Slashdot Mirror
So What If Linux Infringes On Microsoft IP?
Mr Men writes to mention a ZDNet blog entry by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes wondering aloud if maybe, just maybe, Microsoft isn't lying about having patents that are part of Linux. "Come on, no matter how much of a Linux fan you are, you have to admit that there's at least a chance that Linux does indeed infringe on Microsoft's patents. After all, Microsoft does hold a lot of patents and while Linux is open source and we can all take a look at the source code, only Microsoft has access to most of its source code so it isn't all that difficult for it to prove — to itself at any rate — that there are IP infringements contained in Linux. After all, before IBM handed over some 500 patents to the open source community, it's pretty clear that Linux was infringing some of them. Given that, why is it so hard to believe that the same isn't going on with Microsoft?" Even then, he goes on to say, so what if they do? It's not like they're going to go after us with a 'Linux tax.' Kingsley-Hughes imagines that, for the most part, Microsoft is just going to sit on this info and use it to form more and more profitable deals. Better than the alternative, I guess.
so I don't care.
For now, at least.
I guess I'm not on the same page as this guy. When I read about the Microsoft allegations, they're not against just Linux. They're also against Open Source projects. Either way they a lot of OSS projects rely on Linux as a platform and development environment. One of the potential issues I see if Linux goes down as "Microsoft Intellectual Property" is that these projects will dry up as no one likes to face litigation from Microsoft. Like when the SAMBA team cried out against Novell and I'm sure the Open Office folks wouldn't be too happy about this.
So you might be able to argue that Linux will still remain free to us somehow but I think it would be severely detrimental if not fatal to the applications that run on top of it.
I'm not a lawyer but I think that if the Linux kernel fell then a lot of the applications that make Linux great would be in immediate danger. I mean, this guy kind of scoffs at Microsoft claiming patent infringement but has he thought what would happen to projects like KDE & Gnome? I wouldn't be afraid of losing Linux but I would be afraid of losing the great applications that either stress interoperability with Windows or mimic functionality of a Windows environment.
My work here is dung.
Software patents are a cancer on modern society and economics and need to die a horrible death. I personaly find software patents immoral and thus I ignore them. I understand it's not as easy for companies like RedHat et al, but I can not see any solution since big companies has more bribe money. Sad.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
Because people seem worried, maybe some hyperventilating, and even some panicking.
Relax everyone, Linux is backed by pretty big companies, like IBM, that in the case Microsoft ever actually tries something, they'll get their ass handed to them and the Windows OS will be seen in the same infringing light.
Microsoft won't actually do anything until Linux starts eating up Desktop Sales, and even then, I don't see it happening unless MS is really going the drain, ala SCO - which won't be for many many years.
Afterall, if Microsoft really wanted the cash that badly, they would have already sued because Linux absolutely dominates in the server space, which is a market that MS wants.
This is all just a ploy to keep CIOs pondering Linux in line with the Microsoft way.
The author points to MS's secret codebase. This has nothing to do with patents.
Besides, if MS tries to sue or extort money from someone for use of it's patents, they'd have to specifiy the patents in question, and be sure that these patents would survive being challenged.
I'd say it is cheaper to FUD than to sue.
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
It's not like they're going to go after us with a 'Linux tax'. WTF? That's exactly what they're trying to do. The only question they have is can they get away with it without getting hammered by a shitload of patents which other people hold.
It's exactly the same game theory which makes mutually assured destruction work. My advice with the current US patent system? Patent everything.
Deleted
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Since when is slashdot involved in the distribution of microsoft's latest FUD? This story *here* is exactly the kind of thing they want to see happen. Where there no real news to post today?
Of course, Linux (both the kernel and the user space) "infringes" on many Microsoft's patents, as does just about every piece of software in existence, commercial or open source. How could it not? Microsoft has, after all, obtained patents on things that were published in open source software before Microsoft even filed the patent.
The real questions are whether Linux infringes on any valid Microsoft patents, and whether Microsoft's threats have any legal significance. That seems pretty unlikely: unlike Microsoft, open source developers tend to be scrupulous about avoiding patent infringement. That means that there is going to be no willful infringement and no patent infringement for any key patents. Or, in different words, Microsoft would have a hard time getting anything more than an apology and a quick code change. How they're going to get any business deals out of that, I fail to see.
So, Microsoft, please let us get this over with and start suing.
