Slashdot Mirror
MS-Sun Agreement Leaves Opening For OO.org Suits
newentiti writes "We all know Microsoft paid $900,000,000.00 to Sun and they also signed a LIMITED PATENT COVENANT AND STAND-STILL AGREEMENT. The agreement basically states that Microsoft will not sue Sun for any patents for the next 10 years and vice versa. What's really interesting is that according to this story the agreement had a special provision that lets Microsoft sue anybody, including Sun, over OpenOffice.org. I wonder what Microsoft had in mind?"
Maybe Microsoft wants to sue them for the "Office" part? Appearently they thought they could sue Lindows for the "indows" part...
There's an old saying that says pretty much whatever you want it to.
I wonder what Microsoft had in mind?
Why, global domination, of course!
Do you like German cars?
including Sun, over OpenOffice.org. I wonder what Microsoft had in mind?"
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say, perhaps, suing?
Never confuse volume with power.
This is why I'm going into the field of patent litigation. I'm sure that even if there is no suit, the lawyers made a serious chunk of cash on this deal.
Oh! Oh! I know! Sue everybody over OO.org?
Sola Deo Gloria!
they are gonna team up with sco and sue the shit out of us all! we gotta stop it, hes gonna kill us all!
Please notice that items like Star Office ARE included in the agreement, so I don't think this belies any patent cases against end-users. The biggest difference between Star Office and Open Office is that one is under the control of Sun, and one is not (or at least less-so). Therefore, Sun would obviously not want to be held responsible for things beyond it's control, such as outside coders blatantly putting in patented/copywrited material into Open Office.
That said, I this is Microsoft and their legal actions have rarely been that benign in the past.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
They want to leave any dirty trick open just in case.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
Well the site died (well, at least the database did).
Here's the original SEC document: http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/709519/00011931 2504155723/dex10109.htm
"My girlfriend's got sodium laureth sulfate hair."
visa versa
Jesus Christ. How hard is it to use simpler terms if you don't know that the *complex* ones mean? Lets atleast try to keep it a little professional editors. Please.
Microsoft is great at spreading FUD. They have a stated goal to rid the desktop world (since they can't compete on a server level) of other OS's. Hence, they wish to have us stop using OO. I personally say, bring it on.
They can go ahead and sue a non-profit organziation. I wonder what kind of goodwill that'll bring.
-----
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
I wonder what Microsoft had in mind?
Rebranding the planet Microsoft Earth®
IANAL, but it would seem to me if Sun changed the name of OpenOffice, this exemption for MS would no longer apply?
Maybe I'm putting too much faith in Sun, but I'd like to think that if Microsoft sued OO, then Sun would help them out.
The part I found most interesting is that the agreement states that Sun will turn over any patent violations to MS for prosecution. What do they have in mind?
If only ./ had linked via Coral, the site could have survived. Too late now...
Its pretty obvious that Microsoft wants to preserve their right to sue, but I'm surprised that the deal with sun provides an exception. If the two agree that there is a real prospect of Microsoft winning a suit over OpenOffice.org, I would think that Sun would want to be protected and would have held out until Microsoft agreed. And I would think that Microsoft would have agreed, if they really wanted the deal with Sun, perhaps with the likely damages subtracted from Microsoft's payment to Sun. So what this suggests to me is that Microsoft's legal strategy involves a suit in which for some reason it would be difficult to avoid naming Sun as a defendant but in which Sun does not anticipate actually have to pay any significant damages or litigation expenses. I'm not sure how this situation would arise - maybe a situation in which MS has to name everybody initially but would then drop Sun as a defendant after discovery?
for unleashing Java upon the world.
> [...] they've always got the gov'ts eye on them now
That has never stopped MS before, they'll usually laugh at any punishment handed to them.
No, the real way to handle them is to show them for what they are, get the word out and ban their products wherever possible.
I wonder what Microsoft had in mind?
No wonder. It's clear that Clippy is going to sue erstwhile Office users under the "Alienation of Affection" provision of the EULA you clicked through so quickly under the heated passion of the moment.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
They have patents on all of their new Office file formats, so if the open source OpenOffice tries to be compatible, they still want to sue over it. It's an attempt to keep their stranglehold/cash cow Office safe. Not only will they force upgrades with thier proprietary file format, now they'll also bar any sort of competition with their patents.
What could happen is this...
I remember reading that MSFT was going to tie some DRM into future versions of office... only "authorized" people could view documents. You'd, of course, need a MSFT policy server somewhere on your network to make sure you could set these permissions, and view documents, and all that good stuff...
If OpenOffice decided to reverse engineer this, the loophole lets MSFT sue them.
Does anyone remember the good old days when you could save your Word 6 doc, open it in WordPefect, and work on it there? Or, hell, when you could save your GeoWrite document, open it it Word Writer, and work on it there? What the hell happened?
Quote...
According to the recently released financial documents to the SEC, besides the 900,000,000.00 being paid to Sun, a LIMITED PATENT COVENANT AND STAND-STILL AGREEMENT was also enacted.
IV. PROVISIONS RELATING TO OPEN OFFICE
1. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Agreement, with respect solely to the product developed by Sun and generally known as Open Office, the Covenants of Section II above and the Releases of Section III above shall apply fully to Sun but shall not apply to Authorized Licensees of Open Office or any other third party. Accordingly, Microsoft shall not be foreclosed by this Agreement from seeking damages from Authorized Licensees of Open Office for copies of Open Office made or acquired prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement. Nor shall Microsoft be foreclosed from seeking any damages from Sun, its Affiliates, Authorized Licensees or any third party for any copies of Open Office made or deployed by a User after the Effective Date.
So basically, while Microsoft will not sue Sun for any patents for the next 10 years and visa versa (Cross Licensing Agreement). Microsoft can sue anybody, including Sun over Open Office (Sun's Star Office is protected). This is probably as close as Microsoft can legally get to buying Open Office.
