Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Taking Heat For Patent Stance
Yesterday Novell released a statement disavowing Steve Ballmer's claim that Linux infringes Microsoft's IP. Linux-watch.com reports that Microsoft quickly responded with a statement of its own that softened, but did not entirely back away from, Ballmer's claim (but the article offers no link to such a statement).
xtaski writes, "Everyone took notice when Ballmer spewed forth FUD about Microsoft and Linux IP. Now CIOs are asking just what did Ballmer think he was doing? They are not fooled — but rather, a little angry. ComputerWorld covers the news including one CIO who says 'There were some applications I had been thinking about moving to a Microsoft platform, but this has now totally alienated me from Microsoft.'"
And an anonymous reader points us to the statement by the Open Invention Network — whose investors include IBM, Novell, Sony, Red Hat, Philips and NEC — on the Microsoft-Novell agreement. From the statement: "OIN continues to support the Linux community's ability to collaborate and innovate. Through the accumulation of patents that may be used to shield the Linux environment, including users of Linux software, OIN has obviated the need for offers of protection from others."
It is interesting to see that they are starting to posture themselves in this way now. For all these years they really have not gone after anyone for patent violations - maybe that was because the going was good. Now that they have implemented all of their fancy piracy protection they need to keep others from providing alternative solutions that really are easier for a paying customer to use.
Kinda reminds me of communist Russia and their fences and guns keeping their people from leaving the country.
http://www.windows-admin-tools.com
Everyone is infringing on everyone else's patents (if only in the most technical of senses).
The Windows vs Linux battle is a perfect example of mutually assured destruction.
Nobody will win if the lawsuits start flying back and forth. It wouldn't even be good for business.
If MS really thinks there are patent issues, then MS should either try to work out cross licensing deals that benefit or have the offending IP removed. Anything else is just FUD.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I wonder if this is one of the first moves that Microsoft is making to back away from the agreement, or rather ... to back away from their original intentions (whatever they may have been).
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
These vague claims of "infringement" have certainly led to heavy discussion of Microsoft's deal with Novell. Ballmer has always been good at generating free publicity for Microsoft, and has never been too worried about whether Linux users liked him or not.
But that's just one possible goal here. It's also possible the resulting discussions will be closely watched by Redmond's intellectual property lawyers. Perhaps they hope to learn of new potential legal vulnerabilities they hadn't previously considered.
From Webster.com: obviated: "Etymology: Late Latin obviatus, past participle of obviare to meet, withstand, from Latin obviam : to anticipate and prevent (as a situation) or make unnecessary (as an action)"
Key: "...OIN has [made unnecessary] the need for offers of protection from others."
Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. -- Mark Twain
Microsoft is now so rich that they are trying to get rid of their money by trying (and soon enough failing) to sue linux.
When Linux started throwing chairs around the office like a spoiled child denied, then it crossed the patent line! Balmer is not amused!
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
There is a legal doctrine known as "unclean hands". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_hands It means that a plaintiff who behaves in a certain way can not get certain legal remedies. The most they can expect is actual damages. What actual damage (other than loss of a sale) does it do to Microsoft if my use of Linux violates one of their patents? Almost none.
Any plaintiff has a duty to mitigate damages. A plaintiff who does not mitigate damages is coming to the court with unclean hands. Microsoft also has the problem that it is convicted on antitrust charges.
If Microsoft wanted to sue someone for violating one of its patents by using Linux, it should have done so a long time ago. All it has now is the weapon of every bully; intimidation.
On a side note, every time I have heard a company talk about monetizing its IP, it has nothing left. SCO is the classic case of that.
Many CIO's probably did not realize the theoretical risks of using Linux prior to Ballmer's statement. I know I didn't. Unfortunately Ballmer was right to a degree ... and while CIO's and other tech professionals can deny the validity of his statement, it will be a matter for the courts to decide at some point.
... but then again, that's Microsoft's M.O. A monopoly in today's global regulatory environment takes an immensely powerful, and often ruthless, legal team. This is just Microsoft rattling that (hopefully unusable) saber ...
Since most companies that use Linux typically have at least some Windows machines, Microsoft's perceived threat to either sue or enforce licenses for all Linux users was highly alienating and rather disrespectful of their customer base. 'What was he thinking' is right. A smart company woudn't form a half Billion dollar agreement then tell the target client base of the agreement that they're gonna be sued
Huh? Don't mind me, I'm just the new guy.
At the company I work for, we've been using a mix of SuSE Linux (pre-Novell SuSE), FreeBSD, and Windows 2000 for years now. There's been some interest in upgrading some of the systems. It was suggested that the SuSE systems be upgraded to SUSE Linux Enterprise 10, and that the Windows 2000 systems be moved to Windows Server 2003.
