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!
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.
Keep your matches away when he talks.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
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
No, it is correctly stated as "obviated" as in
To anticipate and dispose of effectively; render unnecessary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obviated
They're saying that the companies supporting Linux have enough of a patent library that should MS try to go after Linux, Microsoft will find itself in hot water.
Who, exactly, is the high school dropout?
It looks like Microsoft is infringing on their "using bogus lawsuit threats to spread FUD" patent.
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!
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
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
False. This is actually a little bit of M$ FUD which you have somehow bought into. If Microsoft was found to have infringing GPL code in Windows, one option would be to GPL all of Windows. The other, more likely option, would be to simply remove the offending code. The exact same think any open source project would do if it was found to have infringing code found in it.
The idea that companies need to be afraid of having their closed source application forced open because some GPL code slipped in is one of the FUD meme's the Microsoft throws around to try and limit open source adoption. The reality is that the only companies that get screwed by the GPL are the ones who insist on trying to distribute GPL binaries without source knowingly even after they've been asked not to.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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