information Rights Management", which uses Windows Server 2003 as a key-keeper, along with
I really get the sense that people are scared of being the first to get hurt for publishing holes they've found in the system, rather than because the standards themselves are in flux.
It's a little creepy - on one side, you get people saying why DRM is wrong in so many ways, and should be avoided, but not allowing themselves to actually look at the system. On the other side, you've got people praising the idea with lavish strings of superlatives, saying that governments should use it amongst other things - it would be hard for a businessman to say anything other than Microsoft is fellow businessmen, and the other guys are crazy folks who don't know what they're talking about.
The FUD is working - the smart ones are staying quiet, and the dumb ones are making the rest look like they're all crazy.
Ryan Fenton
MS hires their IP task master
In case you don't get it let me help, Phelps is not interested in protecting MS from submarine patents. He intends to assist MS in smashing any competition be they open source or proprietary.
burnin
MS: Open Source! Prepare to die!
IBM: *SMACK*
MS: Fuck, that hurts.
Open Source: W0ot! Thanks IBM!
so you will have to excuse their ignorance of the other 5.5 billion people, they are too busy listening to mp3's and bowling in school to be educated about the rest of the world
Keep your friends close,
Keep your enemies even closer.
What problem can they have with sendmail?
When sendmail was written, Microsoft were only just getting off the ground. And it hasn't changed much since Microsoft still thought the internet was a fad.
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
You don't understand. Microsoft *has* to do this sooner or later if they really start losing marketshare to OSS. You see, MS has shareholders. The shareholders will make them do it, even if the management disagrees. Even if Bill and Steve think this is a bad move, the shareholders can force them to try to (cringe) "monetize" their IP.
My department lost ten man-hours today because several of my people opened up an email attachment - let loose the new Bagle variant. Even a self-styled geek opened the payload. Yes, their software is a cost center. We have to pay for such lousy software up front (It COSTS) and keep paying in the back for lost man-hours (It COSTS).
don't want the masses to bingo to the fact of extensive weather modification going on. That sat was a threat to keeping that knowledge secure, or better, to still be able to deny it.
Not necessarily. Microsoft "products" stink bad enough to make even the flies sick.
MS: Open Source! Prepare to die!
IBM: *SMACK*
MS: Fuck, that hurts.
MS: *CLICK* *CLICK* *SHA-CLACK* (the sound of Billy G's fully automatic lawsuit-i-nator being loaded)
IBM: Oh shit...
MS: Bitch, this ain't 1885. We own the desktops now, we own the servers, too, and you got nothing! When were you last in the top 10 computer makers? Five years ago? Ten? You're pathetic.
MS: *BLAMBLAMBLAM* (IBM is mortally wounded by the impact of 427 simultaneous legal motions filed at 900 m/s)
IBM: Mommy! (IBM crawls off into relative obscurity)
MS: Alright Open Source, time to die!
This memo is two years old. One has to wonder if they've already taken the action HP anticipated. Taking a second look at the MS / SCO conspiracy theories with this memo in hand makes them seem that much more likely.
Worse still, the battle could put the whole question of software patents back on the table. If governments eliminate software patents, the entire portfolio goes poof.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Buf of course Mono will be fine and M$ will leave it alone because M$ loves OSS.
Even though we have short term protection, we need to lower our profile while still shipping products. We need to examine reducing our exposure on pre-loading Linux by off loading it to the channels exclusively.
We will need to change how we donate software to the open source, probably the type of license we use, lower the profile of our opensource portal, etc.
Basically, "we need to hope Microsoft doesn't see us." I'd love to see "We need to be prepared to stand up to them in court and kick their ass." HP has the money to do it. But this is pathetic.
Do you have ESP?
The only reason anyone would want to take action on a patent in such a manner would be in order to draw attention to themselves (e.g. a patent pool peddling patents). There is nothing MS can gain by doing this, and they aren't going to shut anything or anyone down. It is more than likely to backfire on them.
It's a cold war, and rogue nations would threaten to use the weapons (i.e. file a lawsuit to grab attention) - MS is a superpower, they are not going to push that button.
It just won't happen. MS is too worried about patents itself. They are only meaningful if you don't use them. Once you use them you lose any advantage that you may have had.
First, it means that we won't have n00bi3 lus3rz complaining that Linux isn't friendly because the desktop isn't bloated enough and doesn't offer enough shiny things to click on that cause the hard drive to grind for 30 minutes and then the computer crashes. This is beneficial to the free software developer community because we'll have more time to spend developing good algorithms for useful things that might not look pretty, as opposed to wasting a lot of time supporting all kinds of retarded bloated insecure standards that make the computer do stupid things because that's what PHBs want.
