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."
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!
It's not an "is this the best software package for our company right now" issue, it's an "is this vendor likely to fuck us over in the future" issue.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
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.
In theory... but in theory, Microsoft could patent swinging sideways on a tire swing and start suing kids on playgrounds. And kindergarden teachers can deny the validity of that statement, but it will be a matter for the courts to decide at some point.
Balmer is posturing. Microsoft's lawyers have assuredly already told the big hothead that there is slim to none chance that Microsoft could possibly win any such lawsuit. Why do we know that? Because they haven't sued anybody.
If MS thought it could have won such a lawsuit, it would have sued years ago, before or during the height of the SCO fiasco, when the public's perception that Linux might contain compromising intellectual property was strongest. They didn't, though, for all of their talk and FUD and veiled threats.
Think of what a successful MS lawsuit would have done to Linux market penetration, too. Even an unsuccessful, or settled lawsuit that dragged on long enough, would have sent CIOs and execs running scared from Linux... Right into the arms of Windows.
Even Balmer listens to his lawyers.
Well, the SCO gambit seems to have failed. So I guess they have to take more direct action.
It's still an asset, in exactly the same sense that the USA & USSR nuclear arsenals were assets. You have to have them, but you don't want to have to use them. 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. The only way that OSS really plays into this is to give Ballmer some FUD ammo. Just ignore him - he can't pull the trigger, because everyone else would pull the trigger on him.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
That would require them to sue those competitors, or else the patent would become invalid.
Nope, that only applies to trademarks - defend them or lose them.
Patents and copyrights you can selectively enforce. Patent trolls frequently do this, going after the easily intimidated companies first to build up a warchest before tackling someone who is more likely to fight back. There are some limitations on damages if you can be shown to have known about the infringement for a while before suing, but that in no way invalidates the patent.
-- Alastair
Other than the complete baloney of SCO's claim, part of the stunning failure of SCO has been in part due to the sheer genius of the GPL mk II.
Something Just dawned on me regarding GPL mk III. Lets say it got into the kernel.... And microsoft are busy distributing SuSe Linux.... Wouldn't that mean that by implication Microsoft disclaim the right to sue over Patents hypothetically violated by linux? Or hell, is that already covered in version II?
The implication of III "fixing" that would be that yet again whilst everyone is throwing rocks at our communitys favorite beardo, said beardo has yet again got it right.
viva liberation!
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
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.
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.
Ah, aside from the fact that they'd be utterly clobbered. It's very much a nuclear option. Once you strip out the immense amount of total bullshit in the article describing what Microsoft was doing, you will see (on this page, that he recieved a vague call from someone in Microsoft, apparently working on their programming team, (not, note, their legal team) and decided to alter his software based upon the percieved threat of threat of legal action.
You can hardly argue that's Microsoft flexing their legal muscles. That would be about as threatening as the guy who cleans the floors at Harvard telling a student that if he cheats on his paper, Academic Affairs is going to expel him.
Now, there may be OTHER times when they have done so, but that's not one of them.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
If you follow the reports at Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/), you will find that SCO are good at delaying things but make very little progress in getting anything proven. Also, the court is quite generous in granting their wishes for more time. In contrast, IBM's conterclaims appear a lot more convincing and I'd expect those to be successful.
So SCO is doing a rather prolonged FUD campaign, but with little hope of getting any money out of IBM. At the same time, they might have to pay IBM more damages than they can afford. I'm starting to believe what many people on Groklaw said:
SCO is doing the anti-linux propaganda for M$, not acting in its own best interests as company.
C - the footgun of programming languages
No one company or individual "owns" Linux
This is correct. In the past, Microsoft has tried to define Linux as Red Hat, and failed for this reason. The whole point of this patent deal (at least from Microsoft's POV) is to narrow the definition of Linux. If successful, the deal would separate Linux into legal and illegal groups of Microsoft's choosing. If Linux can be limited to a few corporate entities, then it becomes much easier to turn on those limited number of groups and exterminate, or reign in, Linux.
I don't think that Microsoft wants to completely exterminate Linux at this point. Linux is a highly visible competitor that Microsoft can use in defense of Monopoly claims. However, Microsoft can't keep it under their thumb with such a broad definition.
Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/