Slashdot Mirror
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?
This should go over really well. At least MS is entrenched in most business environments here in the U.S. so they can get away with a lot of this stuff. But in Asia (especially in places where they are pushing the stripped-down edition of Windows) this is going to alienate them even more than just having high prices.
"Buy our expensive software... or try the alternative and we'll sue you."
Good way to make friends.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
I agree. Why do countries put up with this nonsense? I personally think these Asian countries should sue the companies for general stupidity. "Someday, for all countries that are entering the WTO, somebody will come and look for money owing to the rights for that intellectual property" -> Someone needs to slap Ballmer for pretending to have weight with the WTO. For shame sir, for shame....
That might not be true. Look what a week of gathering cash did for Firefox!! I bet that if Slashdot posted a "donate money to fight Microsoft in court" fund we'd raise millions of dollars to help fight the lies!
I'm willing to donate literally tens of dollars to such a cause.
Well, this is a new approach to spreading FUD. If he's referring to SCO, I would doubt that anyone still buys that.
If he's saying that they are infringing Microsoft's own patents then why can't he give examples, and why haven't Microsoft already been taking legal action? They sure don't seem to be afraid of doing so
I'm getting bored of seeing these patent lawsuits. To think that insurance companies exist just to sell insurance against such lawsuits shows just how pathetic our patenting system is. *yawn*
What ever happened to winning by doing better than the competition, anyway? Are American corporations so pathetic that they have to stoop to this level to compete now?
I'm glad Ballmer has been so proactive in helping China figure out what to do with software patents. It looks like Europe is leaning toward at least minimizing -- if not eliminating -- software patents. When China turns its attention to the subject, Ballmer's little speech should give them some food for thought on which direction they should go.
Keep in mind that China is a Communist country and any concept of intellectual property is relatively novel.
Keep in mind that China, Japan and Korea are cooperating together to create a standardised asian linux system, and considerable sums of money have been invested in the project. A large pat of the reason was to remove dependence on foreign companies... which is to say, Microsoft.
China, Japan and Korea working together is no mean feat either - they are historically incredibly bitter enemies. Think a nice English/Irish/French cooperative linux distribution and you might get the idea.
I doubt China will be scared of Liux by anything Ballmer has to say about patents. You're quite right. They are more likely to take the other option and view the software patents as the problem.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Their threats are empty. They are CONVICTED of being a monopoly and illegally USING that power to force themselves into dominance in other markets.
If MS attempts to use a patent to stifle Linux uptake, the courts can strip the patent from them even if it IS a valid patent.
Microsoft threatening like this is the best thing that has ever happened to those of us who oppose software patents. MS is huge and rich, but compared to the rest of the US and world economy, they are a flyspeck. Microsoft seems to be ACTIVELY trying to turn the whole world AGAINST them.
Funny how Ballmer is sounding like Darl McBride...
If you are a former customer, expect to be sued. You have our "presssccciiooouss" IP.
Suing your customers, or THREATENING to sue your customers is not a proven successful business tactic.
IBM has more patents than God, and their business interest is in protecting Linux. I am not too worried about MS or someone sucessfully getting Linux stopped via software patents, and the attempt will do more to teach our business community and our government that software patents are bad and should be abolished or limited in scope.
For one thing, companies should have to choose: Copyright or patent. They can have one or the other, not BOTH.
Corporatism != Free Market
That was Akamai's caching system that was running on Linux.
What is interesting is that because Microsoft's code is closed, they could be violating a lot of patents and no one outside the organization would know.
Linux's openness is the reason there is a target on Tux's back. Of course, Linus and Morton have said they will re-code if they have to to avoid patent issues, if and when they come up.
I wonder if Google could come up with a way to see if anyone is violating any patents. It would be an extremely useful tool, and a lot of corporations would buy such a tool.
This is just another public manifestation of the tactics used by MSFT. FUD FUD FUD....