Secondly, it means that some of Microsoft's retarded patents that shouldn't have been awarded in the first place will come under close scrutiny.
Third, it means that the government will find a reason to bust Microsoft, because this is so obvious that even the government, the most retarded entity in existance, will eventually figure it out.
Fourth, the broken patent system, and the larger encompassing and more thoroughly broken system known as intellectual property, will come under scrutiny.
Fifth, you can rest assured that the software will continue to be developed. You'll just have to download it from some other country and assemble the pieces on your own.
Sixth, a lot of script kiddies, 1337 h4x0rz, black hats, and otherwise disgruntled programmers will get mad and make tons and tons and tons and tons more viruses, worms, hacks, cracks, r00t kits, and other problems targeting the various broken Microsoft platforms. Because Microsoft software is so shitty, so broken, so bloated, so garbagey, so junky, so crappy, so slimy, so dirty, so slopped together, that no matter how many infinites of infinites of infinites, to the infinite power, to the infinite power, to the infinite power of the infinite power, of monkeys they have over there pounding on keyboards, they will never be able to patch the shit up faster than 1337z h4x0rz can make hacks for it. And that means that try as they might, Microsoft will NOT be able to put the genie of free software back into the bottle from whence it came. Because the genie is out of the bottle.
Bill and Darl are a bunch of fucking dorks. They can take a long walk on a short pier for all I care. FUCK MS!!!!! MS SUCKS!!!!!!
Microsoft is a big player. A stinkin'-big monster. But even the monsters can die, when swarmed with overwhelming number of individually weak enemies. Like when a rodent visits a beehive; the bees, much smaller themselves than the animal, feed it with enough poison - for the cost of lives of many of them - to kill it. Then they push it out of the hive, or seal the dead body off the rest of the hive with wax.
Not even the biggest players can survive long after making enemies all around.
Seems like these days, about the only one making threats at Microsoft are Gates and Ballmer. The real work is done by proxy -- through SCO, which at this point in time looks like a faliure. Also at ADTI, which was an abysmal failure. Now, a two year old scare memo from HP. Why is it surfacing now? From whom did it come -- and what is their motivation to put out an ancient strategy memo? In the world of computing, two years is a lifetime.
Putting my tinfoil-hat on, I seriously wonder if someone somehow at HP's dear partner Microsoft asked for a leak of this memo. It would certainly fit right in with the FUD-by-proxy strategy that Microsoft seems to be using to tide them over until their Next Big Big Big OS Release (tm).
Still it is a chilling look at the tactics that those of us who have been in the industry a couple of decades have grown used to.
Final thought: might this bode well for Apple?
The problem with the theory that acquiring patents protects one from "IP Companies" is that those IP Extorsionists don't actually make a product. With no product, there is nothing to leverage another protective patent against.
That is, having a patent portfolio to throw back in someone's face lets, say IBM and Microsoft or Sun to face eachother down because the "cross licensing" factor.
But "I am violating your patent while you violate mine, so lets do a deal" breaks down utterly when "the other party" doesn't have a product. That is, when Eolas (sp?) beat up Microsoft over patents, Eolas had the extreme advantage of having no product to "defend" in the exchange-of-fire. Eolas' own incompetence and lack of venture made them immune to counter-patent argument.
The reason that an IP Holding Company is such a disaster for us (technologists) as a comercial whole is that we have no leverage to push back against.
An IP holding company has no product, no market, vanishingly little capital, and no need of "good will in the marketplace". In short they are as smooth as a bowling-ball.
It is like an aircraft carrier (IBM with some Product) comming up against bombardment from space via aimed asteroid (an IP Holding Company.) There is nothing else to fire back against so all the guns in the world are of no use. You are left with only mobility and prayer. So small companies that can turn on a dime are less useful targets to an IP company because they are harder to hit and less satisfying to sink.
I would think that every software company everywhere would be desperate to remove software patentability.
After all, I could be nearly destitute, and a manufacturer of nothing, and hold a patent. Then I just need to hire a lawyer on spec to sue the IBMs of the world. They can't hurt me with thier patents (since I have no product) and I can soak them for money, all "at risk" with my lawyer on spec.
Software Patents in the hands of IP holding companies is asking for doom.
Were all software patents voided this very instant, with none to follow, every company on the planet would be instantly in a better possition despite the "loss of IP". Sure, they would "lose" the money they had already spent, and small upstarts could challenge their software, but it would be like "instantly" removing all the nuclear weapons all at once as if by magic.
The disarmament would be simultaneous and complete, and would free up assets and reduce risks to zero on a whole front of contention.
But most companies are too dumb to see that, and most "IP Lawyers" would lose their livelyhood. So it will never happen.
But until it does happen, any company can be soaked for Patent Extortion by any tiny patent held by a non-entity.