Several days ago I had to submit a report to management regarding these proposed transitions. Put simply, I had to recommend against the use of the offerings from Novell and Microsoft. I don't feel that these companies are worth dealing with. Instead of putting money towards the development and improvement of their products, they've gotten themselves involved in this stupid deal. I'm sure a number of contract lawyers made quite a bit off of this arrangement. And for us, we don't need the uncertainty this deal brings.
I had to recommend that we migrate much of our corporate network to FreeBSD, with Solaris or Debian Linux being my second choices. Thankfully, we write most of our Windows software in-house using wxWidgets for the GUI and PostgreSQL as the relational database of choice, so the transition should go fairly well.
that are in Microsoft's portfolio.. but 1) exactly which patents are these Microsoft? and 2) What are you gunna do about it? Nothin', that's what.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Keep your matches away when he talks.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
The other shoe has dropped indeed.
Ballmer's remarks through this fiasco are evasive enough, but at least seem to be comprehensible. Bullying us into thinking, "OMG! If I use Linux, the MicroNazis will come to my door with a bill for such-a-bunch-a-dollars!" Please, Mr. B. The latest stats on school dropouts don't speak for all of us.
Speaking of dropouts, I peeked at this interview with Bill Gates and-- is it just me, or does he not make a lick of sense? It's so filled with contra-semantics and double-speak that I can't make heads or tails of what he's really saying. If MS wants him to lead their projects, then they're being led by senility.
Now that the smoke is clearing, I can get behind Novell's take on this; inter-operability is the key to making everything work in the end. (stuff works... goo-ood.)
When it comes down to it, having a working PC, and having the stuff you need to work on a PC work, is what really matters.
Ballmer's little "made ya look!" trick has done nothing but cause a huge ruckus. It's as FUD as FUD can get.
I might even re-install OpenSuSE after all is said and done. (using Gnome this time)
This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
If you use ANY non-trivial piece of software, you are likely violating someone's patent in the USA. With open source software, if a patent violation is discovered (and it is not fundamental to computing), the code can quickly be rewritten to work differently. With non-open software, I doubt the re-writing could be done as quickly, and you would remain in violation longer.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
they list Novell as part of the OIN, but any patents that Novell has filed are now void because they have signed a promise not to sue.
3) Are those patents actually valid? Or will they vanish when exposed to prior art?
Mr. Ballmer seems to be incredibly stupid. I guess that he is little more than a boor who happened to be on the right place at the right time. I bet that MS's obnoxious image will change significantly once he and Mr. Gates (half gone, thank goodness) stop calling the shots in MS.
I think it's pretty well established that Microsoft has a huge heatsink when it comes to "taking heat". I don't see anything aside from a few big vendors or government agencies that could apply measurable pressure to change Microsoft's behavior.
I think you're right about Microsoft. It looks like another move to prolong their OS dominance. However, I wonder if the IP landscape is different now than it was back then too. I know IP has been used for decades to secure market share, but I wonder if it's getting more intense in recent years. Ie, if Microsoft were losing the same kind of market share in 1996 to linux that they are experiencing now, would they attempt to constrain linux via IP?I guess it is also safe to say that there are those that have been totally alienated from Linux and are contemplating to moving to the Microsoft platform.
Prof. Eben Moglen says that GPLv3 will prevent a user's loss of freedom in light of the details of the Novell-Microsoft deal. He also takes the open source movement's lack of focus on user's freedom to task by ignoring "the politics" of the situation, leaving it ripe for being moved closer to what proprietors want.
Digital Citizen
That Steve forgot to take his anti-psychotic medications that day.
Massive PR Damage - Undone!
Problem - Solved!
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Are you the same person that posted this?
It isn't that hard for someone to write a shell script that, oh say, spidered the USPTO for every patent microsoft has ever filed. I know for a fact that it is very possible, and out of the about 2000 of 5000 patents that I've seen downloaded from the database so far, I've seen some very frightening results. We're not simply talking patents on code, here people. It gets much much worse. Downright fucking scary even.
I'd gladly post the link to the USPTO for you all to see for yourselves, but I've been sworn to secrecy by my friend that wrote it, not to reveal or link the info on his site itself (because he's talking with some serious gurus about what can be done in the meantime)
Before everyone rallies the troops for a war against M$, it might be wise to learn what they have up their sleeve. Otherwise we might be leading the penguins to the slaughter, and that might be exactly what they're counting on. The information IS available to anyone with enough shell scripting know-how. Find out everything you can before you make an uninformed plan of action, because this has huge implications.