But it is quite intesting to notice the effect this type of argument has on some IT people. The other day one of our clients (a manager of a US company) tried to explain me (and my team) how all open-source licenses are dangerous. It was kinda funny, because he couldnt event tell the difference between acronyms such as GNU, GPL, LGPL, CPL, MPL, etc. Basically, open-source is bad because lawyers told him so, although he was unable to cite any real example. I got really upset.
Yeah, Ballmer's arguments make a lot of sense from his own perspective. MSFT wishes to thank SCO...
--ASRG
When exactly did this whole business of customers getting sued for using a product someone else wrote start? It seems to me this never happened before SCO threatened Linux users. I thought the reason for that was simply with Linux, there is no entity that creates it that can be sued, so they were going after the customers.
Traditionally, it's the responsibility of the software developer to deal with the IP stuff, and the customers can just go and use it. If the developer violates some patents, they're the ones responsible for it. Haven't customers ALWAYS been indemnified? Frankly, when all these companies cam out and specifically said they were indemnifing customers, I thought it was just a PR scam.
As far as I know, the only two cases brought against end users that have anything to do with IP violations in software are SCO vs DialmerChrylser, and SCO vs AutoZone.. both of those basically got laughed out of court and are all but over. Has there ever been a case of a company going after end-users of a software product (instead of the developer) for patent violations?
Speak before you think
Uh, what "Penguin Horde"? I dig linux and all, but there still isn't a huge "threat" yet to Microsoft right now. Look around at the industry rags, Linux to MS is still at nusciance level, not threat level (yet).
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
My country seems to have decided as a whole that actually manufacturing anything is so ... passe.
... nothing. Whereas if other countries refuse to buy "Intellectual Property" (ie paying tribute to others for ideas that they already have in their possession), then they simply use the "ideas" they already have for free. Which position would you rather be in?
Instead, we're pretending that the so-called "New Economy" actually produces something useful. Despite the bursting of the dot-com bubble, this illusion persists even today.
However, since we still need real manufactured goods, we run massive trade deficits with China and others.
And what do we try to export to offset this? "Intellectual Property", a largely illusionary concept created to protect the assets of industries that would not exist today if the sorts of "property rights" they espouse had existed over the last several decades.
Yep, we're trying to trade "the emperor's new clothes" for actual goods. Do you think the rest of the world is going to be dumb enough to take the trade? I don't.
And if they don't, we're going to "apply pressure", so I'm led to understand. Let me get this straight. Given that we don't produce anything real ourselves, if we stop importing these goods we'll have
It's interesting, I heard an ad on the radio while driving home the other day. It said something to the effect of:
"What do you call it when a software package is installed on multiple computers in your office? It's called PIRACY, and it's illegal, please contact the (blah blah blah antipirating corp, etc)".
It's especially funny, because when I heard the ad, my intial reaction was "I call it 'open office', open source software, freeware, linux, etc".
Apparently according to the ad, nobody uses anything other than commercial software in their offices anymore. If I was starting a business, you'd be sure that even though the machines would probably run windows (preinstalled with the computer I suppose), they'd all be running open-office and not MS office.
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
You know this is starting to sound more and more like an episode in US history. How many of you remember the story of the British East India Company and the early 1770's? It seems that the British government was trying to keep the British East India Company from failing financially and passed some laws to assist them "unfairly". The near-term result in the case of the British East India Company was a party in Boston Harbor (a.k.a. The Boston Tea Party). Maybe we should be reminding out governments about such things. It has been said that if you forget your history, you are doomed to repeat it. It seems to me that we are repeating it in that we are "unfairly" protecting large corporations with governmental laws.
I am not suggesting that we have "The Seattle Software Party". I don't think that polluting the Port of Seattle would accomplish anything in this case. I am simply suggesting that you should each give your law makers a history lesson to remind them of the consequences of government caving to big business and not protecting the people.
I have no sig, does anyone have one to spare?