This is what I like to think of as "the instantanious, self-punishing nature of life". They feel that they *must* have this stone around their necks, and they keep trying to make the stone heavier and then they don't understand why they are so tired all the time.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Because someday people will realize that code is authored, not invented, and then MS will be sued for copyright infringement over, and over, and over again.
> Microsoft has a $50 billion war chest with which to fight patents in court. Who's going to pay for the lawyers who will be defending the open source projects?
:-)
Gee, beats me... I'm without words... lemme see...
1) a government, like Munich's prefecture?
2) maybe Germany's lawyers have their own ideas about what can be used on Germany's territory?
3) maybe some countries in EU like Germany, France and Netherlands decide to show Microsoft that "this is not America"?
4) or, who knows, India, Germany, Brazil, France, Finland, Sweden, Japan, Peru, Malaysia, China, Korea, New Zealand, Spain, among others, decide to team up against such idiotic patents?
5) or maybe many countries who participate in WTO tell Microsoft what to... ok, let's keep this civilized.
Besides, shareholders get very nervous when you say you have to sue to keep doing business...
I could mod you for parts 1 through 5, which are rather insightful, but 6 is insupportable. No one writing damaging software is leet. I hope you're joking. Come back from the dark side. This is a joke, right.
Software patents threatens all software development and innovation in all software industry not in only free software. Free software is however somewhat more vulnerable as it is impossible to solve patent issues by licence fees.
The only option for free software would be to trade patents, but the problem is that few free sofware developers do patent their stuff. So there will be little to trade.
Besides, how do we handle companies buying or seeking patents on technology without having any software business on ther own. Companies just sitting on patens waiting for some patented technology to become a taxable hit. Not even companies like IBM would be able to fight them by using their enormeous list of patents as a weapon, as they could if the enemy was an ordinary software producein company.
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
this sounds like another attempt by micrsoft to keep their stranglehold on their monopoly of the computer market. there was an article in Wired about a person that made his money by sueing companies for apparent copyright infrigment. i beleive this is a similar case. Gates doesnt like open source b/c it takes his business. Im tired of MS monopolizing the computer industry and I'd love to see MS fall to open source(or Apple, either one)
Long ago, I heard from a friend of a friend what it was like to "partner" with HP and with MS. Supposedly HP was like a rich but eccentric relative. You weren't quite sure what HP would do, but you did know that it would pay for you in the end even if it didn't pay for HP. MS was like a sort of domesticated crocodile. It usually would behave depending in part on how edible you were, but you never put anything near its mouth and you read all the fine print.
Uh, do you know just how big IBM is?
Lets put it this way: IBM is to Microsoft as Magic Johnson is to Mini-me.
And as for numbers of patents or lawyers? IBM is to Microsoft as sand on a beach is to sand in your $1.50 egg-timer.
Believe me, Microsoft may be big in the software world, but when it comes to companies and patents, they are still only small-fry.
I always wondered why they dumped their great linux-based NAS products in favor of the piece-of-shit Microsoft Windows Storage Server. Microsoft, I will hate you forever.
I'm not worried about any knife in the back from IBM.
I once cheered Bill as he took IBM to the woodshed, I loved Win95 *gasp*. But I've changed and so has IBM. They've proven by their actions over the last 5 years that they 'get it'. They are going to take good care of the golden goose.
1000 SlashDot sigs
The US patent system is not worldwide... it extends only as far as the US Empire extends.
Even if MS gets the entire US Congress and court system to bend over and take it in the rear... even if it drives open source out of every server in the US.... there is a limit to its potential power... the law of intellectual property regimes only extends as far as the military and political might of the American empire.
Ultimately the conflict over intellectual property regimes escalates to an international and civilizational conflict, in which some nations (China, India) will use the OSS model... and enjoy its benefits.
The corrupt American empire, bought and owned by the multinational corporations that it once liscensed but that now licsence it, will not be able to compete.
At that point either (1) the US loosens up its intellectual property regime, moves away from "software patents" and other bad ideas, and remains competitive on an international economic level... or (2) its relative position in the world begins to slide as India/China and the World realize the economic externalities in an OSS software intellectual property regime and use them to compete.
The intellectual property regime we are constructing in the US is a deadweight on US international power.... a deadweight that large corporations would love to see remain in place.
It will be interesting to see what path we choose, given the paths that India and China will surely choose toward OSS.
(Of course... paradoxically... if you think the US is too powerful in the world... in this dialectical model, you would then root for the success of Microsoft, software patents and all sorts of other nonesense to ultimately reduce the power of the American empire. But you can resolve the paradox by considering that there are two kinds of power.... the power of domination and the power of leadership... power that is "we win/ you lose" versus power that involves "we win, and you win too." )
The losers in this war are the American (as in US) companies and civilians.