I think you may be underestimating the public relations nightmare Microsoft would endure if they were to kill Linux as a viable enterprise platform or even (god forbid) seriously damage OSS. Not to mention that the Feds may just revisit Antitrust cases against the evil empire.
I get the feeling that the world may just be ripe for a new commercial desktop platform that will run on PCs and be an actual serious competitor to Windows without requiring special hardware to run (ala OSX). I mean, how long has it been since OS/2 went down? I think it's about time. If I could go to Comp-u-City and buy a different commercial (I stress commercial, not open source but new from the ground up) operating system off the shelf for $150, I'd do it today instead of golfing.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Stop posting mature consideration of the whole MS Patent issue and get back to hysterical screaming about how MS plans to kill Linux with patents.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
You got it. I've been saying this over and over and I'm absolutely stunned that there are some people who still don't get it.
You don't even have any choice as to whether or not to ignore software patents. There are hundreds of thousands of them. Then there are several thousand new applications a day. I'll give you a hint. It's impossible.
That's why Microsoft ignores software patents. Even they, the richest company on the planet, have no alternative. And that's also why they're getting hit with a few 9-figure verdicts already. But they still play the game and pretend they're legitimate, because they somehow think they'll benefit, in the end, using them to crush current and potential competition with multi-million legal actions and the threat thereof.
It is mpossible to tell if any piece of code infringes. By the way, have you read many of these things? Almost every line of code does infringe.
Every line written is a ticking patent timebomb. Every player has to ante up and make their own "patent portfolio" which they can then apply against whoever sues them. If that sounds like it excludes everyone but a few rich, dominant corporations... now you're getting the idea. Only minor fly in the ointment: those patent shell companies that actually don't do any work except suing people, therefore can't be hit with a retaliatory claim. Ooops. And yet even after getting whacked by a few, MS is still winking and continuing to play the game. Shows you how much they hate honest competition.
Software Patents are currently ignored by almost everyone. But to the extent they are enforced, they will categorically end the American software industry, and software will continue to be a business in Europe, Asia, and... well basically every other civilized nation, who have soundly rejected this silly game and are by the way laughing their asses off at us.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
If Microsoft does take the nuclear option and attack major users of Linux over patents, who will take up arms against a company with sufficient money in the bank to buy every lawyer in the western world?
First and foremost, copyrights and patents are not property, so don't refer to them as such. But it also leads to confusion like this article.
Okay, it's patents we're talking about, right? Patents are published - that's the whole point of them. They aren't secret.
So what? Their source code is of no use when determining patent infringement, only copyright infringement. So is it copyright infringement we are talking about then?
Patent and copyright violation are two totally different things. Copyright violation would involve somebody with access to Microsoft's source code copying it into Linux - a highly unethical and stupid thing to do. I don't think Linux kernel contributors are likely to be highly unethical and stupid. Patent infringement, on the other hand, can be unintentional - but in this case, his remarks about it being impossible to verify don't apply.
This is a case where the term "IP" as a blanket reference to very different rights is confusing the issue. His arguments don't apply to either because he thinks they are the same thing.
I think it's also worth pointing out Stallman's criticism of the term "Intellectual Property".
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Aren't these ridiculous software patents only valid in the US? How much OSS development is actually done in the US and would that not mean (were this not complete rubbish) that MS could only go after OSS developers in the US only?
Given that most large OSS projects have copyrights held by developers all over the world, how exactly would it be feasable to stop a project if you couldn't go after all of its developers and codebase?
Wouldn't it just be easier for MS to bluster and threaten, all the while knowing they can't realistically do a damn thing?
How much Open Source Intellectual Property is Microsoft Infringing upon? How much are they using that they are not infringing upon due to a given license such as BSD?
There is a method in the computer industry between companies as to how they calculate teh amount of protection money they pass between themselves,
Take the granted patent paper work and stack it up, measure it and compare it to other stacks. The largest stack wins but the other have to pay protection money to the larger stacks. I don't know the specific formula as to how they calculate it, but it does happen.
So, the FSF can stack its owned stuff up but there is alot more that teh FSF does not own.
Perhaps there should be some sort of "count my work in the FOSS stack" method so that we might just see how large our (FOSS) IP stack is (and this would of cource count anti-patent IP prior art).
There are two efforts regarding software patents. "Open source as Prior Art" and a Peer Review project, but both of these are focused and supportive of software patents.