Looks like SUN is trying to live off corporate fear just as much as Micro$oft is: read this CNN story tech sites:
Another thing to keep in mind is that Microsoft now offers patent (and other IP) indemnification for their volume customers. From the latest Ballmergram:
That's their Linux strategy, folks. Our crooked (US) patent system favors big business, and Microsoft will use their patent portfolio to try to bury open source software. At the very least they can say, "We have indemnification and they don't!" (Although Novell, for one, is now offering this service. And I wonder if Microsoft is willing to put their money where their mouth is.)
Thank god for SCO! Without SCO, the very idea of the Redmond software juggernaut wielding its mighty IP portfolio to crush some upstart software system, written by some "random hacker in China", would send corporate executives scrambling for the protection of O Holy Microsoft.
... and suing IBM, and suing and suing ... and not winning (yet) ... and not winning, and not winning ... Hmm, maybe this intellectual property crap isn't all it's made out to be, after all.
But guess what? For over a year now, these executives have been hearing about this little SCO company suing IBM, and
And what's this Linux thing the executives keep hearing about? Oh, it's nothing to worry about, says Microsoft. Ignore it, says Microsoft. Pay no attention, says Microsoft's Steve Ballmer to Munich, skiing across the Atlantic to bring this not very important message to Germany. Don't bother to even think about it, says Microsoft, pulling out all manner of independent reviews to prove its point.
And now, Microsoft roars, if you use Linux, we will SUE YOU!!!! (if you're in China). The Price-Waterhouse executive quakes in his boots as he gazes on the corporate global map--
Hey, waitaminnit, he says. We don't *have* anything in China.
He picks up the phone. "Miss Wynton? Have you renewed our corporate membership in MandrakeClub Gold yet?"
Thank you, SCO.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
...you threaten to sue customers and potential customers for not buying your product.
This is REAL bad for Microsoft. First, it shows how much of a threat Linux is.
Second, those companies and governments he is threatening will think twice about enacting any software patent laws.
Third, no one likes to be threatened! It's just a simple fact that threatening someone is the worse thing you can do to make someone do what you want. Instantly that "someone" is antagonistic and will try at the first available moment to escape.
When Microsoft competed against Linux on price and quality it had a chance. Now we know it's over.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
We will wipe the filth of his seed from the world.
As it shows a degree of panic on Microsoft's part. Ballmer starts out with the assumption that software patents are going to be conditional on entry to the WTO. This overlooks two main points:
1) The WTO is, by definition, the WORLD Trade organisation. Subserviance to a global Microsoft Patent arsenal would put Microsoft a step closer to killing off any competition from freely distributable FOSS that can be deployed in homes and businesses. As Linux is the only real competition that Redmond have had in the last 15-20 years to surrender to this would be tantamount to giving MS the global software market forever. Future free software development in countries other than the US would be more difficult, possibly impossible, leaving every country in the hands of the MS. Your country disagrees with America? Simple, Homeland security adds you to the export ban list and all of a sudden your DRM permission gets revoked. Far fetched? Manybe, but in the current climate I bet its gone through a few minds in high places.
2) There are not many countries that trust America at the moment. Europe's nervous about Iraq (why not it's a lot closer to Iraq than the US is), half of the Middle East is keeping its head down while the other half sit wondering whether their next and are probably tooling up just in case. The North Koreans? Wouldn't wanna be in their shoes right now. The Chinese won't want to submit to anyone as their economy's growing fast and they won't want to relinquish control. In short, global software patents suit one country and although Tony Blair will probably prostrate himself on the Whitehouse carpet while swearing to keep the UK government/Microsoft partnership going it's still part of Europe.
So; Given that the main effect of global software patents will be to kill of any other countries chances of competing with Microsoft, what reason have they got for signing up. If anything, this speech gives Europe and China a sign of the state of things to come adding extra impetus to turn to Mandrake, SuSE, Red Star Linux and forget about software patents for good.
As SCO come closer to death it's interesting to see Microsoft's anti-Linux activities seeming more desperate as they flail around looking for options however implausible they may be. The ultimate effect of this one though may be the isolation of Microsoft to American territory, their overseas markets cut off by their own hand.