Microsoft will chew us up, while the rest of the world takes over with OSS.
Lets put it this way: IBM is to Microsoft as Magic Johnson is to Mini-me.
I have a pretty good idea of how large IBM and Microsoft are. Microsoft is large enough and has a large enough warchest that IBM's legal staff can't walk all over them. However, IBM has the initiative here (since they've been supporting open source for a while now) and part of Microsoft's delay in implementing a patent attack on open source may be due to IBM, HP, and other big companies with significant legal resources.
The only option for free software would be to trade patents, but the problem is that few free sofware developers do patent their stuff. So there will be little to trade.
I agree. Furthermore, much of the real "OSS economy" operates without money being involved, and thus it would be difficult to fund patent production.
It *would* potentially be possible, though it would make me a bit uncomfortable, due to the GPL bias, for a company to "cross patent" with the GPLed world. Basically, to say "you may use any patents we have *if* you are using them in GPLed software". If that company is writing GPLed software, they recieve the benefit of all the other patent holders that have climbed on. In essence, the company retains its IP monopoly unless another company is using that IP to produce IP that *they* do not have a monopoly over.
This is good for all companies that do not intend to use their patent portfolio as weapons against GPL-using competitors (which, at least thus far, are probably most companies). This would be an extremely bad trend for Microsoft, for instance.
I'd imagine that someone has suggested this before, but I haven't heard anything about such an initiative.
May we never see th
It's irrelevant, because neither company is going to get in an all-out war with the other. It would be stupid. It's why you don't attack someone about the same height and weight as you in an open arena -- you're going to get hurt, no matter what happens, and there are many more enjoyable things that you *could* be doing, like stepping on ants (or better, mugging squirrels for their nuts or something).
Lets put it this way: IBM is to Microsoft as Magic Johnson is to Mini-me.
Not really. IBM has a market cap of $143 billion, Microsoft of $300 billion according to quote.yahoo.com today.
May we never see th
it won't work - even if they get the patent and try to shut down apache it will only help prove that MS is evil and that the patent and IPR regime is a fraudulent method of legalized theft supported by corrupt lawyers and politicos.
I like the idea of MS openly acting like the evil scum suckers they really are, only once again out in public (with no proxies) and likely in court.
they will reap the whirlwind
one cannot give something away that is patented? Is it really illegal to make something that is patented, but GIVE IT AWAY?
Of course in the context of real devices, this would not be practical because materials have to come from somewhere, but isn't software different?
Has anyone interpeted the law in this way? Maybe it would end up being illegal to sell patented software, but not illegal to simply make it available to others.
Have there been decisions in the courts along these lines?
Blogging because I can...
Hm, maybe that's why HP is working with Apple on iTunes + iPod...Some "strongest partner".
It's not such a happy old world. Sure HP is a hardware company but being a partner with MSFT means some dire things for any OS or Software company trying to work with HP.
HP slips out a Linux laptop. MSFT stomps on it behind the scense, HP wants to put Linux in its sales material. MSFT stomps on it.
Sometimes HP gets its way but mostly MSFT hinders competitors behind the scenes in ways Linux or Netscape or... never do against MSFT.
It was maybe 4 years ago I called Dell asking if I could get a Linux laptop, or a laptop without windows. No No No... I said ok, I'm going to purchase another laptop then.
You are not going to find a laptop without windows.
Sure! Its not a namebrand but I found one on the Internet. They even install Linux if you ask.
Who?
You've got a web browser. Search for it yourself. Thanks for your 'help.'
Those of us that have followed microsoft and linux know exactly what was going on. It has everything to do with 'Microsoft Partners.'
Now before going off on Linux isnt a big enough market and doing QA for linux would be too much work, It was clear I was looking for a laptop without windows. It didnt need to be a laptop with Linux. Same could be said for BeOS or *BSD or
Have some choice patents waiting if Microsoft interferes with their ability to use open source. It doesn't matter if MS has more, just one of the other guy's patents will stick and cover some major aspect of Windows MS can't easily work around. Look how much trouble browser plugins patent caused. Like titlebar on windows or something. It would be nicer if software patents were outlawed, just like patents on mathematic formulas. But in the meantime, guaranteed mutual destruction counts for something.
I thought that about IBM, and deeper... It seems to the tech industry patent situation is a powder keg just waiting for a match. Every major company which has been in the field for awhile has enough critical patents to utterly strangle everyone else. If real patent war broke out, the tech industry would be smashed back to the level of ENIAC. Thus, patents are like thermonukes: everybody wants them, everybody hopes never to use them.
This is, I think, a part of the reason IBM is not wielding its patent portfolio against SCO. It absolutely does not want to touch off "patent war one".