The rest states that Sun has to give Microsoft legal aid in bringing lawsuits against users of Open Office. Also, Microsoft will pay Sun a confidential sum for its troubles for providing that legal aid.
2. In the event that Microsoft elects to sue or otherwise seek recovery from an Authorized Licensee of Open Office for copies thereof that were made and deployed by a User prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement ("Deployed Copies"), upon request, Microsoft agrees to promptly reimburse Sun for any reimbursable Damages. Sun shall promptly notify Microsoft of any Claim, shall provide Microsoft with the opportunity to take control over and responsibility for the defense and/or settlement of such Claim, and shall reasonably cooperate with Microsoft in litigating the defense of such Claim, including in all discovery and trial preparation efforts. Microsoft will not have any obligation to reimburse Reimbursable Damages unless Sun abides by the foregoing requirements. Microsoft shall also be relieved of its obligation to reimburse Reimbursable Damages if Sun breaches any warranty in Section VII.4. As a condition to accepting control and responsibility for such defense, Microsoft shall acknowledge in writing that such third party claim constitutes a "Claim" and, as such, would give rise to Reimbursable Damages if determined adversely. In the event that Microsoft accepts control and responsibility for such defense, Sun shall be entitled to participate in such defense at its own cost. "Claim" means any claim that Sun is liable to indemnify or otherwise reimburse any Authorized Licensee or third party for damages it has been ordered to pay by final judgment or settlement arising from a claim asserted by Microsoft against such Authorized Licensee or third party that any Deployed Copy of Open Office infringes any patent of Microsoft. "Reimbursable Damages" means the amount of any adverse final judgment awarded by a court of competent jurisdiction, or Microsoft approved settlement, against Sun that is based on the Claim.
3. The Parties acknowledge that the product currently marketed by Sun as Star Office shall not be affected by this Section IV.
LIMITED PATENT COVENANT AND STAND-STILL AGREEMENT
Could be that MS does fear that OO will blatantly "steal" patented MS Office technology.
Or it could be that MS has intent to sue OO after MS receives a patent for something novel (like using a Tab key to jump between items) and then chooses to sue OO for _stealing_ their critical technology.
Sadly, I'm thinking it's the latter.
/Not for internal use/
When MSFT gets sued, it's anti-innovation and anti-private property.
You just can't figure out these hypocrite bastards.
Well, let's hope their Jesus fearing stooge John Ashcroft is handling snakes back in Missouri next January.
The most obvious reason to have such an exemption is the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) factor. Microsoft is probably deadly-afraid of small busineses (that will someday be big businesses) standardizing on OO rather than paying a king's ransom for MS Office licenses. By leaving these businesses to wonder if they will be sued or whether OO will disappear due to litigation, some of those businesses will consider ponying up the money for MS Office.
According to the recently released financial documents to the SEC, besides the $900,000,000.00 being paid to Sun, a LIMITED PATENT COVENANT AND STAND-STILL AGREEMENT was also enacted.
IV. PROVISIONS RELATING TO OPEN OFFICE
1. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Agreement, with respect solely to the product developed by Sun and generally known as Open Office, the Covenants of Section II above and the Releases of Section III above shall apply fully to Sun but shall not apply to Authorized Licensees of Open Office or any other third party. Accordingly, Microsoft shall not be foreclosed by this Agreement from seeking damages from Authorized Licensees of Open Office for copies of Open Office made or acquired prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement. Nor shall Microsoft be foreclosed from seeking any damages from Sun, its Affiliates, Authorized Licensees or any third party for any copies of Open Office made or deployed by a User after the Effective Date.
So basically, while Microsoft will not sue Sun for any patents for the next 10 years and visa versa (Cross Licensing Agreement). Microsoft can sue anybody, including Sun over Open Office (Sun's Star Office is protected). This is probably as close as Microsoft can legally get to buying Open Office.
The rest states that Sun has to give Microsoft legal aid in bringing lawsuits against users of Open Office. Also, Microsoft will pay Sun a confidential sum for its troubles for providing that legal aid.
2. In the event that Microsoft elects to sue or otherwise seek recovery from an Authorized Licensee of Open Office for copies thereof that were made and deployed by a User prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement ("Deployed Copies"), upon request, Microsoft agrees to promptly reimburse Sun for any reimbursable Damages. Sun shall promptly notify Microsoft of any Claim, shall provide Microsoft with the opportunity to take control over and responsibility for the defense and/or settlement of such Claim, and shall reasonably cooperate with Microsoft in litigating the defense of such Claim, including in all discovery and trial preparation efforts. Microsoft will not have any obligation to reimburse Reimbursable Damages unless Sun abides by the foregoing requirements. Microsoft shall also be relieved of its obligation to reimburse Reimbursable Damages if Sun breaches any warranty in Section VII.4. As a condition to accepting control and responsibility for such defense, Microsoft shall acknowledge in writing that such third party claim constitutes a "Claim" and, as such, would give rise to Reimbursable Damages if determined adversely. In the event that Microsoft accepts control and responsibility for such defense, Sun shall be entitled to participate in such defense at its own cost. "Claim" means any claim that Sun is liable to indemnify or otherwise reimburse any Authorized Licensee or third party for damages it has been ordered to pay by final judgment or settlement arising from a claim asserted by Microsoft against such Authorized Licensee or third party that any Deployed Copy of Open Office infringes any patent of Microsoft. "Reimbursable Damages" means the amount of any adverse final judgment awarded by a court of competent jurisdiction, or Microsoft approved settlement, against Sun that is based on the Claim.
3. The Parties acknowledge that the product currently marketed by Sun as Star Office shall not be affected by this Section IV.
HTML was created as a common document format, available to all.
MS had fun with that attempt at a common format too.