I'm not saying anyone's right or wrong so far, I'm advocating knowledge of fact. Take the time and find out for yourselves. Why speculate when you can know?
With OSS, as there is no option to purchase a licence you're relying on 'goodwill' of IP holders if something comes up that infringes on their properties. If Microsoft truely do have a big IP violation they have found in Linux then frankly, as long as they've initiate legal proceedings by the book the big linux distros would be in major trouble and it'd send huge ripples throughout the OSS community.
And the way they've been executing on the corporate level the last few years they'd probably screw it up anyway. MSFT is way overdue for a change at the top. The only reason he's been able to hang on for so long is that, up to now, MSFT has been able to paper their mistakes with money. But that margin will get squeezed going forward. And if the OEM's start offering a choice, they'll go downhill in a hurry.
It's going to take something big to get Steveo booted out of there, something massively bad. He's not going to get the hint and leave before the company gets dragged down to pathetic mediocrity. Not that it's a long trip from where they are today. ;)
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Also the one below: "The desperate are clinging together"
This deal is going to backfire on Novell, this, no doubt will cost them dearly sooner or later, but I guess thats for another Novell CEO to deal with.
In any battle where goliath is predicted to fall, there has to be a point where the goliath tries to fight harder, and dirtier than before. MS has nothing to lose by 'seeming' to be more open and more F/OSS friendly, and they have everything to gain, including hearts and minds.
/. or any blog has a clue what was really said in the boardrooms, on guessing based on historically valid impressions. The end value of any of this posturing is that one side or the other will seem more valid, more honest, more useful for doing business with...
The problem is that when it comes to patents, everyone, including the USPTO is looking at them more skeptically. Look at what the final outcome of this could or should be; MS looks better than before the situation, or MS gains credit with people who pay real money for MS products. MS currently doesn't have too many worries about home users switching to Linux. Its businesses and governments and educational institutions that MS has to keep on board the MS wagon. By acting open, or F/OSS friendly, they get to keep customers that were wavering... that can be billions of dollars per year. By actually pulling this off, they do more than keep money, they harm their competition in terms of market share. Every battle is not won simply on brute force, but often on preventing such force from being brought to bear against you.
The trouble here is that nobody on
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
What might be more interesting is the way that all these other companies are beginning to posture themselves around openness, Free patents, and some kind of IP commons. Maybe it's starting to become obvious to them just how destructive and costly these policies of using arsenals of patents to protect themselves and destroy rivals are. Vastly greater profits are possible with an intellectual commons from which everyone can benefit. It destabilizes the winner-takes-all dynamic, and allows a more diverse and competitive market to take its place.
By the same token, if some corporate whistle blower were to come forward, and show that Microsoft has used even one small piece of GPL'ed code in it's Windows product, the entire product would then be bound by the GPL, and their entire monopoly would collapse. Given the number of times that MS has been caught committing acts of copyright violation in, or in the production of their OS, this does not seem to be completely unrealistic. This would put MS in major trouble and it'd send huge ripples throughout the closed source software community.
Tell that to NTP, the company that successfully sued RIM, the makers of the Blackberry. They had an idea, and "squatted" on it. No, wait, they probably PATENTED the idea, squatted on it, waiting for someone else to bring it to market and be successful, then they probably tried to extort RIM, and, failing that, took it to the courts, and made out like bandits. It was basically a software patent. Latest estimates on how this will shake out put the award at one (1) BILLION dollars. So, yeah, they had nothing left, but it still worked out pretty well for them.
Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
Which is why we need people like RMS, to balance people like Ballmer.
If anything, Steve Ballmer's behaviour is a great reason to avoid Microsoft. No one wants to be near a giant in its death throes. Would you go to the local cornerstore if you knew it was run by a paranoid schizophrenic that might put a couple of rounds of buckshot in your face if you walk into the store at the wrong moment?
I'd imagine that there's a number of patents that Microsoft controls that were actually filed by companies they bought out; so just searching for Microsoft "innovations" is probably not enough.
Is there such a thing as a legal team that isn't ruthless?
Seriously though, this is so true. The bigger an animal, the worse its death throes. It's not surprising that companies want to avoid being close to that. And a half-billion dollar contract is pretty fucking close.
I'll bet that Microsoft will pull something out of the bag and wind up a functional company again, but right now they're circling the drain.
Before everyone rallies the troops for a war against M$, it might be wise to learn what they have up their sleeve.
Name me one top of the heap tech company that has stayed there? M$ does not need Linux to take it down, it is doing quite a good job all by itself.
