Microsoft Stoking the IP Fire

gokulpod writes to tell us the Financial Express is reporting that Microsoft is heating up the IP battle once again with warnings about IP indemnifications issues. From the article: "Analysts believe that the core issue at stake is whether open source software increases litigation risks. Open source advocates are quick to point out the IP litigation faced by Microsoft itself. Ubuntu founder and leader Mark Shuttleworth says, 'Linux is growing fast and whenever there is a new way of doing things, people will raise all kind of issues.'"

Comments

The New Global Economy

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Those who can, compete.

Those who can't, sue.

Re:The New Global Economy

[muszek]

And yet we learned one more thing from TFA:

"Ubuntu (open source software being used by Google)"

which clearly is the most accurate and informative definition of Ubuntu

Lesson learnt: those who don't know shit about technology, try to explain everything in relation to Google. I guess keyboard is a "device used by Google engineers to input data into computers" from now on.

Re:The New Global Economy

[killjoe]

Well MS isn't going to sue, they will find lackeys like SCO to do the suing for them while find ways to shovel money at them.

It looks like they picked on the wrong guy with IBM though, the groklaw headline reads IBM Subpoenas Microsoft! Sun! Baystar and HP!.

Imagine the cockroaches that are going to crawl out when those documents hit the court. Presuming of course that those documents haven't been lost, shredded or otherwise just become unavailable.

I wouldn't be surprised if IBM sued MS after the sco trial is over just to get their money back from the lawsuit. You know MS is going to settle, they tend to pay up pretty quickly when slapped with lawsuits.

If you distribute, why wouldn't you be liable?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

When you license software normally, i.e. not Open Source, you don't run the risk of infringement because you are only the user of the software and have no rights to distribute it. On the other hand, if you somehow become a distributor of some software through the GPL or other Open Source license, then wouldn't you be liable? Though you aren't the creator of the work, you are essentially distributing it to others as your own work (in fact, it is your derivative work which you are distributing).

What if it were Microsoft incorporating Linux code into Windows? Wouldn't you want them to be held accountable? Aside from the obvious double standard, why would you think that OSS projects and distributors not be held liable as well?

It's a little disingenuous for Microsoft to claim that as a benefit, though. It's only because they don't grant you any rights that you have that protection.

IP Battle?

[HaydnH]

At least I can safely say I own 127.0.0.1! Oh wait...

Read the fine print. Microsoft is screwing you.

[NZheretic]

Microsoft are ONLY offering patent protection under very limited conditions.

Microsoft provide protection only for code they write. If the code in patented is part of what you provide or from a third party, even down to the enterprise glue code, Microsoft is not liable, even if it is based on calling Microsoft's API ( see the Timeline case ). You have to agree to let Microsoft take over your legal defence and if Microsoft prejudge that you are at all at fault then you have to agree to pay ALL damages and costs.

Great features you don't see anywhere else

[Jivha]

From the article:
Microsoft claims to provide "uncapped protection for legal costs associated with a patent, copyright, trademark or trade secret claim alleging infringement by their product". Open source majors like Red Hat also provide assurance programmes to protect their customers.

What has the world of patents and copyrights come to? We have product manufacturers offering to protect their customers from being sued for using their products!!! This is a feature?

Imagine Honda offering "uncapped protection" for their car users against being sued for driving them? Or Adidas offering the same for their shoes(they were recently sued by Nike for violating some "Air" patents)

I think I miss the vapourware days. Even if the features were imaginary, they at least sounded useful.

Microsoft Users not protected from patent claims.

[tpgp]

It should be noted here that if you believe that you're protected from IP lawsuits by using Microsoft software then you're incorrect.

For example - if you use functioanlity covered by the excel patent case microsoft lost recently, then your business will suffer.

Gartner recommends the following:

* Test all Office-based applications to ensure that they work with the new code, because newly purchased, repaired or reimaged PCs are affected. Pay particular attention to Access applications that interface with Excel.
* Consider deploying Office without Access to users with no specific need for its database functionality, as a quick and viable alternative to installing the new code.
* Recognize that installing the patches on new implementations without testing may be a quick alternative that minimizes legal risk, but risks breaking applications.
* Request that Microsoft issue a patch for Office 2003 SP1, as it has for Office XP SP3, so that an entire service pack does not need to be tested and deployed for Office 2003.
* If you anticipate significant difficulties in complying with the letter, try to get Microsoft to offer consulting assistance at little or no cost. Microsoft says that account managers will make arrangements to help organizations that have major problems complying.
* If you feel you cannot comply with the order, work with legal counsel to understand your risk and exposure.

So... MS loses a patent case, you're liable to clean up the mess.