And that is the main problem, as software, by its very nature is provably not patentable. Problem is, neither side of the software rights battle wants to develop the proof of this. Human History has plenty of evidence of the usefulness of denial, but eventually this fact will come out, as facts of the earth revolving around the sun, the hindu arabic decimal system being more powerful then the roman numeral system of mathmatics, etc.
There is a quality and characteristic of being human, a human right. A natural right to apply abstraction physics. http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html
Its really rather obvious once you get past whatever idea is keeping you from seeing teh simplicity of it.
The arguement that only a fool would think nothing can have value (re: the zero place holder in teh decimal system)
Nobody can break the four minute mile, untill somone did, and then other followed quickly as their mental block was gone.
But even if you don't see it, consider what it wou;d mean across the software industry, should such simplicity of programming happen.
People seem to be thinking that this is either FUD or the claims are true. It's probably both.
First off, it's blatant and obvious FUD. They're being deliberately vague about what IP is infringed, and by which open source project and/or component of Linux, and talking about being "willing" to cut deals with other Linux distros than SUSE. No question that "willing" means "if we can find a reasonable business to target, you'll be hearing from our lawyers" and that that is meant to feed into people's decisions when looking at basing a product or service on Linux and hopefully drive them to make a different choice. They're not required to say what's being infringed or why until/unless they slap someone with a cease and desist, and so they're not. FUD, and no mistake.
But that doesn't mean it isn't also true. As an early commenter pointed out, there are lots and lots of software patents out there and Microsoft has a bunch of 'em. It's easy to infringe software patents without knowing you're doing so, and even open review won't catch all of this stuff. Under the current law, Microsoft has an absolute right to pursue a license fee from anyone using techniques they had the lawyers and money to patent, and in the absense of that fee being paid to file a court action.
So for Microsoft, this could well be a big win: FUD, plus the bonus of possible license fees or at least making the open source people waste a lot of time trying to figure out the whats, wheres, and hows of the infringement. They get a two-fer on this one.
So what's next? Ideally, a good faith letter to Microsoft from (say) RedHat or some other well-funded distro asking for the details of the alleged infringement, saying that they're eager not to infringe other peoples' software patents and also stating clearly that all information provided will be released to the community so the community can correct the infringement where possible. I suspect Microsoft won't provide the information unless given a confidentiality guarantee by the distro people, which if they're smart they will not be willing to provide. Consequently, if Microsoft later files a court case, they'll be required to list all infringements in the public record of the case -- and the judge in the case will see that the distro made a good faith attempt to avoid infringement prior to litigation, which will argue in favor of giving them a generous amount of time to cease and desist.
The article author is conflating patents and copyright. Is it too much to ask that someone who (presumably) gets paid to write this stuff would know the difference? From the summary:
Having access to Microsoft's source code would neither help nor hinder anyone in deciding whether Linux infringes any Microsoft patents. The whole point of patents is that they're visible to the public. The US government even maintains a database of them that anyone with a web browser can look at! A patent holder doesn't have to implement the invention that their patent describes before they can sue someone else for infringing it. If they did, patent trolls couldn't exist.
Anyone could drive a stake through the heart of Microsoft's FUD campaign by getting a list of all patents held by Microsoft and proving, for each patent, either (a) Linux does not infringe the patent or (b) the patent is invalid. I suspect this will not happen, for any or all of the following reasons:
Microsoft, of course, could settle the question much more quickly, by just telling us which of their patents (they believe) Linux infringes. That's assuming they have any patents that would survive a court case. They must have, mustn't they? They wouldn't have said it if it wasn't true...
Just another wannabe fantasy novelist...
I have no idea if patents are treated similar to copyright law but in my limited understanding, intellectual property owners have a responsibility to defend their rights when they know of infringing activity. If they neglect to defend their rights then they may end up forfeiting those rights.
For example this would prevent the scenario of someone deliberately holding off action so that the infringing activity increased before going to town with law suits.
In other words, you use them or lose them. And MS seems to be saying, we know patent infringment is occuring but they are not doing anything about it.
Somebody set me straight if I'm way off here.
"Looking good Vern."
Translation: Microsoft has a weak hand in this game. It is easy to prove, yet they haven't tried to. If they had a full hand, they could point out at least one infringement to strengthen their case that there are cases to answer.
This also shows clear ill intent. If the problem was the infringement, the normal thing to do is to tell the infringer first, so that the infringement stops. Microsoft chose not to disclose their concerns. This means that in Microsoft's eyes, infringement won't stop. It follows, that Microsoft wants, what they believe to be infringement, to continue. Therefore, the infringement is not the problem, their grudge against GNU/Linux is. QED.