Do you know what Senator McCarthy was holding in his hands when he made his famous speech about knowing exactly which members of Congress were "card-holding Communists"? His shopping list. In other words he had nothing except for the desire to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
This holds true for what Steve Ballmer said (although realistically such discovery is certainly inappropriate during an interview,) and it holds true for your pointless diatribe. If you've got the goods then ante up. Otherwise, shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down.
Does anyone know *specifically* what Microsoft's $348 million *actually* purchased?
More
I think the problem with Microsoft pointing out violations of their patents in Linux is that they would be simultaneously pointing out that many of their commercial competitors are also violating those patents. That would require them to sue those competitors, or else the patent would become invalid. Then the competitor can point out how Microsoft violates their patents.
It's like spraying poison to kill some insect. Sure, the targeted insect may die, but a lot of other things get poisoned too. Mice for instance. But mice have this nasty tendency to survive poisonings, eat up the poison, and become super toxic to their predators. The weasels, cats, owls, and snakes all die from eating toxic mice, and the mouse population explodes. So you've eliminated a moderately annoying insect and replaced it with a massive plague of toxic mice that are way worse than the insects ever were.
It looks like Microsoft is infringing on their "using bogus lawsuit threats to spread FUD" patent.
Which is why we need people like RMS, to balance people like Ballmer.
No. They're both wrong, they're both unbalanced, they're both divisive, and they're both destructive.
In terms of what the FSF started out as being, I might have agreed with you. Stallman however in recent years has, to paraphrase Castro, "betrayed the revolution." As such, he is no longer part of the solution...and he may yet have the potential to do just as much damage as Microsoft themselves.
Portions of Microsoft's response quoted on groklaw and David Berlind's blog.
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
Microsoft did this to Netscape. They tried to kill Apple years ago and only let Apple survive to prove that they were not monopolists. They funded SCO through a back door third company in their lawsuit against Linux. Now that that has failed, Microsoft is going directly against Linux. In the meantime, very little innovation has been realized from the massive profits that the company generates. Contrast with Apple. They first popularized the GUI. The 3.5 inch floppy. SCSI. PDA (Newton). Built-in networking. Hyperlinking. MP3 player with integrated software on the computer/synchronization paradigm. And they've translated their entire operating system and hardware line into a new technical architecture in less than half the time Microsoft has needed to upgrade their piss poor OS to a newer resource hogging OS with few significantly newer features.
What is so funny is that Microsoft coming out with the Zune! They see Apple with a big new music market. Microsoft wants a piece of this action! And they are going to fail, because Apple has a huge ecosystem of hardware, software, accessories, and ever car makers putting iPod interfaces in! Did you see that even the airlines are working on iPod interfaces for power, audio, and video in their airplanes?! Hahaha to Microsoft - Apple is doing the same thing to Microsoft that Microsoft has done to them in the PC OS! And I'm glad!
So I'm not usually highly emotional about these things, but Microsoft is scum! Microsoft - up yours!
And to cap the joke, NTP doesn't appear to have had a valid patent to complain about. That must have left all their lawyers rolling on the floor.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Like in Dante's Inferno there is a special ring of Hell for people like Balmer.
I don't know; if you can prove that an actual sale was lost because somebody ripped off your product, I'd call that pretty significant damage. We're not talking about *potential* sales, but actually having sales abruptly drop off because somebody stole somebody else's idea. I'm not advocating the "I haven't actually implemented it, but I've THOUGHT about it," style of idea, of course.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
I'll believe that IBM OMG THEY ARE THE POWERFULLEST!!1!! meme when they can squash "pipsqueak" SCO. How many years now and the cases still aren't finished? years? Years! This isn't a squashing, it's a gentle love nudge at best, they have done pitifully in the courts given their alleged "huge power" and "herds of ruthless landsharks". They are pathetic. I hear this a lot, that IBM is some white knight for open source, I call bullshit. OK, to be fair and give them a few small props, mostly bullshit. Way more sizzle than steak with those guys. Hardware, good stuff, they deserve the patents, software, they aren't all that different from MS.
A white knight action regarding software patents would be a major and clear public press release, something that landed on the front page of every biz rag out there, stating:
1)they will be lobbying to completely end software patents, in the US and internationally, at the very highest levels with all available resources. I mean their chairman going in front of Congress, that sort of serious level
2) opening all their existing software patents
3) A carved in stone statement that they will never seek any new ones, followed by a call for all other corporations to do the same
THAT would be the actions of an open source company that "gets it" with software patents and how stupid they are
They have only partially done one of those things, and they are the allegedly best out there with large corporations.. It's crap, a C- effort at best. The "bottom line" is don't trust large transnational corporations, no matter their name, any of them will turn on you and knife you if it increases their profits at some time if they need the cash (Novell, there ya go). Unless it's carved in stone and clear and legal and signed, don't believe the hype or astroturfing. Talk is cheap, let them show us the social contract.