Furthermore, if the functionality is essential to you, and you avoid installing the service pack, you could be sued

MS is no different to Open Source.

First the vendor is sued, if the litigation is successful, they remove or work around the patent-protected functionality, then if the user continues using the disputed code, the user is liable.

Ok, and how is this a Microsoft vs Linux Issue?

[TheNetAvenger]

Ok, and how is this a Microsoft vs Linux Issue?

I'm sure the article meant this in more of an illustrative measure, but this is a very bad way to present the issue.

Sure companies are going to protect users from legal issues, this is a part of business. It is also a measure of success with a lot of companies, as some do include protections for their customers and are willing to front any legal blows.

Now if Joe Blow compiles Linux and straps on some tools and you use it in your business and you get sued over stuff it contains, what else would expect to happen?

But this is true of any piece of software or OS, why make this a MS vs Linux specific issue? Buzz, get Slashdot attention, make Microsoft out to be something they are not (good or bad)?

If RedHat is offering or trying to offer a level of abstract between their users and lawsuits as Microsoft is, how could this be Linux vs Microsoft? The last I looked Redhat pretty much only shipped Linux.

This is a common business concept and sure there are reasons when you have a lot at stake to go with the better protection. You could also buy insurance to protect your company as well.

Is this not news to just me?

Risk to USERS of open source from patent claims?

[NZheretic]

1) Any patent lawsuit against a user of a software component used by major vendors will automatically result in those vendors lending legal support to reduce the chance that their own customers will also end up being sued.
2) Any patent lawsuit costs the suing party at least several hundred thousand dollars.
3) Any patent put before the courts is at very great risk of being destroyed by prior art.
4) Any payout awarded from a single end user has to be in proportion to value of the patented technology. The value of a single instance will could only be measured in hundreds of dollars, not coming close to covering the costs of suing
5) Patent lawsuits take six years to over a decade to work it's way though appeals.
6) Developers will release new software using a method that circumvents the patent in question within two months. This will be quickly adopted and by the time the first patent case is resolved there will be no further customers for the patent holder to sue.
7) The outrage generated in taking out a case against any open source will result in Groklaw and other groups putting the suing party and their lawyers under the closest scrutiny. You will not believe the level of bad publicity, let alone the the amount of prior art, dirty business practices, and legal suspect practices and even violation of statutes that will be uncovered.

Lastly to quote Pulp Fiction, and then "we are going to get medieval on your ass."

Any IP case against users of open source pute the attacker at a far greater risk.

Read about the Timeline INC case.

[NZheretic]

Microsoft licensed patented technology for only itself without granting the right for end users and developers to use the same patented technology. Microsoft licensed Database/Datawarehouse technology from Timeline Inc, but unlike Oracle and other database vendors, Microsoft chose a license that did not grant Microsoft's customers the right to fully use that technology . Timeline has extended it's patent claims to cover many featured widely used by developers, both ISV and in house.

Timeline Inc has won a US Washington Court of Appeal judgment against Microsoft for the right to sue Microsoft's customers, and subsequently sued Cognos. On February 13, 2004, Cognos settled at cost to Cognos totaling $1.75 million

I'm surprised people believe MS will protect them.

[DCFC]

MS will no doubt be up for fighting a SCO-like kamizaze attack. But I can't be the only person who spotted the way that MS will only do it if it doesn't cost much ?
According to Techweb (and many other sites), 25% of Office users will suffer the pain of having to alter apps because Microsoft didn't own some of the technology it shipped.
http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/179100683 Users are currently infringing patents now. But come the next update apparently MS will disable these features.
Thus your applications will go bang. I see that as bad.
Recall how MS issued the WMF vulnerability patch by remotely rebooting people's machines, including servers ?
If you buy an MP3 or DVD player which breaks someone's patent, it's hard to care if the manufacturer gets sued. But if you look at the Blackberry debacle, we see that a patent holder can reach into a user's equipment and disable it.
RIM is not a trivial firm, albeit smaller than MS, it has fought hard, but is losing.
MS lost it's case, and recall all the fights over tech in IE ?
Perhaps this is the real reason the MS is pandering to the copyright holders in the MPAA and RIAA for Vista ?

Thus we have both a legal and technical framework by which you can be shafted. MS can't protect you.
Like with viruses, it's very size makes it more vulnerable, and a more attractive target.
If you were a SCOlike entity would you rather extort $1 from every copy of Windows or Gentoo Linux ?
There are (I guess) >50,000 patentable things in Microsoft's product line. Most of which are of course prior art, or a few licenced or owned. But MS cannot afford even to buy off all the patent holders who might come after it.
Thus MS protection is very limited.
Part of my education was during the Cold War about the role of the British nuclear deterrent, which was a distant 3rd after Russia & the US. It couldn't destroy Russia, but could make an awful mess.
To me it points to what the open source movement should be moving towards with future versions of GPL etc.
By patenting a slew of s/w features, MS, Oracle et al now have something to fear.
The gangs of lawyers on contingency unleashed if MS tries to screw the O/S user base have the same deterrence as as the UK nukes. Not the end of the world, but the end of your world, which is good enough.
Since the lawyers are being used weapons, not as revenue generators, you can cut a deal where they get to keep all the money.
This means they will be more effective than the SCO gang, because their goal is to make a profit, not mutually assured destruction.

