Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Says Free Software Violates 235 Patents
prostoalex writes "Microsoft told Fortune magazine that various free software products violate at least 235 patents, and it's time to expect users of this software to pay up patent licensing royalties: 'Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith and licensing chief Horacio Gutierrez sat down with Fortune recently to map out their strategy for getting FOSS users to pay royalties. Revealing the precise figure for the first time, they state that FOSS infringes on no fewer than 235 Microsoft patents.'"
Ladies and gentlemen, we have tonight a bout between two of the worlds greatest software idealogists.
In the Blue corner weighing in at 289 pounds we have Monkey Boy Ballmer, his speciality move: The chair.
In the Red corner, weighing in at 432 pounds we have the one and only R.M.S, speciality move, being R.M.S.
Who will win this epic battle?
liqbase
Microsoft, fuck you!
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Doesn't this just serve to show how screwed up the idea of software patents are?
I once has 235 itches too. Remember: DON'T SCRATCH!
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
If I'm a licensee of a software package, particularly under the GPL, since when do I pay royalties and not the licensor?
free software violates 235 MS patents?
Ok just get rid of software patents. Software should've never been permitted to be patented in the first place.
Of course, it was fairly obvious that free software would infridge on some MS patents: there's so much code from so many people, including people who have no clue what they're doing (don't get me wrong, also a lot from totally brilliant people!), and I doubt maintainers check the source at every checkin to be sure no patent is being messed with...
However, I always saw it as a way for Microsoft to loosen its illegal monopoly status: by letting free software use some of its patents, its leveling the playing field.
And now they screwed it up. Countdown before more anti-thrust lawsuits start, 5...4...3...2....
Tell Mr. Balmer he is welcome to a portion of the $699 Linux IP license I paid SCO. I hear they sold lots and lots of them.
My rights don't need management.
Here's what the interview should have been:
Microsoft: It's a fact that Linux and free software infringe hundreds of our patents.
Journalist: Which ones?
Microsoft: Well, the kernel violates 60, the GUI violates...
Journalist (interrupting): which 60? Where is the list?
Microsoft: I'm not prepared to disclose that at this time.
Journalist: Well this is a big fucking waste of my time, isn't it?
Journalist: I went through this same dance with Darl McBride. Call me when you have something to say, bye
Start litigating Microsoft, you're not working in the shareholder's favor by sitting idle and letting these blatant IP violations go unpunished.
I am sure they are right that a Linux distribution violates at least that many patents from microsoft. The better question is how many of those patent are worth the paper they're printed on. With so many computer companies like Microsoft and IBM patenting every trivialities under the sun, it's near impossible to NOT violate one of their patents. The good news: the supreme just had a ruling that's gonna make it a lot harder for MS to win a patent fight. The bad news: it's gonna take a lot of time and money to go through that battle, and the open source community is going to have to endure a lot of FUD during that time. The one mitigating factor: linux is going through a similar situation right now thanks to SCO, and so open source is now somewhat familiar with the process.
If you have evidence, show it. If it's infringing, it'll be removed. But you don't want to. You want to spread FUD to generate $$$.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
The Supreme Court recently ruled that the courts don't get to pretend that patents on obvious things are valid. It is unlikely that /any/ of these 235 patents will hold up in court. Microsoft is just using them to create FUD; they know they won't get any judgements.
This shows how fearful Microsoft is really starting to get paranoid about the linux desktop revolution. 2007 is *the* year, I don't care what anyone else thinks--I know this to be true because this is the first year I've actually got friends to honestly convert over to free software/OSS software. And they're even talking shit about MS now that they've seen the light! With all the linux populatization going on these days--microsoft is shaking in its boots... The days are quickly approaching when microsoft is bound to become an even more dreary version of GM. A question for those more knowledgeable than me on this subject--was microsoft not behind the whole SCO debacle? Perhaps they've now taken their proxy war public. They're pathetic.
And when the software idea land grab completely owns every possible idea, the laws will be changed like copyrights to extend length of ownership 100, 200, 500, 1000 years after the author's death.
Support your Innovator!