Frankly, lately, Sun seems to be doing the biggest true change around, I think they are the only major old school tech company out there that at the top levels is *finally* starting to "get it" with open source and software patents.
If Microsoft had anything substantial and usable, they'd have sued by now, but they probably have figured out that that's pointless. Many of their patents are probably invalid or unenforceable, or even have prior art in open source software.
Furthermore, FOSS developers try hard to avoid infringing on people's patents, and Microsoft's patents are scrutinized, so the number of infringing software packages is likely small. In the few cases where Microsoft might have a valid patent claim against a piece of FOSS and could actually identify someone to sue, it would be hard for them to be able to claim willful infringement or get any real damages, and the infringing code would be removed instantaneously, making the case fall apart.
If Microsoft actually believes they have IP that's being violated, they should stop bluffing and start asserting it in court. That way, they can get what they deserve, and they create certainty for everybody else. Of course, certainty is the last thing they want.
this Microsoft-Novell deal is bad news for both Novell and SuSE. probably worse for SuSE though since Novell has a history of making bad moves and still being able to eek out an existence.
any free software professional worth their salt won't touch SuSE with a ten foot pole because Novell has show they don't grok freedom. this will likely be fatal for SuSE. Novell will likely prop a zombie SuSE up for quite a while but i won't be surprised to see the majority free software professionals write SuSE off for good.
How many times has MS been guilty of patent infringing?
http://www.hawknest.com/
It is a constant frustration reading Linux-Watch or eweek because all the links go to their own articles. Especially frustrating at a site like LinuxDevices.
Ziff Davis: links make it a Web!
All this talk about M$ intellectual property being used in Linux. I just wonder how many developers, with prior Unix development experience, Microsoft has hired that have used Unix code / derivatives inside M$ products. ;-)
the medication is in the cabinet, steve. if you've seen all these downright scary patents that blow thepants off of linux, you could've just mentioned one, single, eentsy, weenie one, no?
no.
i didn't thin so, elmer fudd.
ps - everyone violate ssomeone's patent, so msft is as flacid as everyone else who makes non trivial software. this was a play to try and force linux vendors to pay the msft tax and it didn't work. it was a play to FUDD linux and it might work for a bit - but not for long.
All these statements and counter statements, claims and counter claims has thrown everything into confusion. They have taken FUD to new hieghts. Suddenly risk averse CIOs will be thinking twice or three times about open source solutions, even if this 'Much Ado About Nothing'.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Parent Anonymous Coward knows just enough law to be dangerous. I'll take this opportunity to respectfully correct where (s)he went wrong:
0 5dltr0009.html for good info on the laches defense in patent infringement suits.
If Microsoft were to sue a Linux entity (a distro, a developer, a company, whatever), the doctrine of unclean hands (also known as "laches") might provide a successful defense--but it would only be a limited defense. Here's why:
The Federal Circuit decided in the famous Aukerman v. Chaides, 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc), that a successful latches defense prevents damages for the period prior to when the law suit was filed. This means that, if for example, Microsoft waited 10 years to sue somebody for infringement after the date *on which they should have originally sued*, they couldn't get damages for those 10 years. IMPORTANT: Microsoft could, if it won, still prevent the defendant from using that patented invention after that. It just means that Microsoft wouldn't get any $$$ for those 10 years.
Another subtlety of the laches defense is that (I'm pretty sure about this, though I don't have any cases to cite), the plaintiff's original threats have to be fairly specific. So, for example, Microsoft has to send a nasty letter to a particular company, saying "You're infringing on our patent, number 7,899,999," to create a reasonable apprehension on the part of the defendant that an infringement suit is imminent.
If Steve Ballmer is just yelling, "Those Linux people! They're infringing!!!"--well, that's just got going to be specific enough to give a defendant a good laches defense.
See http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/20
(Also, btw, it is incorrect that a plaintiff always has a duty to mitigate damages. I can think of a couple examples of where that's not true. But that's enough law for one post.)
Ballmer is rich and is crazy. Put up or shut up Steve.
Still this does not change the position of the people that I know in the FOSS that the deal with Microsoft and Novell is a cover-up for lawsuits and is meant to split and alienate the linux community.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
It's time to fight FUD with FUD.
According to the Vista EULA, if you develop code on the Vista platform, MS can claim IP rights to that code.