DCFC the Pimp. http://pauldominic.com/

Destroying evidence

[SgtChaireBourne]

Imagine the cockroaches that are going to crawl out when those documents hit the court. Presuming of course that those documents haven't been lost, shredded or otherwise just become unavailable.

There were some interesting analyses a while back going into detail about how MS is able to effectively destroy evidence. It involves tricks with a retention policy specifying a document life span shorter than needed to carry out a delayed document request. Some bizarre naming or routing scheme ensures that those without insider information get routed to the wrong deptartment, so by the time the request gets to the right people, the documents are long gone.

While I can't comment on whether that is or isn't technically illegal, it does show bad faith, contempt for the laws of the country (and by extension for the country itself), and a lack of ethics. But we knew those last parts already.

MS relies heavily on delay tactics anyway, so this method for destruction of evidence supplments them.

Microsoft Stoking the IP Fire

[rs232]

"Litigation suits can be tremendously expensive, with the cost easily exceeding what you paid for the software many times over''

For a company that warns off others against using Open Source because of litigation concerns they do seem to spend an inordinant amount of time in court defending itself against accusations of violating/stealing other peoples IP.

"As an industry leader, we are committed to spreading awareness on the issue among the Indian CIOs so they can make the best software decision that will best meet their business needs while at the same time balancing the risks involved,''

As a convicted monopolist, we are committed to spreading as much fud amoung CIOs so as we can scare them off buying anything other thing MS as well as forcing up the cost of Open Source through the use of bogus IP litigation concerns.(end translation)

Most people have little to fear as you're not big enough to go after. Unlike Apple, Amazon or Blackberry for instance. Good times ahead for the lawyers I guess. The root cause of the current IP racket is the US Patent Office and its predilection to grant nonsensical patents. We need less IP law not more. Lets see where doing business with a 'legimite' software company gets you:

A List of Microsoft Litigation

Microsoft Litigation

• American Video Graphics v. Microsoft .. Violating Intellectual Property Rights.
• AOL Time-Warner v. Microsoft .. Illegal Bundling.
• Apple v. Microsoft .. Copyright Violation.
• Arendi Holdings v. Microsoft .. Patent Violation.
• AT&T v. Microsoft .. Failure to Share Source Code.
• Pulp Fiction writer sues Microsoft .. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets.
• Borland v. Microsoft .. Staff Poaching.
• Brazil v. Microsoft .. Impeding Competition.
• Bristol Technology v. Microsoft Corp .. Deceptive Business Practices.
• BTG International v. Apple and Microsoft - Patent Infringement.
• Caldera v. Microsoft .. Withholding code and Embedding Fake Error msgs in Windows.
• eLeaders v. Microsoft .. attempted to Monopolize the Market.
• California Cities sue Microsoft .. Monopoly Control.
• Corel-Microsoft deal .. caused Corel to Withdraw from the Linux market.
• DoJ investigation re Illegal Bundling of MSN with Windows 95.
• Minnesota: Gordon v. Microsoft .. Broke Windows unless it ran on MS-DOS.
• South Korean v Microsoft .. over Slammer Worm.
• Daum Communications v. Microsoft .. Illegal Bundling.
• Eolas Technologies v. Microsoft .. Patent Infringement.
• E-Pass v. Microsoft .. Patent Infringment.
• EU anti-trust case .. exerting Undue Influence.
• Eu v. Microsoft Europe .. Unlawful Tying and deliberate Interoperability Barriers.
• Syn-X Relief v. Microsoft .. Software Piracy.
• Goldtouch v. Microsoft .. Patent Infringement.
• Intertrust Technologies v. Microsoft .. Patent Infringement.
• Japan FTC v Microsoft .. a Do Not Sue MS clause in OEM Contracts :)
• Be, Inc. v. Microsoft .. Antitrust Lawsuit.
• Burst v. Microsoft .. Patent Violation.
• Netscape v. Microsoft .. Illegally Exploiting Monopoly Power.
• Sun v. Microsoft .. Illegal Tying and Exclusionary Agreements.
• Novell v. Microsoft .. Suppress the sales of WordPerfect.
• Priceline v. M