Ummm, isn't OpenOfice administered seperate from Sun? In which case why would an agreement with Sun cover OpenOffice?
One could equally say the agreement left open the possibility of suing people over Linux, or indeed washing machines.
I doubt Sun wants to enmesh itself as responsible for washing machines anymore that they would OpenOffice... yes I understand where OpenOffice comes from, but ask yourself if you;d want blurry lines if you were Sun.
Perhaps the spin on the reportage is a little askew. I'm not sure one can infer any intent on Microsofts part.... unless of course MS are planning on suing makers of washing machines.
Part of the analysis reads:
The rest states that Sun has to give Microsoft legal aid in bringing lawsuits against users of Open Office. Also, Microsoft will pay Sun a confidential sum for its troubles for providing that legal aid.
So, MS can sue Sun for using OO, and require Sun to help MS sue Sun, but then MS has to pay Sun for such aid???
That series of stories could be almost as entertaining as te SCO Follies!
visa versa? is that like the back side of your credit card?
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
I RTFA, and it mentions Open Office, not OpenOffice.org, which are actually different things if I'm not mistaken. I wonder if the name difference would stand in court.
they only way to deal with the tyrant of Redmond is a war of attrition...
no quarter, no mercy, just cut em off completely, send msft to the recycle bin of history forever...
msft is not to be trusted under any circumstances...
this has already been done both in my office and at home...
Haven't you noticed agreement's effective date - This Limited Patent Covenant and Stand-Still Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into as of this 1st day of April, 2004 (the "Effective Date") See this url http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/709519/00011931 2504155723/dex10109.htm
Just like Apple. Sun is a "pretend" enemy of Microsoft. They pretend to fight but at the end of the day, they wind up sleeping together. This is just like Apple Computer.
In that spirit of interoperation, we were very pleased a few months ago to reach a pretty major agreement with Apple to work together on a lot of things, extending some cooperation that had broken down in the past that we thought was very important, and adding some new things as well. One of the things we've always had is a dedicated team focused on our Macintosh browser work--the Internet Explorer group for the Macintosh. That team is actually down in this area. It makes it easier for them to work closely with Apple. They don't just take the approach of porting the code across. They do take advantage of some of the Windows code, but they also do the special work to take advantage of the unique Macintosh environment, and so we're very pleased to be working with Apple, including supporting unique things.
-Bill Gates
People wised up and realized that the internet is an evil place. Noone can be trusted. Least of all open source software users and developers. The only way to be secure in one's information is to trust MS and MS alone. Its really the natural evolution of things. Me thinks you doth protest too much.
If I'm right, then they can discourage developers from writing code for FOSS software by scaring them away.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
... should be locked up for unleashing an ignoramus on us.
Hasn't Microsoft(TM) patented the word(TM) Office(TM) along with the words Windows(TM) and Word(TM)?
The mere existence of OpenOffice.org is a blatant disregard for copyright laws!
<g>
* Copyright Microsoft 1980-2100. All Rights Reserved. Resistance is futile.
I used to have OO.o installed on my old Red Hat box and it was nice to have a free Office suite which basically did most everything I used the "real" Office suite for... but on my new install, I've installed Abiword and Gnumeric and I must say that I'm quite pleased with them, not to mention they use a native widget set instead of 'god-knows-what'....
Go open source!
Consider that Microsoft may reasonably be looking after their own self-interest. In this case, I think it may be fair for them to try and prevent individuals outside of Sun to incorporate something into OpenOffice that is owned by them. I don't see it as a "pre-emptive" strike but merely a reservation of rights. Sun is still free to utilize what they wish for SunOffice - they just can't distribute it back to the open source community.
This is not a troll. I don't like Micro$haft but I don't see this as the evil, bad thing everyone else says it is.
What it will eventually boil down to is, how do they utilize (if they do) this provision?
There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
Yes, I am, but it's vice versa
This is post-ww1 all over again.
Also, mod points to the author for 900,000,000 and not just saying 900 million.
http://jayceecorder.blogspot.com
visa versa
I can see the VISA ad: "Because Microsoft won't take American Express"
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
This article really should have an icon with Dr. Evil putting his pinky up to his lips instead of the justice icon.
I wonder what Microsoft had in mind?
I do not wonder. I am sure Microsoft Collective had in his mind our money they'll never reach anymore.
There you are, staring at me again.
I read that to say that MS has the right to seek damages (sue) from all those people who
had something to do w/OOo before this agreement and after it. They'd still have to win a lawsuit
that proved they incurred damages, possibly to IP, patents, who knows.
So that little provision doesn't really change anything for users. It simply tells Sun
that MS can sue them for actions they have taken (and future action they take) w/OOo regardless of
this agreement not to sue them for 10 years.
-euphorik
The end of OpenOffice.org, or any open source project at all in the United States and a few other countries? This could be ammunition, along with the SCO scare that could revive the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Prevention Act. And if Micro$oft is for it, the you can bet the Republican party is going to back it, including Dubya.
Of course, I know the libertarians are going to counter "If you don't vote libertarian, you asked for this", That line in this case would be bullshit, I know a few libertarians that were all for the CBDTPA and the DMCA because it protect "Private Intellectual Property", and to then intellectual property should have the same protection under the constitution as physical property. Maybe that's why the Libertarian website doesn't have anything to say about Intellectual Property.
here is the nyud.net:8090 link for it. worked like charm for me while I was getting database can not be connected msg from the original link
0 /a rticle.php/20040914141417417>
<URL:http://www.linuxelectrons.com.nyud.net:809
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
That's an April Fools joke. The date of the agreement is April 1, 2004. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/709519/0001 19312504155723/dex10109.htm
nuff said
no, MS can sue END USERS for using versions of OO with patented code in it, and Sun has to help them in this, but MS will reimburse Sun for their troubles.
