Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Won't Assert Web Services Patents

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the so-don't-sue-me dept.

Andy Updegrove writes, "Microsoft has just posted the text of a new promise not to assert its patents with respect to 35 listed Web Services standards. The promise is similar to the covenant not to assert patents that it issued last year with respect to its Office 2003 XML Reference Schema, with two important improvements intended to make it more clearly compatible with open source licensing. Those changes are to add an explicit promise not to assert any relevant patents against anyone in the distribution chain of a product, from the original vendor through to the end user; and to clarify that the promise covers a partial as well as a full implementation of a standard. It's all part of a recent wave of such pledges made by companies such as IBM, Nokia, and Oracle, and a significant shift in how Microsoft is dealing with open standards."

12 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. So, why? by McFortner · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, can somebody tell me why you would have a patent if you are not going to enforce it?

    "Pay no attention to the Patent Lawyers behind the curtains...."

    --
    Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
    1. Re:So, why? by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2, Interesting
      So, can somebody tell me why you would have a patent if you are not going to enforce it?

      To stop some bastard from reading the spec and patenting it.

      This has happened to me a very large number of times. I am told there are roughly 100 US patents on work I have done filed by other people after the work was published.

      So now I patent ideas aggresively as the only way to keep them open.

      I do not worship at the shrine of RMS. I do not beleive that software patents are always a bad thing. The RSA and Diffie-Hellman patents were clearly for publishing innovative work.

      I think that 95% of the issues open source has with software patents would be solved if the USPTO stopped handing them out like smarties to anyone who asks. Software is not the only area where the USPTO is causing serious problems. I wrote an essay proposing reforms.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  2. Re:Lets be sure to praise em for doing good by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm curious though... what do these pledges actually mean? Are they legally binding? Can they be rescinded at some point in the future? If these pledges really mean that the patents are unenforcable until they expire, I'm all for it... but given MS's history, I want to be absolutely certain on this before doing anything that messes with these now well-known patents (can't claim ignorance).

  3. Microsoft HAD to do this by Audent · · Score: 2, Interesting

    because its patent (on XML in this instance) was soundly thrashed about and it had to re-word it thus reducing its impact.

    Story on it here: http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/E6D44C460 0041E39CC2571D4007DF1C8

    snip
    The patent will no longer cover the XML file formats that Microsoft is using and therefore anyone is free to interoperate with Microsoft file formats without fear of patent litigation from this particular patent
    snip

    The prior art around AbiWord's handling of XML basically did for the original patent Microsoft was after. The new one doesn't really have the same issues for the industry at large.

    --
    I am a leaf on the wind
  4. Dialog by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Act One

    Setting: 1990s

    Developer: "Man, java is the shit!" (hey, it was the 90s, everybody spoke like an idiot)

    Microsoft: "Then you'll love J++, it's more efficient and other stuff that we don't need to prove. Plus, it will soon be used by everyone everywhere."

    Developer: "Cool, sport me a copy!"

    Microsoft: "Not so fast, it's $300 a personal license."

    Developer: "No thanks."

    (Scene ends)

    Act Two

    Setting: late 1990s

    Developer: "JSP's are stupid awesome."

    Microsoft: "Then you'll love ASPs, they're more efficient and other stuff that we don't need to prove. Plus, it will soon be used by everyone everywhere."

    Developer: "Cool, where do I get the compiler for VB or this .NET stuff?"

    Microsoft: "Well, you can make ASPs for free and stuff and almost everyone has IIS anyways ... but to make applications that do anything at all you need our libraries. You need to buy Visual Studio and we're afraid it's a bit pricey ..."

    Developer: "No thanks."

    (Scene ends)

    Act Three

    Setting: the oughts

    Developer: "XML makes my life easier but it's not standardized."

    Microsoft: "Use our standard, it's the best! Uh, it's kind of sorta free. You can edit it easy and use it. *cough* but we've got some patents *cough* so go ahead and use it."

    Developer: "Wait, what was that last part?"

    Microsoft: "Aw, christ, well, to stop everyone from slowly eating away at our dominant market, go ahead and use it. We promise not to sue but no backsies on these patents!"

    Developer: "What the fsck, Microsoft, get it through your heads, we just want to get along. Stop charging us for everything (even standards). Change your business model."

    (Scene ends, developer storms off to go play nice with the Sun & the rest of the world)

    --
    My work here is dung.
  5. Heres a thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe they should sign them over to a 3rd party such as the FSF instead of making nonbinding promises.

  6. Re:Lets be sure to praise em for doing good by pthisis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm curious though... what do these pledges actually mean? Are they legally binding?

    In particular, anyone have any idea to what degree does this constitute an estoppel against future patent litigation against web services implementations?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel

    --
    rage, rage against the dying of the light
  7. Breakable Pledges by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What legal binding do these "pledges" have? Why not back up the pledges by just releasing the patent into the public domain?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  8. Re:Why not? by Jerf · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Unless this pledge is legally binding, I personally don't find it very reassuring.
    I can not categorically tell you it is; IANAL and I only follow patent and IP law for fun.

    But there is a doctrine of laches, which has been applied to patents before. The basic idea is that the person bringing the suit deliberately held the suit until the moment of maximum damage, rather than bring it when the grounds for the suit was discovered.

    It has been successfully used as a defense against submarine patents, where the patent's enforcement was merely delayed. I would imagine that using a laches defense would be even stronger when the prosecution is on record as having pledged to not use the patent in litigation. It would take one asshole of a judge or one incompetently-presented argument to lose on that point.

    It's worth reading the Wikipedia page; I'm not completely explaining why I think this would be covered all the more strongly, partially because, well, there's the Wikipedia page. It'd just be redundant of me.

    Additionally, one could argue implied contract pretty successfully, too.

    Last, and assuredly not least, my God, the PR disaster this would be. It's hard to imagine what 'infringement' would possibly be worth the PR disaster.

    Contrary to popular belief, merely having a lot of lawyers does not buy you victory; that's just cynicism, not an informed belief. I really don't think Microsoft is going to be able to weasel out of this later.
  9. Re:Why not? by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Interesting
    As much as software patents may be a horrible idea, and as much as people here generally hate Microsoft, maybe this is a *good* step? The company has pledged publicly that they won't actually assert their patent rights... and since these are patents we're talking about, it means that noone else can either.
    The problem with such a pledge is that, as its not a contract, or even a license, its dubiously enforceable. If they wanted people to be reasonably free to use the patent, they could make an offer of a no-cost license with clear conditions. As it is, it creates a big cloud of uncertainty.
    Maybe it's just the sort of protection that the open source movement needs so that we *can* innovate without having to jump through a bunch of hoops or worry about facing legal action?
    No, its precisely not the kind of protection that the open-source movement needs to succeed in the enterprise.
  10. Re:Lets be sure to praise em for doing good by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The question of whether it raises an estoppel (presumably, here, a promissory estoppel) depends on, among other things, the degree to which the reliance by the unlicensed user of the patent on the pledge to not enforce the patent is "reasonable", as well as consideration of whether injustice can be avoided by any other means than enforcing the promise.

  11. Re:Why not a license by Rik+van+Riel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A pledge is a lot nicer, since a license would need to be signed and returned by every recipient of software covered by the specifications.

    This, in turn, creates issues where somebody who distributes free software cannot automatically pass the license on to the people dowloading the software.

    A universal pledge, that covers everybody, is a lot more practical.