Is that true?
Dunno... It's just what some lawyer friend told me...
Microsoft has lots of ridiculous, baseless, overly broad patents that were rubberstamped by the UPO, just like most other big tech firms. The whole point of such patents is that any piece of software you care to name will violate at least one of them. They don't exist to be actually enforced -- they exist to permit lawsuits that will bankrupt their opponents. But that only works if you can ensure that the number of lawsuits wont explode bankrupting you as well -- so companies only proceed when they're sure they can pull it off or they have no other recourse. Ballmer, being a paranoid schizophrenic, may feel that Microsoft is approaching that latter scenario.
Patent portfilios for the Microsoft/IBM/Oracle/Sun/HP crowd (or Intel/AMD/nVidia/ATI for that matter) have become exactly the same kind of "Mutually Assured Desctruction" scenario.
Actually, that's not all they are: they are also barriers to entry, because small, commercial, closed-source competitors find it hard to enter a market in this situation. That's not what the patent system was supposed to do. And, sooner or later, it may lead to some serious scrutiny by the DOJ.
Nevertheless, it may work to the advantage of open source, since it means that new software companies may find it advantageous to figure out open source models for software that they would otherwise have released under a proprietary license.
i am just wondering but say this situation turns up:
a company holds a patent on an invention. due to the nature of the patent (all encompassing or nearly so) there is no possible clone/alternative etc. meaning that now the company holding the patent is the sole provider of that invention/service/etc
how does that tie in with the antimonopoly laws of the world?
me bad. how does that tie in with the antimonopoly laws of the united states? inventor of the patent
_ In Egypt Networks: Network Solutions with a Twist
I don't claim to know how to search the patent office site, but here's what their search turned up:h tml/1303-2/US06999083-20060214.html
h tml/1304-2/US07013251-20060314.html
h tml/1303-3/US07003035-20060221.html
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week07/OG/
"System and method to provide a spectator experience for networked gaming"
Any thoughts if ID Software pays them?
Better still:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week11/OG/
"Server recording and client playback of computer network characteristics
And even more exciting than a bran muffin is:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week08/OG/
"Video coding methods and apparatuses"
I'm sure the list goes on and is even more exciting, but I don't have time right now. Anyone? Bueller?
This the is the text of the Microsoft "back away softly" statement
Microsoft Statement on Novell Agreement
Microsoft and Novell provide additional perspective on IP issues in landmark November 2nd agreement.
Open Letter to the Community from Novell - Nov. 20, 2006
REDMOND, Wash., Nov. 20, 2006 -
"Microsoft and Novell have agreed to disagree on whether certain open source offerings infringe Microsoft patents and whether certain Microsoft offerings infringe Novell patents. The agreement between our two companies puts in place a workable solution for customers for these issues, without requiring an agreement between our two companies on infringement.
"Both of our companies are fully committed to moving forward with all of the important work under these agreements. The agreements will advance interoperability between Windows and Linux and put in place a new intellectual property bridge between proprietary and open source software. Customers and participants throughout our industry will clearly benefit from these results.
"We at Microsoft respect Novell's point of view on the patent issue, even while we respectfully take a different view. Novell is absolutely right in stating that it did not admit or acknowledge any patent problems as part of entering into the patent collaboration agreement. At Microsoft we undertook our own analysis of our patent portfolio and concluded that it was necessary and important to create a patent covenant for customers of these products. We are gratified that such a solution is now in place."
Microsoft Corporation
November 20, 2006
This is what I can offer in the way of cold hard evidence so far.
Anything more, and I'd be breaking a promise
Please note that every patent that is open in the corresponds to the number listed in the index.
Also note that I only screen captured 7 out of 5082! I also thought that by pointing out exactly what was done, at least someone else out there could also attain the info themselves if the so desired. Again, without me breaking any promises to this person.
I guess neither companies shares did to well then :P
What if the offending IP cannot be removed? Remember, this is not stolen code we're talking about, it's a patented idea. With the patent office rubber stamping just about anything, who knows what patents MS hold? Let's say they have something broad like "storing digital data on a magnetic data carrier". How can you then remove offending IP? Even if you rewrite the code, it still infringes on the idea that was patented.
This is one of the reasons why software patents are utter bullshit.
As I read this article I wondered WTF? What do Microsoft patent claims have to do with Novell? Does Novell own Linux now or something? Being largely ignorant of the business aspects of the Linux world, I went to Linux.com looking for news and found this reassuring statement:
Who Owns Linux?
Linux is not owned by anyone. One misconception many first-time Linux.com readers have is that this site, Linux.com, is similar to Microsoft.com, which is owned and controlled by the company that produces the Windows operating system.