If i know microsoft, i think they would say(and sing along with me) "I like to give the world a coke..."
Maybe because its practically an exact rip off of MS office with very little innovation. OO even has many of the features that I hate in MS OFFICE. Don't get me wrong I use OO all the time and love it. But they blantantly copied it and if MS wants to sue they probably have a case.
Perhaps that is why the proper name is OpenOffice.org. To quote:
Because of trademark issues, OpenOffice.org must insist that all public communications refer to the project and software as "OpenOffice.org" or "OpenOffice.org 1.0," and not "OpenOffice" or "Open Office."
Perhaps the Sun lawyers pulled a fast one over Microsoft!
Indeed... the quote comes from here, and it looks like it's been posted there more than a year ago. So technically, there is no such thing as OO or OpenOffice, there is only OOo or OpenOffice.org.
I really wonder how well that can hold up in court.
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
Once the code is out, they can't do anything. Perhaps sue Sun over it, but so what? Even if they sue OO.org, the code is still out there for anyone to fork and develop! It's the freedom that they can't stop.
CB#@_)(*
free ipod and free gmail!
OO ignores password protection now. I have used it several times to open protected documents with forgotten passwords.
Blogging because I can...
Any Thought that MS might be putting something into their code, and is trying to prevent sun from suing them? We all know, I do not trust the company, but They could sue OO.org users like SCO did with linux. but I am thinking, they know they are doing something that sun won't like, so why not buy them off, or make a deal to keep sun from suing them.
SimonTek
Sun exempt if MS starts open source legal war
I cannot reveal my identity but on a visit with Sun, Chancellor Scott McFreaky, told me and two others from my company that MS intends to rain a patent storm all over OSS projects, regardless of merit. The intent is to do whatever to slow down OSS proliferation. The legal costs would be nothing to MS compared to revenue they're already losing to Linux, Mozilla, OO, Apache, PHP, MySQL etc...
McFreaky's pitch was that after MS is done, there will only be two viable companies left, Sun (of course) and MS.
He of course didn't have any good answers to my prompting about IBM, HP, Novell, SGI, Oracle amongst others having issue with an MS crusade against OSS.
I walked out of the session kind of shaking, it smelled a lot of FUD to it. But it's still very plausible.
There are two problems with open office,
1) being the file requester interface it is ugly and scary to a lot of users.
This is probably the first thing people see and it scares them word is like an old friend, even with clippy, they are familiar with it.
2) Less than perfect conversion of word documents into and out of OpenOffice.
word is a defacto standard, people see word compatability as essential since thats what is most commonly used.
As long as word format import and export is less than perfect Openoffice is always going to be on the losing side.
Microsoft are well aware the small problems with using anything other than their products keeps their user base. Should OpenOffice finally manage 100% word compatable import and export then there is certain to be a microsoft patient which can be used to hit openoffice and if there isn't they can just change the word document format just enough using incorperating a patented concept and then beat them with a big stick.
Perhaps the only way to beat this is if openoffice kept its import and export filters as plugins and perfect word format conversion would be an unknown 3rd party written plugin.
However even this might not be possible with DRM incorperated into Windows XP and Longhorn. Just as media player recognises infringing audio files it is probably no great leap to being able to isolate a patent infringing plugin.
Windows update will be able to ensure that Microsofts patents can be protected
Can Microsoft do this almost certainly, will they do this what do you think?
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Major cock-up on the MS legal team's part - unless they wish to sue for inclusion of patented technology in a defunct product. No, I'm not trolling, it's just that the agreement mentions "Open Office" and not "OpenOffice.org" (the name OO.org had to take for trademark reasons). Unless their ambiguous wording ("the product developed by Sun and generally known as Open Office") would hold up in a court of law, they really have no-one to sue - unless they want to litigate against the product which got to the name first (highly unlikely).
Insightful, yes.
Microsoft make money from exactly TWO products. Windows, and MSOffice.
Windows is under fierce attack from internet malware on the consumer desktop, and Linux in the enterprise. MSOffice is being eroded by the unbreakable OOo.
I said this a while ago when Microsoft and Sun announced their happy settlement: the goal is to squash OOo. SCO and Lindows demonstrated that lawsuits are not just about recovering damages: the mere threat of litigation is enough to kill a product.
OOo will not survive a SCO. It's not got enough grip yet. Microsoft must realize this.
So: they will use a stick and a carrot. The stick: lawsuits against prominent OOo developers for patent infringement. The carrot: MSOffice for Linux. I predict within the next 6 months, since every day that OOo is free makes it harder for MS to squash it.
And then... patents to make sure no-one can ever write a free office application again.
"Illegal software" is going to take on a whole new meaning by this time next year.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
See sibling comment. Microsoft can't sue for OO.o, only Open Office, which is a completely different product.
Did you ever doubt it? Microsoft has encrypted their newest file formats, so if openoffice.org reverse engineers them they can be sued for defeating encryption. This is how they can make office and office.org incompatible in order to hold onto their dominance in they office department. Did you see the comments in the article re: the fact that open office is officially named openoffice.org and therefore is not included in the agreement? -- HAHAHAHAHA
A spell-checker wouldn't pick that up. It's failing to spot "basicaly" which really shows that Michael isn't validating the submissions very carefully.
According to one of the posts in the article, there is no such product called "Open Office" (4th post down as of 9/15/2004 6:00 GMT). The product mentioned in the agreement (legally speaking) may or may not refer to OpenOffice.org, which is what the news story is referencing. Why can a news story get it wrong and not a legal contract? Because legalese is all about semantics. News stories don't have to be to have a Slashdot discussion.
The post in question states:
This is stated here, in the Trademark section (which they claim was last updated 2003-07).Did Sun's legal department pull one over on MSFT's legal department? Was it a mistake? Was Oo.o defined earlier and then said "referred to herein as 'Open Office'"? Was the agreement between Sun and Microsoft dated before the official communication of Oo.o? I don't know, but it appears to be pretty clever, and raises some intriguing questions.