Incidently, if terrorism is the art of threatening attack in order to influence governments or organisations the tone of Stevey Boys rant could easily be interpreted as such. I therefore suggest that Redmond be declared part of the axis of evil terrorist organisations. A UN force should be deployed in Ballmers office and sanctions be imposed on the evil dictator within. Alternatively, it could be subcontracted to the Israelis who can surround the aforementioned with Tanks, keeping Monkey Boy incarcerated until he's 75 and becomes entitled to utilise the French health service.
--
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
I wonder if Google could come up with a way to see if anyone is violating any patents. It would be an extremely useful tool, and a lot of corporations would buy such a tool.
So many of the patents are vague, wide ranging, overlapping and untested in court (and quite likely invalid) that any substantial software development would quite likely appear to violate a number of them. As others have pointed out, given that it's virtually impossible to avoid a *potential* patent violation in these circumstances, it's actually much better *not* to attempt to check for these possible violations, since the penalties for wilful patent violation are apparently much higher than for unknowing violation.
Considered submitting this version of the story myself; what makes this one different is the commentary towards the end (edited here):-
What about all of those countries who're already members of the WTO? They should perhaps also get the message about how Microsoft sees IP law being used in the future. Which might well have a helpful collateral damage effect in Europe, if Europe's leaders are paying attention. Yesterday the Polish Government backed out of support for the EU patents directive, in a move which threatens to derail it... the sound of Microsoft threatening all-out IP war really ought to strengthen the opposition's hand, and make the European Parliament, which opposes software patents, more determined to fight. So well done, Steve, we look forward to the rebuttal.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Closer reading of the article suggests that it will be 2-4 years before Linux becomes competitive with Windows. The year of Linux always seems to be 2-4 years in the future.
I am not one who likes lawsuits or believe in suing, but as an open source software user and writer, I may have to encourage just that. It seems to me that Microsoft is mobilizing its lawyer corps and is using its patent portfolios in order to deter Linux users. Microsoft is also vulnerable in this same area. Microsoft has settled with several companies regarding software patents. There is also another area in which I can see that Microsoft is vulnerable. This area concerns the amount of viruses, spam, trojans, spyware, and other malware that is spread by Microsoft's lack of security.
Yes, I know that people that use Microsoft products are forced to agree to their E.U.L.A. and that E.U.L.A. does away with customers' options to sue Microsoft for damages caused by their product. I also know of many who do not use Microsoft's products and are still affected by Microsoft's products' lack of security. I am one of these people. I use Linux at work, home, and on my webhosting service and at each one of these places, I have to deal with spam. This spam is in many cases sent by unwitting Microsoft users whos computers have contracted spam spewing worms. While they are effective blocked from suing Microsoft, I am not. Neither are the thousands of ISP's around the country who have to pay for the costs of filtering, storing, blocking, and receiving spam. If Microsoft's insecurity is a contributing factor in the transmission of any kind of attack and that attack ends up costing people who have not agreed to any of Microsoft's E.U.L.A.'s, then Microsoft may be responsible for its share of the cost.
Here is the costs to employers. If you do not use Microsoft's products, just ask yourself this question, "How much time do I spend at work filtering and deleting virus and spam email?" Take that time and convert to hours. Multiply the hours by your pay rate. Have other non Microsoft-using employees at your job site do the same. Add these costs together. Now take the total amount and multiply by the estimated percentage of spam spread by spam-spewing software which was spread by Microsoft's software vulnerabilities. This is the amount Microsoft costs your employer.
Now look at your ISP. If your ISP does not use Microsoft's products, they have a case too. Figure out the total bandwith used by spam. Multiply this figure by the percentage of SPAM sent by Microsoft's insecurities. Do the same for denial of service attacks. Add these figures together. If your ISP pays for virus, spam, and D.O.S. filtering and blocking, you can multiply cost of these by the persentage of attacks caused by Microsoft's insecurities. Add the blocking and bandwidth costs together, and you get what Microsoft costs your ISP.