Considering that the wheel was recently patented in Australia, and that playing with string and parting your hair in a particular way have all been patented, I doubt there is anyone on the face of the planet that doesn't infringe some patent somewhere simply by living. Patents are broken and probably hopelessly so.
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
#include int main() { std::cout
My new blog
The fact that MS's source code is closed is irrelevant, because MS's patents are public documents. The problem for Linux (and other free software) is that its own source code is open to scrutiny, making it easier to spot patent violations.
> After all, Microsoft does hold a lot of patents and while Linux is open source
> and we can all take a look at the source code, only Microsoft has access to
> most of its source code so it isn't all that difficult for it to prove - to
> itself at any rate - that there are IP infringements contained in Linux.
You are confused. Whether or not a particular Microsoft patent is implemented in one of Microsoft's products is irrelevant to whether or not Linux infringes it. You want to compare Linux code to the published patent disclosures, not to Microsoft's code.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
From GPL v2:
All direct or derived GPL source is subject to the GPL.
If there are licensing problems with the software, you do not have permission to use or distribute it.
If there are problems with IP conflicts, the GPL explicitly does not apply to the source code in question. That means NO ONE has the right to distribute that software except the AUTHOR/OWNER, and they must use a license other than the GPL to do so.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Because people seem worried, maybe some hyperventilating, and even some panicking.
That's the M$ plan, but I don't see any of it. What panic have you actually seen outside the Wintel press? This really is Microsoft's last gasp.
Microsoft won't actually do anything until Linux starts eating up Desktop Sales, and even then, I don't see it happening unless MS is really going the drain, ala SCO - which won't be for many many years.
No, this IS exactly the same thing they did with their SCO sock puppet and it's all they really have: an empty threat. They dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into SCO but they never had the first real infringement. This patent move is more of the same and just as empty. If they really had something, they would have laid it out.
Free software is making desktop inroads and is about to make more. Companies like Lowes have already kicked Microsoft completely out. Vista is going to push more companies in the same direction. People sitting on Windows 2000 are going to see even less of what they want in Vista than they did in XP and migrating to free software will be very attractive for them. The end will come swiftly.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Plan 9 existed at the time but was not Open Source. Nonetheless, it was not only hardware-neutral on a platform, it was hardware-neutral across an entire friggin' cluster - something even Windows Cluster Server fails to achieve today.
Many of the commercial PC unixes were - by definition - dependent only on there being an 80x86 processor and sufficient memory. They weren't tied to a damn thing and could run any PC device for which a driver existed or for which you wanted to write one. PC unixes that supported the IBCS standard (Linux was one for a while) were also OS-independent, capable of running ANY application written for ANY OS that ran on the Intel architecture.
(One of the major reasons Linux has Oracle today is that Linux users were capable of running Solaris binaries as if native on their platform. Enough did exactly that that Oracle decided it was loosing too much money by ignoring the platform any longer, especially as it was no longer viable to claim Linux was too immature to handle an RDBMS of that size.)
All in all, then, it's clear that Windows was NOT technically superior (it provably did less in some areas, as I've been able to list examples), nor was it the most hardware-agnostic (again, I've cited examples of far superior agnosticism).
Windows won the desktop for the following reasons alone. It had vastly better marketing, it was far more aggressively pushed, Microsoft had no hesitation about overstepping laws, the GUI received a lot of attention, Microsoft turned being dumb into an asset and a badge of honor amongst users, the price was hidden by folding it into the price of the hardware - thus creating the illusion of being free.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
This really is Microsoft's last gasp.
As soon as I read this in a Slashdot post, I automatically assume that the author is a complete and total moron for trying to predict the end of the world's largest and most successful software company.
People sitting on Windows 2000 are going to see even less of what they want in Vista than they did in XP and migrating to free software will be very attractive for them. The end will come swiftly.
Do me a favor and read Slashdot posts from 2000 ("Windows 2000 is a complete rewrite! There's no way MS can ship it without huge numbers of bugs. This is the end of Microsoft") and posts from 2002 ("I hate the XP interface! And no one is going to want to pay for a minor upgrades to Win2K. And mandatory registration?? This will definitely drive people to Linux").
Then take a look at Microsoft's incredibly profitable financials. And the immense amount of money in the bank. They could bleed for DECADES before it'd be a significant problem.