One way or the other, this won't stop me from deploying Oo.o. It's an excellent product, and saves $400 per PC (nearly 40% of the cost of a complete system).
-Turkey
OO.org? OOP is snake oil! The real world does not change in a hierarchical way, and non-hierarchical OO techniques are the failed "navigational" structures rejected in the 70's because they lacked consistency and guiding principles. Behavior and entities are not tied together one-to-one in the real worl.....
What? It stands for "Open Office" and NOT "Object Oriented"? Rats! I wasted a good rant.
Table-ized A.I.
There is no product called "Open office".
The agreement refers to 'the product developed by Sun and commonly known as "Open Office"' and this most certainly refers to Openoffice.org.
The name "openoffice.org" was chosen because "open office" was trademarked by some other company, but not for software.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
We can speculate all day about the various motivations and sneaky little schemes Microsoft has in mind with this agreement. But one thing is without a doubt, clear for all to see -- OpenOffice.org is on the Microsoft threat radar.
So it's not just Linux any more... not that it ever was just Linux... but anyway, you get what I'm saying. I wonder what OS project is next on the threat [hit] list?
Interesting that it mentions OpenOffice by name, but not StarOffice.
Why yes. Yes I am big boy!!! And is that a low-fat pretzel rod in your pants or are you just happy to see me? MMMmmmmmmwah!!! (blink blink)
Note to mods: Please mod correctly as Funny -1.
So you want to know what they thought ?
... Taking it again later.
:P
They sat down and:
A: - What could these guys do that would hurt us ?
B: - You mean besides taking $900mil ?
Well, they just probably thought what they always do: if they can hurt, buy'em pay'em or punch'em.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
This agreement was mainly to cover Java patents applicable on .NET.
Microsoft was only covering is ass. They were not trying to give anything more then they needed to Sun.
We know that Sun cannot be sued by Microsoft for patent violations. We know that Sun is looking at buying SUSE Linux.
When and if Microsoft unleashes its patent war against open source in general, against Linux and OpenOffice in particular, Sun and all customers of Sun will be immune.
Thus, Sun will be the only company allowed to sell Linux and OpenOffice, aka, StarOffice and will be Linux's sole distributor.
What does Microsoft get out of the deal? First, Microsoft does NOT want Linux destroyed. It needs to have at least the appearance of competition to keep government regulators off its back. That competition will come from Sun.
Second, Linux will be greatly hobbled because instead of the entire world working on Linux, there will be only one source with which to compete.
Basically, Microsoft will destroy Linux but keep the appearance of healthy competition in the marketplace.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
"Are you gay?"
why, just because he referred to his "domestic partner"?
Stop showing your ignorance.
Many US companies offer spousal benefits for unmarried couples, regardless of orientation, and they refer to them as "domestic partners".
The phrase means nothing about gender or orientation.
Many people, even in "conventional" relationships, are more comfortable using "domestic partner" than "wife" or BF or GF. I myself often refer to my "domestic partner" or my "S.O." when posting, because I think my gender should be irrelevant to readers' reactions.
You're not a representative sampling of the world. Get over it.
Ah, well...
I guess there's nothing new under the Sun...
(Oh, come on! At least mod me up as "funny.")
BSD license, not really a grey area. There is no provision for user redistribution rights. I can take BSD code and relicense it under almost any terms I want.
GPL, somewhat grey I would argue that distribution of a patented technology, either a description of it, or even an implementation is legal. Actually using that technology for commercial gain, through use or selling of it would be infringing. AFAIK it is legal in to use a patented invention for personal use.
The GPL doesn't impose any conditions on use, only redistribution. The GPL specifically states it is not a usage license.
This is probaly the best way to find a loophole through the GPL. Think of some way to restrict usage, but permit distribution. Patents may be such a tool.
FWIW I'm a believer in RMS style Free software.
Mr. McNealy has made it clear that he has strong IP beliefs, and that his friendships with the OpenSource world are pretty much that, as long as I give it to you fine.. but don't you dare try to steal any ideas. The deal with MS allows Sun to add complete interoperability to StarOffice without worrying about reverse engineering, heck MS is going to hand Sun the hidden secrets about their file formats for that purpose. Allowing for an attack on OpenOffice is perfect for both of them, because then they are still the ones in control of the office suite.
This sig is the express property of someone.
Do you remember the TrueType font file format? Specifically the "hinting" that was in the file. Since the hints themselves were written in what was arguably a very simple "algorithmic language", they were legally treated as software programs rather than just data. Hence why opensource/free software has to legally ignore the hinting portions of the TrueType file format. (Fortunately for us, their autohinting algorithms turned out to produce better results than explicit hinting).
In other news, the Visa corporation has trademarked the term "Visa Versa" for their new credit card account. With every transaction made using this card, a donation is made to the "National Spelling Association" who will strictly defend the right to read correctly spelled comments.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Just another in a line of Microsoft-bashing articles...
Why doesn't the post ask "What did Sun have in mind"? Is that because they haven't got one or because they're less Linux-hostile?
More of the same - the usual FUD strategy in OS wars, this time employed by Slashdot.
I think your question is on the right path to understanding.
Ummm, exactly what would it mean to "patent an idea" except for patenting all methods of executing that idea?
Do you think it is realistic to think up every way to implement your idea?
Think of the idea of vehicular transportation. You can't patent this idea, however you can patent the horse drawn carriage. This doesn't stop anyone from inventing the car, bicycle, boat, aircraft, hovercraft, blimp, hang glider, teleporter, rockets, paraglider or seadoo.
If the idea is essentially a method (e.g. "One click shopping"), this is a distinction without a difference.
The idea is "easier online shopping", the one click part is just a way to make it easier.