Not so!
No one company or individual "owns" Linux, which was developed, and is still being improved, by thousands of corporate-supported and volunteer programmers all over the world. Not even Linus Torvalds, who started the Linux ball rolling in 1991, "owns" Linux.
(However, the trademark "Linux" is owned by Linus Torvalds, so if you call something "Linux" it had better be Linux, not something else.)
I still don't understand why Novell and Microsoft are swapping millions of dollars back and forth and how it relates to Ballmer's IP claims, but as long as apt-get doesn't start asking me for license codes I'm happy.
What I'd like to see is a statement from IBM and friends using the word "Libel", preferably in a manner that makes a judge use the words "Discovery" and "Evidence".
/G
Doesn't matter whether MS is able to produce anything, as long as we can shut them up and move forward.
It isn't that hard for someone to write a shell script that, oh say, spidered the USPTO for every patent microsoft has ever filed. I know for a fact that it is very possible, and out of the about 2000 of 5000 patents that I've seen downloaded from the database so far, I've seen some very frightening results. We're not simply talking patents on code, here people. It gets much much worse. Downright fucking scary even.
Congratulations on a very elaborate troll. I didn't actually look at any of your linked pictures, I can tell from your writing style.
Anyone who does waste the time will no doubt find that you have proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that MS hold a lot of patents. Some of them are for really obvious stuff that it is difficult to avoid infringing.
Well fucking done Einstein, do you think nobody knew that before?
Why don't you do the same thing for IBM patents? Maybe you can find their patent for "choosing menu items using a pointer controlled by a mouse". Or any of the other thousands that MS and everyone else infringe on.
Maybe you and your "friend" are genuinely trying to help, but are just retarded drama queens. I don't think so.
The information IS available to anyone with enough shell scripting know-how.
It's available to anyone that knows how to use a search engine, you stupid cock monkey.
PS. Software patents are only valid in the US. The developed World doesn't really give a shit.
The same query on the published application database returns 8093 hits from 2001 to today.
Searching AN/ibm OR AN/"international business machines" returns 45414 patents and 18454 published applications.
Usage: km/h for speed (kilometers per hour); kph for very slow impulses (kilopond hours).
I think M$ is referring to the Mono project, not Linux as such. Miguel de Iguaza is employed at Novell, so it makes sense that they could be worried and willing to cut a deal with M$
The OIN justifies software patents with their reaction. They defend against patent claims with their own patents.
Thus, what was once free software not gets divided between warring commercial entities threatening each other with strike and counter strike. I think you cannot call it free software any longer, but you are at the mercy of entities that today mean the best for Linux, but who knows what is tomorrow?
It only shows that software patents in general are bad.
It would be nice if Linux really got into trouble because of them, because that would catch the attention of politics and media on the horrible potential and absurdity of patenting ideas instead of only true inventions. At least the ongoing discussion in europe would get a positive signal then. As it is now, the OIN members are only trying to silence such conflicts and avoid that they are causing a public relations problem for the evil battle for software patents worldwide.
All this talk about compatibility is pure bullsh*t:
MS could have had that so long ago, with samba, office-file-formats ODF, etc.)
What do you think is the European lawsuit all about?
This is, whats behind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmbzVkZlzrc
how will a BSD resurgence magically save us from memory leaks and bad UIs, which are userland issues?
Oh noes! Microsoft has plans for using BSD code, once more ?
Members of the OIN.
Information about Novell and patents.
Can you imagine the monkey dance in Redmond, if IBM responded:
"Vista is guilty of violating IBM's IP"
What is good for the goose...
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
The open source strategy is to re-write code that infringes patents or copyrights. The process would be something like patching an exploit. So, it doesn't matter if Microsoft can get an injunction. If IP violations are identified, the community will, as immediately as possible, cease the violation.
In light of the above, the unclean hands defense may reduce the damage to the community to almost nothing.
The question of mitigation revolves around this: If Microsoft knows that a patent is being infringed (as they should because open source source code and documentation is easily available) and it chooses not to sue, it's ability to sue later is compromised. Letting the defendant continue to infringe the patent just to be able to claim more damages will certainly not sit well with a judge. As you point out, damages accrued before the date of the suit are likely to be rejected. In addition, I suspect that sufficient time will be granted in order to remove the patented material from users machines.
...Where the only winning move is NOT TO PLAY.
So Microsoft are after Money for nothing - the question is are they going to get the chicks for free?
Nick...
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
http://www.ktvz.com/story.cfm?nav=nwest&storyID=17 372
It makes you wonder.