Microsoft probably has similar inhibitions.
On behalf of my employer, I'm preparing a matrix to compare the relative strengths and weaknesses of the hardware vendors that have tendered a quote for my project.
While this internal HP memo is not the only factor leading to this, I included the following statement to the notes area of the section concerning Hewlett Packard;
Commitment to our platform of choice is questionable
Given that my employer places an emphasis on vendor support, I expect that statement to weigh heavily against HP in our deliberations.
There are many vendors of commodity hardware and the differentiator for many organisations is the level of support. I think HP has raised reasonable doubts about their level of commitment to support for a platform that is increasingly prevalent in the industry and that will cost them business.
Who cares if Microsoft goes after OSS in the US? They can really only sue American companies in American courts. They'll have an uphill battle in Europe and god help them if they even attempt it in China. They'll have a tough time suing individual developers (not that it's impossible, but it certainly won't be easy, and unlike the RIAA they're likely to find a lot of the defndands won't settle quickly), so most of the US based OSS contributors can continue their work and Linus et al can simply move back to Europe if need be. And even Microsoft can't afford to start suing every company that uses Linux or Apache - they might be able to afford the lawyers but even the most MS-friendly IT department is going to have a tough time convincing a CEO to buy millions of dollars worth of software from a company that's presently suing them.
So essentially Red Hat and a few other companies go out of business and the OSS community otherwise goes on unhindered. At worst, public adoption of Linux slows a bit and already market-dominating products like Apache and sendmail continue on unabated. Microsoft's lawsuits would do very little damge and utterly destroy their public image.
They're hoarding patents to protect themselves against other patent-hoarding companies; they're not dumb enough to try to use them against OSS. This is just plain and simple FUD.
Yes!
I hope they manage to kill sendmail, so we will get rid of it and get more secure MTA's.
Evolution of Language Through The Ages: 6000 BC : ungh, grrf, booga 2000 AD : grep, awk, sed
that does cover it, sadly.
Dammit we do need reform.
I am totally ok with companies making money, but not ok with the current status quo. They are assured that right for far too long. We lose (the potential fruits of innovation) as a result.
Blogging because I can...
"They are specifically upset about Samba, Apache and Sendmail." they are upset because these 3 together have the ability to keep MS out of the server arena entirely. the 3 main services your going to want to run on any network are likely to be web, email and file sharing.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Did anyone point this out yet?
We'd best be watching our back. In fact, I think I'm going to drop ASCII and Unicode. Then Microsoft won't be able to see me at all.
Wow. Microsoft could use patents to attack open source. Um, yeah. Newsflash: The sky is blue! Oh wait, that's old news too.
The truth is that this has always been a weakness of open source. Anyone with some patents and a grudge can attack it. I don't think that a memo from someone other than Microsoft which is 2 years old changes the equation at all. The fact that MS hasn't done so since the memo was published should give pause to the troll posting this. Perhaps they haven't because they don't intend to.
2 years ago, how many big companies were behind OSS? Also, how many government and military institutions were running Linux compared to now?
:) )
OSS has a lot more "big guns" (literally in some cases) behind it. Couldnt these big players (esp IBM) petition the government to abolish software patents?
(There was a mention somewhere that MS would wait till 6 months before Longhorn was released before trying this. This would be great, as patents only last 20 years
What exactly has MS patented that can shut down OSS completely?
I think that this memo's content is actually an indication of how MS are bullying their partners into not supporting the Open-Source movement. The section on Industry Reaction reads "Dell backed out of a lot of Linux activity and laid off their Linux marketing group, and Intel went radio silent on Linux publicity in March" and may just be hot air to scare HP away from adding their support to any open source project.
The paragraph titled 'Microsoft's Intentions' talks about suing companies whose use of Samba isn't covered by a patent-sharing cross-licence. And those that don't will have their Microsoft licence forcibly changed to exclude their use of F/OSS products.
Either I'm misreading this phrase "OEMs like HP that they force a change in their cross license to exclude open source software" or it's clear what's going on here: HP are forced to exclude the combined use of OSS projects when Microsoft products are also installed and delivered sold by HP as the OEM.
I'm really glad I got rid of WinXP this weekend (moved to FC2 -- thanks to the community sites that helped me!). I'm shocked by the behaviour of Microsoft and surprised HP didn't have more balls.
Take care.
love K3n.
Yes, Sendmail is much older than any MS mail system. Yes, Sendmail is ancient, obscure, cranky and historically buggy. That's not the point. The point is that Sendmail provides copper bottomed prior art for all other Internet or multi-protocol mail transfer agents, and, as the dominant MTA of today's world, prevents Microsoft imposing new delivery and authentication protocols without negotiating with Open Source.