I do agree, assuming sufficient skill almost any idea could be written into a patent. Ideally such attempts would be so obvious or so broad as to fail.
Afaik the clause is put in the contract to avoid this. Sun has to assist MS and thus can't assist the OO.org users. Sun used to own the openoffice.org trademark, but now it's abandoned? So basically, the clause is wrong altogether as it assumes Sun has something to say about oo.org. And judging the domain-registration (openoffice.org is registered by Sun) and the contributing developers in real life it has of course... So basically Sun will be sued for OO.org AND has to help MS:=)
Because the legal problems with GIF and JPEG stemmed from the compression algorithms used by these file formats, and not from the file formats themselves. Just like the original poster said, dipshit. Learn to do a little research first.
It would be so nice in a perfect world if users just used rtf or something a little more compatible, but that's not gonna happen any time soon. I think this is the single biggest threat to moving people off windows...they can't read their files.
I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
Actually, you can patent "apparatus" and "methods" of implementing an idea. Apparatus is a set of things, and methods are effectively algorithms. But I believe methods require apparatus, but I'm not 100% sure on that.
Step out of software for a moment and think in the old days of hardware. Let's say I design a circuit for autocalibrating I/O strength of a chip. (I actually haven't, but it's a good example.) The gates, FETs, etc that implement that circuit are the apparatus part of the patent. The algorithm I imbed on the tester/controller/CPU/whatever becomes the method part of the patent. I don't believe I would be able to patent a method on top of someone else's apparatus. But the method is a key part of describing my apparatus and its operation.
IANAL
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The carrot: MSOffice for Linux
a) Not free
b) Not open source
c) Lots of WINDOWS uses also use OO (in fact, my whole org is switching)
Patents may be a damning blow against OO software, but only where US patent laws are enforced. Canada is taking a stern look at the US patent laws, Australia - though having signed the damning FTA - is aware enough to be somewhat leery of them. Also, lots of businesses are saving $$$ by going with said "free" software - I'd expect a slight complaint from them if this were to become an issue.
Some countries' laws (like my own) FORBID patenting of software. We will welcome OOo developers down here and treat them like kings, for our Large government is using more and more.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
From the agreement as quoted in the article:
"...the Covenants of Section II above and the Releases of Section III above shall apply fully to Sun but shall not apply to Authorized Licensees of Open Office..."
IANAL, but it seems to me like the article is misinterpretting the agreement. Doesn't it sound like MS is simply saying explicitly that this agreement only protects Sun itself, and not those who use Sun code in the OpenOffice project? I don't think they are making an exception here, just clarifying that they can still sue OpenOffice code licensees other than Sun.
How does one become less ignorant if one does not ask questions? I've never heard of a "domestic partner" used to mean anything other than homosexual partner. Your message was enlightening, but your presentation wreaked of being an arrogant shitbag.
What would it take to get some judge to order Microsoft to open their document and spreadsheet formats given that it is the defacto standard and anti-competetive of them to keep it a secret?
This isn't gonna work unless the rest of the world, and especially EU will do software patents. MS might be able kill Linux in the US, but it's no good if they can't kill it in the EU, and JP, and BR, and everywhere else. And right now there is a tremendous resistance against it in the EU, and different comittees are overturning each other's decisions. There is huge money in it, and there is a huge fight going on.
Software patents go like this: the way of obtaining the number 3 by adding 2+1 is hereby patented. Therefore if you're in a school, you must do 3+0 or 4+(-1), unless you're willing to pay license for 2+1 additions, at $0.05/action. You're welcome to prove that it's prior art, if you got the lawyers, but beware, we got more lawyers and deeper pockets and we can drag it out for 10 years in court. We will patent the stupidest things, because the patent examiner is on our team, we regularly take him out to golf, plus we inundate him with so many stupid claims, that even if he tries to pick on the details and fight them one by one, something WILL get through, sooner or later, and what doesn't get through, we'll keep reapplying until it gets through, SOONER OR LATER.
Real inventions don't happen in patents, they happen at universities, in published science articles, and they come out no matter what, out of ego, whether patented or not. Talk about stupid things patented like the 1-click shopping patent for amazon? Can you say "DUH?"
true, but there is an exception, which is irrelevant in this case, thought. Patents before issueing are vetted by military for things they want to classify because of military application. I'm not sure what happens to these, whether inventors still get royalties from the government or not, but these patents are secret and even the inventor is prevented from discussing/disclosing them. Presumably, they get watched, too.
fyi
Open Office being such a general application (see the name) developers could have added any and all kinds of code to do with "Office" and Microsoft could not have done much about it.
Seems kind of natural they wouldn't like that.
So maybe there is not that much thinking/planning/conspiring.
Stephan
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
...the agreement had a special provision that lets Microsoft sue anybody, including Sun, over OpenOffice.org
This would, in part, explain where 2.0 is.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Either the GPL'd software was written after you filed your patent - in which case the author has to stop distributing or pay license fees,
Or you take the authors GPL work, and sell patent licenses for anyone to actually use it. Anyone wanting to use this software in business would need a patent license.
This is just a means to hijack an open source project.
Profit max condition: dR/dQ = dC/dQ where R=Revenue, C=Cost, and Q=Quantity produced/sold. Firm gets to pick Q.
A competitive firm has no control over the shape of the dR/dQ since dR/dQ = P (the competitive market Price for one unit of Q) and in the short run, no control over the shape of dC/dQ. The profit maximizing Q is usually less than 100% market share.
A monopolist, OTOH, sees P(Q) and so has to account for dR/dQ not constant. This is why a monopolist will often restrict supply below what would be sold in a competitive market.
What about PDF? I see patents
Whenever you use a word or phrase, even a simple one you've used since you were a child. Look up it's meaning.
Consider yourself kicked out of the language police.