Yes, it also costs governments. Look at how much it costs the government to produce computer security programs. Multiply this cost by the percentage of problems caused by Microsoft's insecurities. You get the amount of money Microsoft costs governments for computer security programs.
How much does Microsoft's insecurities cost you? Your ISP has to make a profit. So do most employers. Higher costs gives governments excuses to raise taxes. All these costs are passed to you in one way or another. You also have to filter spam, viruses and such from your emails, how much time does that cost you? Does this sound like it can make for many lawsuits? I sounds like it to me. So, I would recommend that Microsoft be very careful about how it uses it legal clout.
He didn't bother to attend class; he just hung around the perimeter, terrorizing those smaller than him and robbing them of their lunch money. Normally, thugs like these end up in prison, usually for assault-with-intent.
I'm a bit vague on this, but I remember something about psychopathic personality types being associated highly with both prison inmates *and* those in positions of power, such as head of a company.
Strangely enough, I also remember the same thing being true of risk-takers....
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
1. "indemnify" does not mean "you cannot be sued". Only "we'll pay you the damages if you get sued"
2. the indemnification move is a recent anouncement, the EULA only says "not exceeding the software cost" and "MS is not liable" (HA!) - and all you have to show for it is a website, at most (not really legally binding, eh?) Reading the conditions, it's not exactly guaranteed, either, that MS will deign to step in. Plus, even if they do, you need to completely hand over the defense to them, which could have interesting side effects, such as exposing your internal documents to MS
So how is it "better" again? say you get served a suit and MS does step in, but fails to settle and you get an interim restraint order for using a particular component of a particular server-side MS product
And also:
Great, eh? wait, there's more:
And more!:
Has everyone forgotten about this word. While using a MS product might mean that you are infringing on someones patent somewhere, MS will protect you in court if someone sues you over it. Which of the Linux guys is doing that?
I am not saying linux is bad or MS is good before I get flamed here. I am just saying when it comes to lawsuites MS has something to offer that I don't think is offered anywhere in the OpenSource world.
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
Where are these phrases rooted, anyone know?
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
My personal theory about why Gates stepped down as CEO, handing the job to Ballmer is that basically Gates is a decent guy who is just interested in technology and tinkering. His foundation (with Melinda) certainly is trying to do some good with all that money. Gates eventually grew tired of all the lying and deceiving that seems to be required (he certainly didn't lie very well in court and the DOJ). Whereas Ballmer clearly has no compunctions about lying and deceiving the public. He doesn't seem to have an ethical bone in his body. My sense was/is that Gates was sincere (however misguided or faulty his technology has been) about trying to do good things for the customer, whereas Ballmer clearly has no true interest in what is best for customer compared with his own self-interests. Gates never talked the way that Ballmer now talks...
Maybe not sued but they still have to pay (or alredy paid) for such lawsuits. Where does Microsoft get the money from? From customers. Thus, if Microsoft is sued, costs are charged to their customers (more or less directly).
And IANAL, users can't be responsible for patent or copyright infrigement in software products they did not developed. Only those who actualy put the "questionable" code into the product should be responsible.
Thus, if customer is charged money for "indemnification" from IP lawsuits related to software he is using then he is not doing good purchase. No metter from whom he is purchasing (Microsoft, Sun, Red Hat, Linus & co., ...) and for what price ($1, $100, $1'000, ...). IMHO.
The whole "indemnification issue" from (at least some) software vendors looks to me like in best case like "Hey, customer. You know, todays IP laws suks and we are not sure whether we have some stolen-or-something IP in our products so while we do not want to pay the bill for such fucked-up system, you'll pay but to make you more comfortable with that, let us agree that we will call it indemnification and it means we are protecting you from bad-guys.".
Or, in worst case "Hey, customer. We stole some IP from others and put it into our product. It's great because we make money from you thanks to work of others. And because they may sue us, you have to pay us for indemnification so we do not go out of business. And while today IP laws suks, we can make all this fishy arrangement look like we are doing you a favor.".
hany