Obviously in a clueful, uncorrupt legal system Sendmail would have to be secure against patent infringement suits from Microsoft, simply because of its primordial venerability. However, if Microsoft could find a lever to attack Sendmail, then all other open source mail transport agents would almost certainly fall too. You'd better hope the courts are clueful and uncorrupt, and that Sendmail can afford to pay defence lawyers.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
It'd help if the link you provide actually goes over the topic. Blah, blah, Linux, blah, NFS, blah, unix.. well, DUH, but what about windows? The link you provided was no better than if I had typed "windows nfs" in google.
Heh, I just realised another benefit for Microsoft - Threaten to sue everybody using OSS equivalents to their products, and then include the defence teams legal costs in Total Cost of Ownership comparisons...
"A goldfish was his muse, eternally amused"
the network-reverse-engineering process results in finding security holes in microsoft products.
as a responsible individual, even before i went to work for Internet Security Systems i was reporting bugs directly AND IN CONFIDENCE to microsoft to give them a chance to fix them - in some cases i gave them well over two years to fix the problems.
it's really easy to find problems in microsoft products.
this fucking dipshit patent shit scares people away from interoperating and consequently finding problems.
McLibel.
And so it begins ...
...and it begs the question, could pro-opensource researchers setup multiple independent IP thinktanks and IP holding companies, and then henpeck M$ to death with patent lawsuits?
after all M$ is the biggest and least mobile target there is.
A mass scale patent attack would leave Bill's empire weakened. The vast number of their patents are of the FAT file system/screen pager variety which should be easily invalidated. The last thing MS needs is a large number of lost patent actions, followed by a reform of the patent system. MS is an innovator and not an inventor, and they will find out that patents are far more useful to inventors.
-- $G
Software isn't something you manufacture industrially, developed software is something you publish. The question you americans has to start asking is whether your constitution really allowes that publishing can lead to patent infringiment. I do not think it does.
Compare to a method patent, a method is also something that you can publish, but the publisher does not infringe any patents (copyright maybee), the PTO publishes, it is only the one hwo actually is using the method hwo infringes.
If it is possible to infringe with a published work, then it belongs under copyright, not patents. Anything else could be called a sort of neufeudalism, does your constitution allow feudalism?
But Microsoft does more than pretend that IE is part of the OS, they actually have integrated it ... more than is wise. That's WHY IE bugs have become so bad - is because subverting the browser gives deeper OS access than if it were simply a browser.
As for the Taurus audio, I have to at least partly agree that the thing is proprietary as all get-out. For those that don't own one, the Taurus audio is a big oval, instead of the compact rectangle that is standard. Mine (1999, 2nd hand company car) has provisions for a CD player in the trunk, though I have no idea if the connector is 'standard' or not. Why have I never thought to check google on this before now? I checked the local junkyard years ago, and they wanted $200 for the unit. (Just checked google, the junkyard was a bargain.)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
It's why Miguel Icaza scares the living daylights out of me. I first got peripherally involved with GNOME as I was exiting using OS/2, since the O in GNOME stood for Object. At the time it seemed to me that KDE was clearly chasing Windows.
Then I found that the GNOME mantra was, "Windows done right." IMHO it's quite possible that Windows just might be architecturally broken, and not possible to "do right" at all. The rash of exploits indicates that security played no part in the base architecture, and efforts to retrofit it have trod a wide, meandering line between compatibility and security.
Try to clone something, even "do it right," and you're going to be risking patent lawsuites. The push to Mono scares me even more, since they're approaching Microsoft's crown-jewels-to-be. What's worse is that the patent process is SO SLOW that Mono may be violating a patent application today, but nobody will know until the patent issues and someone gets served. IMHO, Mono is a "Come stop me!" challenge to Microsoft. I can't imagine them not obliging, and just hope Mono isn't too big a pinch point to Linux when it happens.
As for "Windows done right," I just wish the Linux community hadn't set its sights so low. Amiga was out there, the OS/2 WPS was out there, BE/OS was out there. I know the target market was/is to get people to migrate from Windows. A "compatibility crippler" from something better would have sufficed.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The GPL and other Open Source licenses cuts off his ability to commercially exploit FOSS and that ruins the MS business model. It IS the long term threat and they'll battle against it until they're a mere shell of their current selves.
If the GPL had an inherent weakness it would probably be exposed by now. RMS' genius was understanding how to cut off the commercial exploitation of free software. SCO's attacks have been useful in helping create an understanding of how to defend ourselves more effectively by documenting the history more carefully. In my opinion, "intellectual property" is kind of oxymoronic in the end. There might be temporary commercial advantages in it but, as a previous poster suggested, it doesn't work well in the long run against non-commercial entities without a product.