1. The first sentence quoted above is a sentence fragment, not a complete sentence. Presumably the author meant to join it to the second sentence with a comma.
2. The possessive form of the word "it" in the second sentence is written "its", not "it's". The latter is a contraction of "it is".
Microsoft doesn't just exempt Sun from lawsuit protections; Microsoft has been given the right to "controll the defense" of OOo at their option.
That's right, Microsoft has been given full legal controll of all of Sun's right to defend the product from any suit based on patents.
If naybody has ever been in a case where their insurance company decided to settle a case that should have been fought, they know where this is leading...
Plaintiff: "I'm Ben Grimes, representing Microsoft, your honor. We beleive that this product violates our patents and shoud be pulled completely and deeded over to us."
Judge: "oh, ok"
Defendent: "I'm Ben Grimes, representing Sun, your honor. We beleive Mr Grimes argument is thurough and compelling and our product is indefensable."
Judge: "wait a minute, you can't be representing the plaintiff and defendent."
Ben: "Oh really? Microsoft has controll over any defense Sun might offer. But I guess I can't sit on both sides of the isle... My I introduce my paralegal cum interning-law-student Betty? She'll be handling the filings for Sun..."
etc.
So when Microsoft gets around to suing over patents in OOo, they also get to chose how the product is defended....
I bet it will be vigerous... not...
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
I think that the injustice that is sort of being looked at or thought about here is when an innocent yet enterprising group of individuals comes together and decides to make software, and then a large organization, or an opportunistic organization destroys the effort to their own, perhaps percieved, benefit.
On the other hand, if such a group of enterprising individuals were to come together for the purposes of turning a profit, it is at least equally likely that they would choose Windows as a platform, and not choose open source or free because they have no desire to donate anything. There are plenty of enterprising individuals who would rather go with MS Windows, and to be honest, there are some good third party Windows applications out there.
Therefore I doubt that Microsoft would do anthing that would start a patent war. They might be afraid of Oo.org, they may want to keep an eye or two on it, they may want to protect themselves, but I seriously doubt that they will attack it. The message that Micrsoft wants to send to the world, I think, is that if you want to make software, and not give it away for free, in other words... if you want to make software for profit, then choose our platform. If Microsoft were to unleash a patent wars on anyone - open source, free, they would be placing the stability of the entire software industry, and the reliability of their own platform as a "money maker", as a place where small enterprising software developers can feel confident they will be reasonably secure from ligitation, at risk. Microsoft might not be about giving away things for free, but by no means do they want to create a litigous atmosphere for those profit-driven individuals who choose to develop third-party applications for their platform.
I say don't worry about it.
Disclaimer: I am a Mac OS X community developer for OpenOffice.org and a founding member of NeoOffice
.doc and other Office formats. So they were clever...
.doc format...but Microsoft has prevented anyone from using their patented schema in a "free as in beer" environment. These clauses in TFA allow Sun a cop-out: Sun can freely write code and use it in OOo that uses the Microsoft Office XML schemas. In the Sun-branded OOo distributions (Linux-x86, Solaris, Solaris-x86, Windows only...they have a Sun logo on the startup screen) Sun is free to use the patented Office schemas as well. Because of this, Sun will most likely contribute the code to work with these schemas into the core source code of OOo.
There is one obvious reason for this clause that I can think of off of the top of my head. Microsoft Office XP has a feature by which Office documents can be saved in an XML format. Obviously, this means that the information in the resulting Microsoft Office generated files is not as obfuscated as it is in a binary format (provided key information isn't just base64 encoded into elements). Microsoft knows this feature can negate the lock-in to
Microsoft has patented their XML schemas. In order to write software that uses these Microsoft Office XML schemas, you must sign a patent license with Microsoft.
Obviously, OOo will want to be able to open these new Microsoft Office XML formatted files similar to its support for the
Other companies make derivatives of OOo too (Red Hat, Novell/Ximian, BSDMall), individuals like myself, and even just translators non-Sun builds for mainline platforms who don't program at all. The Sun-MS agreement says that Sun's patent licensing for the Office Schemas does not apply to any OOo derivatives or builds that are done outside of Sun. Either all of these companies and individuals need to sign the Patent License Agreement with Sun or else they are open to lawsuits from Microsoft and potentially pay royalties to Microsoft in the future to use their schema.
It's really another clever way Microsoft has come up with to continue to ensure their file formats remain closely guarded and their own property.
As to whether a patent of an XML Schema can stand up in court, well, I know I personally as a single developer don't have the kind of money to challenge Microsoft on patent litigation if they sue me as an individual. Unfortunatley I have neither the time nor the skills to scrutinize all of Sun's contributions to OpenOffice.org's source code to see if they use Microsoft's patents in such a way that's legal for them, but not legal for me. I either must take my chances or stop being a non-Sun developer of OpenOffice.org. Unfortunately now any non-Sun entity working on OOo has to make that choice for themselves.
ed
"your presentation wreaked of being an arrogant shitbag."
;)
not intended.
just saying:
1. don't assume;
2. even if he IS gay,
a. NOYB, and
b. not worth noting.
btw, i think you meant "reeked", not "wreaked".
hmmm, ok, guess i gotta cop to "arrogant" this time
Skimming through the pasted snippets of the article in people's posts, I can't seem to shake the feeling that this sounds like a deal in the game of Monopoly. "If you let me do this this and this I'll not do this or this to you, but I reserve the right to do This to anyone at all, including you, and if I decide to do it, you have to help me. deal?"
Maybe I'm just crazy, but that's never affected things before.
should read
Cogito me cogitare ergo cogito me esse to convey the intended meaning in Latin.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
Bearing in mind the now troll-rated grandparent, I think more than a little of the apparent hostility in that response was earned.
