Author of Linux Patent Study Contradicts Ballmer

An anonymous reader sends us this EWeek story, following-up on the recent Linux patent scare. The author of the patent study is contacted, and says, "Open source faces no more, if not less, legal risk than proprietary software. The market needs to understand that the study Microsoft is citing actually proves the opposite of what they claim it does."

Comments

Math Error in Article

[Noksagt]

In fact, the study said Linux potentially violates 283 software patents, not "over 228" as Ballmer said in his speech.

Last time I checked, 283>228. Please also note this quote, which provides the best summary:

"The point of the study was actually to eliminate the FUD about Linux's alleged legal problems by attaching a quantifiable measure versus the speculation," he said. "And the number we found, to anyone familiar with this issue, is so average as to be boring; almost any piece of software potentially infringes at least that many patents.

Re:Liability of implementors of patented ideas

[happyemoticon]

If I implement a piece of software that is already patented and put it in the public domain, can I be sued for this?

Strictly speaking, yes. Patents protect the abstract concept of something. If the code was just copyrighted, you could release a competing open source product though. That's why companies like patents.

Can someone write a free implementation of a patented idea just for the sake of other people doing research on the idea (e.g timing and comparing certain patented algorithms, etc.)? This doesn't seem different from publication of said idea/algorithm.

IANAL, but they probably have permission. Publishing firms have armies of lawyers to prevent infringement. However, whenever you are about to use something patented, ask yourself, "Am I making a profit based on this person's idea?" In the case of a book which touts X's patented sort routine or Y's mipmapping algorithm, the patent holder would probably concent because it's like free advertising. If you release a GPL'd implementation of something, you are still violating their patent. You'd have to talk to the company first and get their expressed, written concent.

And how many patent lawsuits has Microsoft had...

[mikael]

And how many patent lawsuits has Microsoft been involved in:

Microsoft, Tiscali sued over European download patent

Sun, Microsoft settle suit in billion dollar pact

Microsoft settles Intertrust patent lawsuit

Microsoft settles suit with Immersion

Microsoft settles 1999 Patent Infringement Case

Re:Open source is more vulnerable to patents

[Halo1]

Access to source code

Access to software

Most software patents do not require access to the source to determine whether or not they are infringed, and often not even to the application to determine whether or not they infringe. Most software patents monopolise very high level features. You'll almost never find "low level" software patents. The ones that you can find and which are enforced, are generally those that cover standards (e.g. on mp3, gif, jpeg).

Licensing capacity

I don't think IBM would have any problems getting a proper license for some patents infringed by e.g. Eclipse. So this is generally more a big vs small than open vs closed issue (though definitely not always, e.g. the shareware GraphicConverter was able to keep offering GIF encoding, because the author paid patent license fees to Compuserv).

Culture of negativity

[HangingChad]

MSFT is taking a page from Karl Rove's playbook. Between the paid-for TCO studies and the patent scare tactics they've turned relentlessly negative.

I think it makes an interesting statement about MSFT products to hear them bashing the competition instead of selling the competitive strengths of their products.

To me it's almost an admission that their product line is not cost competitve with OSS. That's not strictly a price comparison, it's a value comparison. MSFT products do not give you the same value for the $$$ that LInux and OSS. Something most of us here have known for a long time.

MSFT has been sticking it to their customers for years with higher and higher license fees, back-stabbing EULA's and Naziesque business practices. I think they're really underestimating how bad people dislike being dicked and how long their memories can be.

I know it sounds a little Pollyanna but it's unfortunate that going negative can be so effective. It's kind of like spam. Everyone complains about it but as long as it's effective we're going to keep getting buried buy it.