Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Getting Paid for Patents in Linux?
kripkenstein noted an Interview with Jeremy Allison where the interviewer asks 'One of the persistent rumors that's going around is that certain large IT customers have already been paying Microsoft for patent licensing to cover their use of Linux, Samba and other free software projects.' and Jeremy responds
"Yes, that's true, actually. I mean I have had people come up to me and essentially off the record admit that they had been threatened by Microsoft and had got patent cross license and had essentially taken out a license for Microsoft patents on the free software that they were using [...] But they're not telling anyone about it. They're completely doing it off the record."
Yes, I know, software patents are the spawn of Satan, no-one (not even me, actually
I'm nowhere near a fanboy for Microsoft (quite the opposite, if you read my posting history), but in this case, I can't see they've done anything *wrong*. You can argue that software patents are bad - yes, agreed. You can argue that these particular patents are flawed, perhaps they are. You can argue that it's just not moral to profit from the work of others, and yes I agree with that too.
But, sadly, what they're doing appears to be legal, so perhaps the ire ought to be directed at what makes it legal, rather than shooting the messenger (dammit
Simon (ducking)
Physicists get Hadrons!
No big loss. NFS is easier to use, has real file permissions, etc.
... oh wait ... I get it.
Just another "innovation" from MSFT [smb] that they'll try to horde instead of playing the "let's weigh in on technical merits" game.
And for fuck sake, why doesn't Windows support NFS? It makes mixing boxes on a lan such a bitch
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Its a nice thought and as a private organization or individual it might make sense but its not going to make sense to lots of corporate decision makers. Publicly admiting the Microsoft is threating to sue you is *Not* going to help your stock price any. Changes are you own some stock in the business yourself, so there is even a personal motiviation. Also there is going to be a long and costly legal battle if you decide to go the mat with M$. You can't afford to half ass your defense, if you lose its gonna really hurt so the only option is win, that is going to take dollars that you may not want to spend, because you could use them to be otherwise competivie, or you might not even have those dollars.
No for most public companies its going to be cheaper to bow to M$ extortion, hint M$ will customize their demands so that is the case, then to fight them. Its no surpise at all M$ can basically shake down corporate FOSS users. Until the patent/copyright situation is really resolved and sadly I don't think the SCO case is going to fully resolve it, especially the patent side, M$ can bully anyone they want.
Which is exactly what Novell was trying to stop ostensibly, although I think their motives were far less pure personaly.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Write a free cross platform client and server network filesystem which runs on Windows, OSX, Unix, Linux and which uses an open standard for locking, authentication, encryption, ACLs etc.
Leaving file serving in MS's control simply leaves you open to patent infringement etc.
Deleted
Do publicly traded companies have to report this kind of thing? I would be quite concerned if a company whose stock I own was paying money under the table to organizations that had been found guilty of criminal acts. Does anybody have an idea of what companies are doing this, so that they can be asked in a stockholders' meeting.
I have yet to hear of any evidence, *ever* in the history of computing, where software patents were anything more than the proverbial Turd In The Swimming Pool(tm). You CAN'T polish a turd! Plate it with gold and voila -- it's STILL a turd!
As Floaters ensure that only the most discusting little kids ever use the swimming pool, Software Patents ensure that only the biggest, most amoral lawyer infested companies thrive in the tech industry.
You are where you are at the time you are there.
As of yet there is no proof they are doing this. " off the record, anonymous contacts" mean nothing.
Now, if its proven to be happening, then ya. its time to get pissed off. ( though, no one can say this wasnt unexpected )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Now we can see that Microsoft's deal with Novell was explicitly designed to create and solidify this impression amongst companies using Linux. Novell were well and truly bent over the table, despite the fact that they so innocently claim that they have not admitted any IP issues with Linux or the software they use.
There is a huge problem with this.
'Write a free cross platform client and server network filesystem which runs on...'
Here is the catch.
'...OSX'
Only Apple can make OSX natively support your new standard. They probably will since it is an open standard.
'...Unix'
Unix is modular and you could plug in your solution even if vendors didn't ship it. You probably wouldn't have much trouble getting vendors to include an implementation of your protocol since it only benefits them to do so.
'...Linux'
Duh
'...Windows'
And here is the show stopper. Only Microsoft can integrate native support for your protocol in windows. Further Microsoft has complete control of the API's that would be required to hook support into windows after installation and can change them at will and break your solution's installed base.
Since Microsoft is a monopoly they don't have to play ball and interoperate with you. For the same reason, in order to have a chance of success you must interoperate with them.
While the idea is plausible and scary, where's the proof?
I'd like to know that, too. Name some of these companies. Because I work with a lot of big end users, most of them running Linux in some fashion, and they all seem to enjoy telling the MSFT rep they lost those sales. I've been in the meetings, MSFT has questioned Linux IP but not in any specific fashion. When I asked them point blank if that was a threat they backed right off it.
You'd think if MSFT was really trying to muscle companies someone would be talking. Anyone have a copy of the letter? I'd be posting mine on Groklaw, then turn the stories in for here and Digg. I'd be amazed if MSFT could keep anything this big a secret as disorganized as they are.
Or maybe a couple wise guys show up at the office and say if they don't pay bad "tings" might happen?
Let's see some proof or this is FUD.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage