Slashdot Mirror
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."
Now Microsoft will have to buy a new study that says what they want.
Microsoft mischaracterizes what someone says just for FUD purposes? Naaa, that would never happen.
From the article: "Consider this--not a single open-source software program has ever been sued for patent infringement, much less been found to infringe. On the contrary, proprietary software, like Windows, is sued and found guilty of patent infringement quite frequently."
While I am glad that OSS hasn't been suded yet, I think it's a bit immature to use this as a defence. First of all, you don't need to actually do anything wrong to be sued, and usually you're sued because you're making enough money that the plantiff might take a bite of it, or you have conflict of interest with the plantiff.
Wasn't it not long ago we read about SCO/MS Connection? It's pretty obvious now that the litigation is baseless, but this doesn't not stop corporates from taking it to the court.
Another example is FireFox, many claimed it's flawless, but the realistic others know that no software is bugless, but its OPEN status allows things to be fixed relatively quickly. So it would be unwise to claim that FireFox has fewer bugs and more secure because it hasn't been exploited yet.
So a better argument might be OSS, given it's open, any potential patent infringement will be digged out before it goes far.
However, this brings another question, can we safely assume that nothing incriminating is in the source? Patent itself is illusive enough, and how easy it is to find out about a particular patent, and then relate it to a certain class in the source?
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
"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 was over 228
I've this question. If I implement a piece of software that is already patented and put it in the public domain, can I be sued for this?
I mean in many CG books they describe algorithms that are patented, yet nobody sues the authors of the books. 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.
It is my understanding that if somebody uses it for commercial purposes or if I try to sell it, then I/they 'd be liable. But can source code be considered as a publication in certain cases?
Except that if Microsoft violates 100 patents, they can just license or buy the company out that owns it.
If one patent is broken by an OSS Project, its much more of a burden.
OK, am I the only one who is seeing a legal problem here? If Coca-Cola said some study proves their cola is good for teeth, but the study shows it is harmful to teeth, don't you think the gov't, media, and a flock of 3rd party lawyers would descend upon Atlanta post-haste?
So what'll happen with this? Nothing. Your boss will still think MS is the bestest ever, the average dingaling will keep using Win98 SP1, and no major media outlet will make the tiniest peep.
Fight the power!
did you win a free ipod? build a case for it here
``The market needs to understand that the study Microsoft is citing actually proves the opposite of what they claim it does.''
This has been a common theme lately. Microsoft did the same thing with various other studies. The Bush administration used reports that claimed the non-existence of WMD in Iraq to support its claims that Iraq was dangerous. Recently, I read a column where someone claimed that increased Firefox use would harm security (the larger target theory), with a reference to a report that showed IE gets more exploits per user than does Firefox.
People get away with spreading all this FUD, because readers don't verify the information that's being cited. When Microsoft says the report found Windows cheaper than Linux, people assume the report indeed said so. Unless, of course, they are inquiring minds and want to know how the report arrived at its conclusion. Then they suddenly find the report concluded the opposite!
What I don't understand is why the authorities get away with it. THESE PEOPLE ARE LYING TO US. Have you seen Ballmer in court over his allegations? Or Bush?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Microsoft is willing to patent things, and to assume there are no patent infringments in the open source seems short sighted. And if they don't have the patents yet, eventually they will, as they push their technology forward. It isn't as if Microsoft consists of a bunch of incapable people, so eventually they will have, if they don't already, a lot of important patents open source will infringe upon.
When I was working at one large software company, we wrote a number of patents. One of the reason was that companies like IBM might sue you, and if you don't have patents you can exchange with them, the cost is higher during the settlement.
Honestly, it seems without "open source" patents, the open source community is fighting without an important tool, and like all wars of attrition with a determined foe, will eventually lose.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
Unfortunately this is a trend that is increasing in our society, one takes a fact or group of facts out of context and uses that to prove something.
Technically unrelated to this article, but Fox News did go to court for making a story appear the oppisite of the facts. They lost at first, but won on appeal. Now they are suing journalists who refused to publish the false version of the report for court costs.
Fox News was able to get a court to rule that they have no responsibility to tell the truth because there is no specific law that say they have too. So if a news station can not be required to report on things honestly, then I don't think there is much change of getting a company (especially MS) to do so.
On of Many Links to this story