Your last lesson will be to realize why people buy computers. People buy applications, not operating systems. Linux is incompatible with their software, therefore Linux is totally and completely useless to the vast majority of people. Yes, a small number of people only want email and browsing, but for some reason Linux people think this is more than a tiny part of the world.
Just wait for it -- Vista will be yet another cash cow for Microsoft.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
There was a time before Microsoft and there will be a time after Microsoft.
If you laugh at that, please go read the poem Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley.
I think that the issue here is not "microsoft" versus "linux", but instead
"software patents" versus "innovation" (yes, you read it right, *versus* innovation).
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
There's a Mexican standoff in place in the industry right now, and it's been there for years. MS, IBM, Sun, Novell, Heck even codgers like Computer Associates all have enough vague patents to start a big nasty lawyer-fest should they choose to do so. For the most part, they keep each other in check. It's a fragile balance though. I think it's practically a given that MS has at least one and probably many patents upon which a number of FOSS projects could be claimed to infringe. Some are probably imposable to code around too, being on basic ideas like UI elements, file access, printing, or any number of obvious fundamental computing concepts. Sure, they should be invalid in principle, but you'd need to out lawyer the Beast of Redmond to prove it. What I wonder is, does really MS have the balls to do something about it? One would think that actually attempting to dust off Red Hat or whomever with a patent infringement suit would be much like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. It could easily broaden into a wider morass of litigation like SCO almost did. Once the patent wars begin, where would they end? Starting IT Patent War I would have the potential for big gains, but who could foresee the outcome? Do they really want to risk a patent fight with someone like IBM? Could they justify that to their share-holders? I'm sure the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire both thought teaming up with the Kaiser would let them pick off lots of territory from Britain and Russia. You can't find those countries on a map now.
I heard a lot of Windows code was ripped off from BSD. And who knows what else they ripped off in their applications. Does Microsoft REALLY want light shed on the nature of its competitor's source code if that implies countersuits can be filed that would require Microsoft to reveal its source code?
This is a battle Microsoft doesn't want to fight. That's why it uses SCO as a small fall guy. If it directly chases Linux, it will get burned so badly in court. A court case against Linux would be such a major legal event that it would bring the software patent system into question, and closed-source companies don't want that either. Because there are so many examples of negative consequences of the patent process in the US that it risks complete destruction of the system.
Legal experts for linux should prepare themselves for an all-out war on Microsoft that will kill them. And like others are pointing out, they can't kill Linux. Not internationally, and probably not domestically in the US.
Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
It's clear MS has jumped the shark. It no longer even pretends to compete on features anymore. The CEO of the company had just started to wage a war patents. The war is not over, it's just started but this is their waterloo. MS will implode, they have just started a war they can't possibly win and have de-facto admitted that they are unable to compete on the quality and the desirability of their products.
It's not their last gasp, that won't come for a while but it's their first step along a path that spells their doom.
Sell your stock now, this company has nowhere to go but down.
evil is as evil does
Top 15 Countries by Average Monthly Hours Online per Unique Visitor
Among Visitors Age 15+*
March 2006
Total Worldwide - All Locations
Source: comScore World Metrix
Avg. Hours per Visitor March-06
Worldwide 31.3
Israel 57.5
Finland 49.3
South Korea 47.2
Netherlands 43.5
Taiwan 43.2
Sweden 41.4
Brazil 41.2
Hong Kong 41.2
Portugal 39.8
Canada 38.4
Germany 37.2
Denmark 36.8
France 36.8
Norway 35.4
Venezuela 35.3
* Excludes traffic from public computers such as internet cafes or access from mobile phones or PDAs.
I'm sorry, where are those 150 million accounts on there? Given that the particular study you referenced doesn't mention how that estimate was reached, and the low amount of usage of the US compared to other nations, I would suggest that they're counting every member of an American household which owns a computer connected to the internet. This is not an accurate protrayal of *usage* which is more relevant than the number of aging relatives who've learned to send email.
Current success does not guarantee future existence.
Woolworth
K-Mart
Caldor
Zayer/Ames
Sears almost went under a decade ago
Wordperfect
Commodore
Atari
Coleco
Texas Instruments
RCA (RCA is just a brand name now)
Osborne
Zenith (just a brand name now)
Kodak (well, it has a faint pulse, but not much of one)
Polaroid (it's comatose, on life support now)
Service Merchandise
AMC
Packard
Studebaker
Tower Records
Pan-American Airways (just a brand name now)
Tonka/Kenner
Child World
Need I go on?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50