'There were some applications I had been thinking about moving to a Microsoft platform, but this has now totally alienated me from Microsoft.'"
Waaaa! Microsoft is the big bad wolf! Waaaa! Friggin' crybaby.
Terrible karma and aiming lower, which in this environment of one-sided reason, is higher.
OK. IANAL, and I'm not even going to play one on TV, but isn't there some legal theory like "defamation of trademark" that RedHat could use to sue MSFT unless MSFT can back up Balmer's claims?
Is seems that MSFT has damaged Red Hat with Balmer's statement, and, assuming that it can't be substantiated, Red Hat should have some legal recourse to be compensated for the damage done.
NEVER EVER TRUST NOVELL
remember where sco came from...caldera...started by who? Ray Noorda
differnt name, same tool for Microsoft
SUSE is dead. long stay dead SUSE
One of the things about MS making noise about patents, is that it is such a (um, excuse me) patently obvious abuse of the patent system. There is no way that anyone can support whatever patents Linux happens to infringe, but also claim that patents serve to "advance the progress of the arts and sciences."
If Microsoft were to actually start suing Free Software developers, it would expose the abuse of the system, and make it a clear black/white issue to laymen. (Right now, most people turn a blind eye to businesses attacking other businesses; the abuse is tolerated because it's low-key and the victims, innocent though they be, are "just out to make a buck riding on other people' coattails" and unsympathetic.) Exposure is bad for patent abusers, because it could lead to reform (I'm not saying it would, but it's a possibility that patent abusers need to guard against).
If I made a living by suing people over software patent infringement, I would be a bit angry with Microsoft right now; I don't want the public to start thinking and talking about the current situation; I want this issue discussed in courts between my lawyers and judges, not in the news, and certainly not between elected policy makers and constituents.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
are not fooled -- but rather, a little angry. ComputerWorld covers the news including one CIO who says 'There were some applications I had been thinking about moving to a Microsoft platform, but this has now totally alienated me from Microsoft.
Yes, that's right, Lunix community. Continue to revel in allowing idiots like this CIO to carry on the proud tradition of letting non-technical people make technical decisions.
So this asshat CIO is now declining to go with the best solution his staff proposed because his delicate sensibilities were bruised. Word is he swooned, and had to be revived with smelling salts. He must have come down with a case of "the vapors", poor dear.
Clearly, Ballmer is the balance sheet liability (BSL).
translated their entire operating system and hardware line into a new technical architecture
Actually they've done that twice. And don't forget they also successfully transitioned from under-featured Classic to a future-ready UNIX platform.
In truth, Microsoft ARE dishonest, exploitative, thieving and dangerous scum that have been nothing but an crushing burden and impediment on civilisation. Let's hope this is the beginning of the end for them.
you had me at #!
Yes, the info is available to anyone with a search engine, but a relatively simple script can put the inforation in a coherent, organized, readable format, including specifics on each patent that would normally take a while to navigate through.
/.
So I read post after post by people that are completely in the dark about what exactly Microsoft has patents on, how much legal ground they have to make such accusations, and read people asking, one after another, for specifics. I try to provide some (what i consider disturbing) information a friend of mine acquired (and information on how someone can acquire it themselves) and the second I do, the responses change from, "where's the proof?" to "no shit Sherlock".
Basically, I was just trying to point out that M$ IS in fact talking about patents on processes (not just code), to let some folks know what M$ has up their sleeve (which I found kinda scary!), and encourage people to go do some research on their own...and for that I got labeled a troll, a drama queen, and a stupid cock monkey.
Right on
Sorry if I pissed anyone off, but I wasn't trying to troll or spread FUD on behalf of Microsoft, or anything remotely close to it. Quite the contrary, I was just trying to provide specifics on how to find some relevant info, and actually dispel some FUD through knowledge and information. I didn't think that would ever provoke such a reaction, here of all places.
My bad. srsly.
I heard that most software developers don't look at patents. I think Linus said so too. The reason (apart from that it is time-consuming) is that if you look at the patents, in a patent lawsuit you will be judged as knowingly infringing, which would mean triple damages awarded to the patent holder.
To those who care go http://techp.org/petition/show/1
Quite simple, people. If all the Linux boxen in world had to go off-line right now, the whole world's economy will grind to a halt. Just do the math, and you'll see: how many misson critical systems run on Linux? There is NO WAY how the governments of the world will allow that -- they'll simply pass legislation to nullify the MS patents. MS better be careful: anti-trust lawsuits are one thing, sabotaging economies is quite different. Don't mess with the guy who owns a nuclear warhead.