Even with a Supreme Court on the good side of it, fear a Cyberpunk-like pay-per-view middle-age: there are a lot of real-world dominations issues at stake with the patent system, medical drugs not being the least of them. Free software (and free speech for that matter) is expendable for Western executive powers in comparison with the enormous amount of racketeering power at hand where you possess the only remedy that can cure the President of the Democratic Republic of Congo from whatever disease he suffers from.
In Soviet Russia, etc.
HAHAHAHAh!
never would have thought MS would stoop so low
I am not sure Microsoft was ever that high.
Things Microsoft use today that were borrowed from others or open source:
- tcp/ip, netbios
- Windows from Xerox and Apple
- IMAP, POP3, LDAP, Kerberos
- NTP, SMTP, HTTP, SSL/TLS
- MIME, RPC, C, C++, Java
- Word processing, spreadsheets
I likely missed alot. But the fact remains that if you took Microsoft code out of Linux, you would not change Linux at all. If you took open source out of Microsoft Windows it would not even boot.
Microsoft is like the wolf that is complaining because the chickens are all gone.
Microsoft is like Ford, they did not invent the automobile. They simply packed it for the masses. And today, Microsoft like Ford - Microsoft is just another player.
Microsoft, a company who has stolen IP from so many other companies that settling such cases out of court has become part of their costs of doing business, has decided that IP litigation is the only way they can compete.
Every time I read one of their PR pieces about the importance of IP, it makes me gag! No other company in the history of the US has paid so little attention to other's IP rights! Orwell would be proud!
"I think so, Brain, but isn't Bill Gates already putting on a puppet show of sorts? NARF!"
"No Pinky! Can't you see? Microsoft still hasn't innovated, they've copied SCO tactics. My plan for global domination by bogging the world in unending patent lawsuits for all the world's software is working perfectly!"
pray that we end up like the other "Cold War"
It's appropriate that Microsoft refers to it as MAD. For Microsoft's sake, I'd strongly recommend they review each of the components of MAD - mutually assured destruction.
How would Microsoft be affected? I, like many other members of the F/OSS, spend many hours of my day dealing with Microsoft uses and their customers. I'm increasingly irritated with the support time their products require, though I've attributed a good portion of that to the lack of sophistication of the user. Yesterday I spent four hours dealing with rather messed up registry disaster problem.
Instead of fixing, I'm going to replace and eliminate. I will no longer quietly support Microsoft products, and instead will advise affected parties that the solution is to use something else. We know this to be the recommended solution for IE. I've already done this with Mozilla (quite successfully, with several hundred converts in the past month alone) for some time. Microsoft wants a "us vs. them" but may not realize the mutual part of the destruction means "them too." I'm ready to start doing my part.
Yeah, but MS doesn't build anything worth beans except flight simulator and IBM builds lots of cool stuff ;-)
It is conceivable that Microsoft might start going after FOSS authors for patent infringement, but...
It is likewise conceivable that once they start doing this, every FOSS author could sue Microsoft as well. Remember the EOLAs case? $500 million from one patent.
The pendulum swings both ways. The thousands of FOSS developers could, regardless of actual merit, file so many lawsuits that the cost of MS defending their patents would be more trouble than its worth.
This is what is more likely to happen:
As Dan Lancaster's case against patents points out, patent enforcement is a farce. Yes, it does work when the litigants are large companies, but, more often than not, patent infringement suits are a waste of money. The plaintiff almost always pays as much or more than the patent is actually worth to win the lawsuit, and each lawsuit only stops that particular defendant. Dan points out how easy it is for a patent-infringing CEO to be sued into bankruptcy, only to turn around and start another company doing the exact same thing - after which, the lawsuit process must be started all over again!
He also points out how easy it is to get a patent declared invalid. If anyone can find any prior art, or even show that the invention was "obvious", there goes the plaintiff's case.
And Microsoft, I believe, won't pursue many cases against FOSS software. The reason is simple: they understand that the value of their product is derived primarily from the fact that it can connect to the internet, and that the internet is built primarily upon open standards. If a FOSS developers were to create and patent a better internet protocol - one which required a GPL-like license to use - they could effectively shut Microsoft out of the market simply by introducing an incompatibility between UNIX and Windows machines . In much the same way that Microsoft engineered incompatibilities into Windows so that Lotus wouldn't run, the UNIX world could shut Microsoft out of the market by refusing a connection from a Windows machine.
And the real rub - we could do it by creating a "secure" TCP/IP protocol - one that required a cryptographic handshake generated by a patented algorithm. Where would Microsoft be if using the internet meant that you had to run a Linux machine? (or FreeBSD, etc...)