Semper en excreta sumus solum profundum
I stand corrected, but I did not intend to indicate a permeating odor, just an overwhelming atmosphere, for the record. Not that the distinction excuses me being wrong, just the level of how blatantly wrong I was ;-)
>5,634,064
Method and apparatus for viewing electronic documents
>5,737,599
Method and apparatus for downloading multi-page electronic documents with hint information
>5,781,785
Method and apparatus for providing an optimized document file of multiple pages
Etc,etc. They're patents relating to the use and distribution of pdfs, rather than the format of the file itself.
microsoft is boiling mad about three opensource projects. expect them to be targets of (frivolous, sco-style) lawsuits. in order to protect shareholder value, microsoft will be compelled to litigate them into oblivion.
1) samba
2) apache
3) openoffice
I think it is worth mentioning that the date of the agreement is 1st April.
LIMITED PATENT COVENANT AND STAND-STILL AGREEMENT
This Limited Patent Covenant and Stand-Still Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into as of this 1st day of April, 2004 (the "Effective Date"), by and between Sun Microsystems, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware ("Sun"), and Microsoft Corporation, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington ("Microsoft"). Each of Sun and Microsoft and their respective Affiliates (defined below) as of the Effective Date are referred to individually as a "Party," and collectively as the "Parties."
Yes, I think I would by Microsoft Office for Linux if there was such a thing.
I am ready to kick windows, but not office yet.
Your reactions are based mostly on /. postings like this one that is full of theoretical "could happen" type FUD. Yes, MS and all of its power CAN do lots of damage. Until they do, simmer down. Now, if you prefer another OS for security or whatever other reasons, then fine, use 'em. Let the free market decide, which it is fully capable of doing in the current environment (read: BeOS would have never been installed on Dells anyway).
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
It's not a matter of people copying M$, it's a matter of market dominance. If someone at M$ had an original idea, they would be fired for not doing their job which is to develop and dominate proven markets, aka, stealing other people's ideas and business models. The engineers copy, the lawyers harass and the marketing people try to convince you that the M$ junk is better junk, M$ invented it all to begin with and nothing could be better than M$ domination. There is no M$ interface of software component I know of that was not done some other place first. In particular, every element of Office that's worth a damn came from other office suits. Tabs, check quatro pro. Formula editor, check Correl Word Perfect. For general interfaces, see Mac, Next and CDE. For all the stealing, you would think their junk would work better, but flunkies never do well.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I'd want to pop in a provision stating that they can't rip me off every time I add a new feature to one of my biggest products.
There is nothing reasonable about M$'s patent portfolio. It contains patents on obvious things with a long line of prior art. Generally, they "rip off" other people and then try to drive them out of the market.
I think it ironic that people are saying this is Microsoft's FUD
Of course it's FUD. Microsoft is telling the word that they are going to sue OO users and they have a contract with it's maker that requires the maker to assist them in the judicial extortion.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Its funny how the "representative sampling" of the world keeps changing the moment US Politically Correct hounds are let loose ...
if office follows ie and users start to consider other alternatives (*cough* *firefox* *cough*) such as oo.org due to things like viruses i'm sure we'll see the gloves come off very quickly and m$ will litigate and try to take oo.org down.
All the torrents you could want.
Well, to be really correct, it's voilà, with a grave accent on the a. And in the title "ala" should be two words, again with a grave accent on the first a: "Lawsuits à la Lindows".
you meant MSOffice for Solaris?
*That* would give both MS and Sun something to make money on.
emt 377 emt 4
Question is: Will they give it back?
emt 377 emt 4
linuxelectrons??
this news site is suspect, and anyway, what is M$ only added this for one reason.
If M$ can say, open office might be like, really fsssskd because we can sue you, then all those PHB's will yet again pander to the redmond blueboys and buy MSO.
don't do it kids.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
"I think more than a little of the apparent hostility in that response was earned."
would you feel differently without the "ignorance" & "representative" remarks?
(btw, would someone please enlighten me as to the subtle distinction between "troll" and "flame-bait"?)
"Its funny how the "representative sampling" of the world keeps changing the moment US Politically Correct hounds are let loose"
I'm guessing that was intended for me.
It presumes facts not in evidence.
People who know me would be ROTFLTAO to hear me described as PC.
PC has nothing to do with it;
I just think that mocking the OP's (presumed) sexual orientation is pointlessly unkind. Why do it? What place has it here? What purpose does it advance?
> Ideally such attempts would be so obvious or so broad as to fail.
Displaying a graphical interface for an application in a rectangle inside a rendered web oage was not considered "obvious" or "broad" when a browser was not the number one aplication, and when rendering the grapical interface of an OS was considered something substantially different then rendering a web page. A few years passed, and now it seems obvious and certainly too broad. Is it not an idea? There's no clear distintion between "idea" and "method", even if lawyers try to tell you there is. It depends on situation and culture, and these change rapidly nowadays.
(btw, would someone please enlighten me as to the subtle distinction between "troll" and "flame-bait"?)
;)
flame-bait is what you did, troll is what im doing
Sorry about my bad english, isn't my natural language
America starts in Tierra del Fuego and ends in Alaska
A critical aspect not mentioned in the summary that users should be aware of is mentioned in this article:
Not only is Microsoft allowed to sue any company.including Sun.for
alleged patent violations connected with OpenOffice, but Sun is required to
provide Microsoft with legal help in bringing such lawsuits against OpenOffice
users.
I.E.: When MS asks (and it will), Sun will be giving it their OpenOffice registration database. So unless you want to get sued later, beware of the answers you give when downloading (which you should do now while it's still available).
Didn't surprise me any more than it did you, but my employer was pretty upset at the time.
Not about the documents, but the fact that his forgotten password really didn't matter!
Blogging because I can...
Ah, this would be me being a dumbass. The one up from your earlier, if that make sense.
:)
I thought what you said was pretty much justified.
Must have more caffeine before posting next time
Semper en excreta sumus solum profundum