Ballmer Threatens Linux Patent Lawsuits

gillbates writes "Today Microsoft warned several Asian countries that using Linux could subject them to lawsuits, claiming that Linux violates '228 patents'. Apparently, Steve Ballmer believes he can enforce U.S. law in Asia." Ballmer is presumably speaking about this story. So, companies which sell insurance against lawsuits and companies which make competing products both warn of the dangers of using Linux. Maybe someone should point out that Microsoft is battling dozens of patent-infringement lawsuits itself, and any user of Microsoft software (including governments) could also be sued?

Comments

Indemnified?

[CaptainBaz]

Maybe someone should point out that Microsoft is battling dozens of patent-infringement lawsuits itself, and any user of Microsoft software (including governments) could also be sued?

That's funny, I thought Microsoft had indemnified its customers against IP threats?

Re:Indemnified?

[Maffy]

I believe Microsoft will indemnify as long as you don't use any non-Microsoft software at all on your system.

See this article on Groklaw for a description of some of the other possible loopholes.

Matt

Re:Indemnified?

[jhdevos]

Groklaws opinion is based on the following lines from the MS offering:

Our obligations will not apply to the extent that the claim or adverse final judgment is based on: (ii) the combination of the covered software with a non-Microsoft product, data, or business process;

(iii) damages attributable to the value of the use of a non-Microsoft product, data, or business process;

Note the first line: running other software is only a problem if the claims or judgements against you are due to the combination of that software with MS's.

That means that if it is clearly the MS product that infringes, the agreement does not allow MS to back out.

I feel that Groklaw is wrong on this.

Jan

This will backfire.

[earthforce_1]

There is an article in Groklaw about how Poland is voting against EU software patents, and that the majority has tipped against them. His comments only help to underscore why this is the correct decision, and can only help our cause. It looks like the US will be the only country to recognize software patents.

ahem...

[GraemeDonaldson]

To quote Linus: They are smoking crack.

Re:So what if they sue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Each country has its own patent laws, and they apply only to that country. They also only restrict the sale and production in that country. So if something is only patented in the US, any company outside the US can manufacture and sell it anywhere but the US. Any companies trying to sell it in the US would be subject to US law, and could be sued.

No country does or is expexted to respect other countries IP laws, but the US has put political pressure on other countries to make their own laws more like its own

Re:So what if they sue?

[Halo1]

what happens if somebody sues a Chinese company. Can't China just claim that they will not honor any software patents on any software or on Linux specifically? It's not like they have a history of respecting other countries IP rights.

Listen to this speech (mp4 audio, 3.9 MiB) given by David Martin from M-CAM at the FFII conference on software patents from last week. His company is specialised in assessing the value of patent portfolios and technology transfers. Here's part of a transcript of his speech:

For the last five years, the United states has had a very active policy of actually the alleging the Chinese steal things. They steal things, they're bad people because they steal things. That's a very funny position, and it's couched in the "you don't respect intellectual property".

So what you have is, you know Chinese don't respect intellectual property, therefore they steal things, therefore because MPAA and RIAA say that they steal things, we have to all tell the masses "yes, in fact, they steal things".

There's a funny reality unfolding. The funny reality is that the Chinese are actually saying "I wonder if you can pull the pin out of the grenade and throw it back". And by that I mean this: what if the patents that are being asserted to be stolen or copied or infringed aren't actually worth the paper they're being printed on and what if the Chinese using their sovereign rights actually challenge those patents.

What would happen then? Well let's play that tape for a little bit more because I think at last calculation 43% of the US currency is actually owned by the Chinese, because we are very fond of debt. We're extremely fond of debt, so much so that we've sold our currency to the Chinese and they currently own our debt.

Now add to that the fact that they also have a lot of people and a lot of resources to call into question the due process of all bad patents. Guess what happens. Who wins? I'm gonna submit to you that everybody loses.

Listen to the rest of his speech for more. I guarantee you it'll be worth your while. For the record, he concludes his speech with

"If we don't actually confront the integrity problem, which says that we are stimulated to issue garbage (...), we're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic."

Nice to hear that from someone in the field, isn't it?

Poland just recently decided against supporting software patents in the EU. Does that mean they will not respect other countries' patents on software or just that they will not go along with Europe issuing them?

Unlike in the US, the introduction (or not) of software patents in Europe is being handled via a legislative process (as opposed to purely via case law). For an overview of the legislative process, have a look here. The bottom line is that it's currently the turn of the European Council of Ministers, which has to reach a qualified majority for one text or another. The current text is hardcore pro-unlimited patentability.

Now Poland has confirmed they do not support that text (they weren't even formally asked after a break in a meeting in May where some fake compromise amendments were introduced, and where a political agreement was reached). Together with a change of voting weights that went into effect on 1st November (because of the expansion of the EU), this means there is no longer a qualified majority for the current text.

So it has nothing to do with not respecting other countries' patents. Besides, a patent is always only valid in the country it has been granted in, that's how pat