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
As Thomas Jefferson said:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
Thomas Jefferson
Now just 'cause an 18th century slave holder said it, doesn't mean its true. I'm well aware of the US' leading role in making "IP" the subject of ownership. The fact that it is what makes the US empire what it is today, doesn't mean it is the right way to structure capitalism on the planet earth.
Patents and intellectual property were originally constructed to provide incentives for the creation of products and ideas that might not otherwise be created.... gradually they have become a means to stifle the creativity of others.
I believe the world would be a richer, more productive place if the right to "own an idea" were recognized for the artificial and creativity stunting idea that it is, and if the notion of "IP" were greatly limited in duration and scope.
IP is a deadweight on US power because it concentrates the right to be creative and productive in an increasingly narrow class of large corporations which are able to compete thorugh access to political power rather than in the market place, and through reliance on military might rather than through the creation of innovative products.
I well understand what IP is, and I'm pretty clear that it is being used in ways that are counter to its original limited intentions.
There is justification for giving an author a few years of revenue... there is justification for giving an innovator a FEW years to profit from an idea.... indefinite copyrights.... massive patent portfolios used as legal weapons... these are not in the public's or the planet's interest.
What is left to compete with you ask? Solutions.... or as you derisively call it... service. People will compete with Brainpower... providing people to solve your problems. The cost of service will not reach zero because smart people will continue to command salaries for their time.
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea...."
set up an OSS organization, devoted to cull the best from the OSS and patent it. Then allow only OSS to use these patents free of charge. Any commercial entity wanting to use these patents can license them for a fee. These fees can then be plowed back into OSS development or to fund other public patents. I know that if OSS develops something, then its prior art. Unfortunately, the patent office and the courts are totally ignoring this prior art.
Also, any new standards that are developed for the Internet, could stipulate the use of these public patents. Use of these patents would only be allowed only if they are followed to the letter. Any deviation or modification would be grounds for revocation of the right to use. This would give teeth to enforcement of standards. We're in this mess with IE right now. MS took public standards, and then extended them in order to lock everyone into WinBloze. There is not much the public can do to punish M$ for this crime against the public good. If this patent system was in place, then this organization could sue and revoke M$'s ability to have products that break all of the standards. M$ talks about how everyone should conform to its standards. How about for once, M$ being forced to comply with the world's standards?
Quit playing Monopoly with Bill.
Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
I think that the prior art documenting is a good idea but I really think that we need to start writing a lot of letters to our representatives about the problems with software patents and that the system needs to be redesigned. I feel that someone should make up a bunch of letters for people that do not have the time or do not know how to write a strong arguementative latter about this. We need to show the government the problems, we need to give specific examples of open source projects that held certain patented ideas first and prove this with documentation, changelogs, etc, we also need to show them that many open source projects are legal, government recognized non-profit organizations, we also need to show them how this will affect the rest of the nation and especially how it will effect the government. We need to show them all of the know critical opensource deployments within the government. We may also have to express to the government how open source feels about patents and even present some of the absurb patents to them. If someone like FSF or GNU would write up some strong letters, I am sure any of us would be happy to send them to our local officials. I have already sent one but my arguement was no where near as strong as one that would be written by a lawyer or someone that possesses more knowledge of the law.
I suppose M$ will try to patent the power cords to our computers next...
Holy bejeebus, dude.
How many times are you going to post the same link?
If I post the link myself will I get the same indie slash-cred that you got?
Maybe I'll just repeat this on ALL your threads. +8 here I come!
Relying not on the integrity of the patent system (or even the ludicrous concept of patenting a concept) but on an extensive campaign of litigation to prevent any other country from making any attempt to gain real inroads into the technology sector. This abuse is being foisted upon the global community by the US Government to extract a tax from every person on the planet either by the dishonest and unscrupulous application of licensing agreements based upon the disintegrating US patent system or via civil actions within US courts as an alternate source of government revenue (what would be called barretry it most modern countries passes as acceptable within US courts).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
I really wish I had mod points today instead of a few days ago, yours is the best post in this thread, and by far the most insightful.
:-)
In conclusion, "Yeah, what he said."
Actually I like the idea of that. anyone registered LawForge.net yet?
Do you have a photo still of this remarkable phenomenon? It would be great fun to send a copy to our favorite software giant with an helpful arrow indicating "This is you!".
I find it somehow ironic that they include Samba in there ... after I've repeatedly read that many Microsoft consultants use it for quick demo sessions or such.
..."
Right next to that, one usually reads that many companies are even using Samba, with the Management being unaware coz the admins just put it on a box without telling anyone. They'd be forced to remove it and the servers would become unavailable.
Kinda makes me picture that day where Bill (well, his bribe money really) wins a major court battle against Samba, and the next day he boots his Longhorn (wierd wording that in itself is), a screen pops up and says "sorry the server couldn't be found