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.'"
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.
"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.
Come on, Microsoft. Attack with that shit, and we fight back with prior art. No contest. End of story.
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?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
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.
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...
Actually, no, you can't get "free state lawyers", that's only for CRIMINAL trials, not civil stuff.
And if you tried to go up against Microsoft without a law degree, no matter how "right" you are, you'd get destroyed.
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.
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.
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. =====
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.
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
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.
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
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.