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.'"
US patents are not recognised in Europe or China or India or Asia, dont you see the US is not the world, if EU ever did respect software patents MS would have to re-apply for every single patent all over again, good luck with that
Novell
IBM
Redhat
ILM
Google
Oracle
etc.
Any company that contributes to or heavily relies on open source.
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.
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.
Umm, Microsoft already does this, and you already mentioned it: SCO is (was) a sock-puppet for Microsoft. They received a large indirect cash infusion from MS to continue with their litiginous ways. Microsoft already understands the PR aspect of this. If they act on it, it will be through 3rd parties, just as the US works through 3rd world contries.
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
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
I remember having this functionality on win3.11 with extra software that was installed by hp.
BAN BPL! Keep the radio spectrum free fro
The question is, what kind of cross-licensing agreement(s) does IBM have with MS? Many large tech companies cross-license their entire portfolios in order to avoid patent litigation wars.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
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
". 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."
1 4658,00 .html
Yep and its doesn't matter how big you are. As big as Intel was they had to back down when Microsoft threatened them.
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,
Then again what company didn't Microsoft threaten in the 90's?
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
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?
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.
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
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.
That's just the way it is - a patent "grants the holder the right to exclude others from manufacturing, using, selling or importing the invention". In all the patent rules and laws I've seen at various PTOs, I haven't actually seen any explicit mention of a prohibition on giving away copies of the invention but the manufacturing bit is enough anyway. Manufacturing copies of a software 'invention' is effectively unavoidable if you're giving it away.
The right of the software patent holder to exclude others from using the idea is just as sickening of course - it always struck me how outrageous it was that I could implement the RSA algorithm in a few commands piped together in the shell, and yet technically, the patent holders could legally prevent me from doing so.
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.
"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....
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.
...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.
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 $200 for the unit. (Just checked google, the junkyard was a bargain.)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
"Buf of course Mono will be fine and M$ will leave it alone because M$ loves OSS." Well, of course! Microsoft declared it an ECMA standard so that a Linux implementation would be made, but as it (just like X or QT) isn't built into the kernel like on Windows, .NET applications will perform worse on Linux than on Windows. The end result is that many popular Linux applications will be ported to Windows within no time, and they even perform better!
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!
After all this time, that should tell you something - they know the GPL is unassailable, and figure that uncertainty is the best position for FUD-launching that they've got.
Now why does the term, "Maginot Line" keep popping up in my head?
-Vous chevalier anglais idiot! Je casse le vent dans votre direction générale.