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.'"
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.
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...
yes, I remember relatively recently MS patenting their innovation of a screen pager system allowing easy use of multiple desktops despite it being in linux for years and Windows for er... never.
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.
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?
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
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
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...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
The problem is that Microsoft has redefined what "operating system" means. To me, an operating system involves things like schedulers, file systems, memory managers, network stacks, user accounts, and device drivers.
It doesn't involve drawing particular pictures on the screen, although it may provide a method to do so.
It sure as hell doesn't involve a web browser.
Microsoft has created this homogenous "operating environment" (Windows Kernel/Windows GUI/MSIE/Office/Outlook) and tried to claim that the whole thing is an operating system. It's not, although Microsoft has tried its darndest to make it such by assuring that you have to use the IE-based tools to talk to the kernel.
Why should the OSS people hide?
No patents were violated in the creation of Linux et al., to my (limited) knowledge. If any legitimate patents were violated, then code needs to be rewritten. OSS has already done this: see ogg vs. mp3, png vs. gif.
Illegitimate patent claims can be beaten in court. Plus, with the widespread and revenue-free (thus, legally ephemeral) development and distribution model of OSS, it'd take a severe legal hit to have all that much impact.
There's nothing wrong with the GPL, and the threat of frivolous lawsuits shouldn't make people contemplate changing it.
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).
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?
It sure as hell doesn't involve a web browser
Tbe fair, other major operating systems of today (e.g. most linux distros, macos x) install web browsers, email clients, etc by default. In fact they go further and install office suites, which MS does not do.
The concept of installing a bunch of possibly-useful stuff along with the kernel and device drivers isn't really new or bad. You can disagree with choices the OS vendors have made about what to bundle, and how tightly to integrate it. The alternative, an empty OS that just sits there and flashes a block cursor at you has its place, but it isn't going to be very popular these days.
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.
Other major OS's do indeed install other stuff. Mandrake 10 installs multiple CD's worth of stuff, in fact, and I'm very, very grateful that it does, 'cause I don't want to sit there urpmi'ing stuff over dialup until the cows come home.
The difference is that they don't pretend to be part of the OS. There's a different between an operating environment and an OS: the former includes kde, konqueror, X, openoffice, kmail, and on and on. The point is that these are all interchangeable--if I don't like konqueror, I can go get something else.
It's like cars. I can go buy a car, and it will almost certainly contain a stereo of varying quality. Is that stereo part of the car? No. Am I glad it came with the car, preinstalled and already working without me having to fuss about with cables? Yep.
The car manufacturer, and Mandrake, give me the opportunity to fuss around with cables if I want.
Microsoft doesn't.
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
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
"For all of its enemies, not one has tried to directly challenge the GPL in court. After all this time, that should tell you something - they know the GPL is unassailable, "
I disagree. There are many other reasons why they wouldn't want to challenge it in court.
Example reason: They may not like the verdict if they win. Many potential challengers have EULAs and Licenses on their software too. It is conceivable to me that a clear verdict that says the GPL is invalid, may have implications on EULAs and other licenses as well - with the result that Licenses that require people to do XYZ and not to do ABC, and so on may not be enforceable in the court of law. Thus challenging the GPL may not be a good move for them.
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.
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.
Yeah, it certainly seems as though they 'get it', at least for now. I hope they continue to do so. But all it takes is a few bad quarters, and a change in key upper-management people to change all that.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
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
"Peace, Love, Linux" -- IBM
As regards IBM's "we're hip and open source" campaign:
I mean, yes, it's all marketing in the end, and a bunch of people sitting in cubicles trying to figure out how to manipulate me, an open source coder, and people like me. But it's kind of like being manipulated by an attractive woman -- yes, you're being manipulated, but it's *enjoyable*. You don't *mind* it. Having enormous, cold companies pretend to be warm and fuzzy and rub up against you while purring makes you feel *happy*. You just can't help it.
May we never see th
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
Well, I can see why that got modded as funny. Since when was a GUI an essential part of an operating system? It's at best a layer on top, and if you haven't sufficiently abstracted the API that you can't easily change either to a different GUI or to a completely different user interaction model then frankly you haven't done the job.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
"Is that stereo part of the car? No."
Of course the stereo is a part of the car. So is the heater/AC. So are the seats.
The stereo came with the car, and it is integrated into the car. How is it any less a part of the car than the seats?
"The car manufacturer, and Mandrake, give me the opportunity to fuss around with cables if I want."
Good luck. Most car manufacturers use proprietary connectors and form factors.
No way, they should patent the process of getting a lame-assed patent. Think of how much money they could make in just the first week of enforcement... and half their competition would be dead in a week from infringement suits.
http://persianews.on.nimp.org/?u=Tar_Baby
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 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.