A cajón is a big box (the aumentative of caja). A cojón is a testicle. Maybe that's the word you were looking for?
that most of these 'patents' that MS owns are general in scope and probably would make all other OS's infringing on their patents anyway, not just free software. I believe it's time to work on making process/software patents unacceptable, especially when they are so broad that no other company could work in the same space. Patents on things like "integrating email client functionality into office apps" is just too broad, and as such can only serve to hamper innovation and business in general.
When MS can claim to have 235 patents that are violated by F/OSS we need to look closely at why they have that many that can be infringed upon by people so easily... perhaps they are not unobvious at all or too broadly stated to be of use other than to be an offensive tool to use against competitors.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
be specific microsoft, is this "so-called" infringement in the Linux kernel? or some other piece of software that make up the average GNU/Linux disto...
so far it seems like a generalization or FUD spewing, unless specific infringement is shown & proved i call it FUD...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
It seems that this is going to be the final "slow bleed" for Microsoft. People aren't buying Vista (in fact, Dell is reoffering XP on systems just to shut up annoyed users). But hey - they have the lawsuits, and they'll be more than happy to pull a SCO and threaten to sue the pants off of people who don't pay off their protection racket.
Odds are, they'll be smarter about it than SCO - rather then go right for IBM (with tons of dollars to pay lawyers), they'll make "deals" with places like Novell and others so insure that PC tax continues no matter whom the likes of Dell and Gateway and others finally go through.
The sad thing is, there still isn't a great competitor to Windows. Linux is nice and Ubuntu and other distros have come far, but it seems they lack that final step (like "How do I change my screen resolution?" or other bits that only techies would know). OS X is my preferred OS as a security analyst, but it only runs on one system (I know - Apple sells hardware, blah, blah, blah, but damn - if they make Leopard for *all* X86 systems, they might take over the desktops - I've met plenty of CIO's who want that).
Either way, Microsoft's plan is to continue to be the "gasoline" of computers: they don't make the computers, but they get paid for every one that's made. Through their threats and strategic lawsuits/threatening of lawsuit, they'll ensure their money for a long time to come.
Unless, of course, there's enough people who stand up and say "No" and pool together *their* money to help companies fight back....
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
SCO failed with their patent suit so this is just the next round. Watch for tactics like SCO's where they refused to specify what was infringing.
...infringment on 1) use of numbers 2) use of words, punctuation, sentences... 3) use of algebra sum(A1:A22) 4) excessive problems with operating systems and applications -- I can prove my mental condition is much worse having used MS products and so on...
And our lawyers will work pro bono because so many of them hate MS too.
Help end the use of Sigs. Tomorrow
Pushed M$ into a corner and they get the itch to stand up and to what they were internally talking about for years and collecting nonsense patents up to the wazoo...
Maybe another SCO show coming?
We've been joking about world domination and the evil empire for years here. But despite the kidding around, despite our biases, we've never been motivated to go all-out. We can ruin Microsoft. In the terrain of the Internet we hold much of the high ground - the servers, as well as not a few firewall-routers and other essential equipment. Microsoft for years has had no qualms about breaking competitors' functionality. We can cripple Microsoft's functionality in a wide variety of real-time environments - and stay a hair's breath within the law just as they've (almost) done.
Building stuff that can replace Microsoft's products is one thing - honest competition really. But we've never stooped to Microsoft's own favored methods of dishonest competition. Is Redmond really stupid enough to motivate us to take that step?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Last paragraph
"
If push comes to shove, would Microsoft sue its customers for royalties, the way the record industry has?
"That's not a bridge we've crossed," says CEO Ballmer, "and not a bridge I want to cross today on the phone with you."
"
Tech company sue it's own customers?
The Singularity is closer than you think
Quant
FTA:
"Microsoft counters that it is a matter of principle. "We live in a world where we honor, and support the honoring of, intellectual property," says Ballmer in an interview. FOSS patrons are going to have to "play by the same rules as the rest of the business," he insists. "What's fair is fair."
Since when? Of all the corporations that have trampled small businesses IP rights Microsoft have to be the biggest shower of shits in existence. Most of their product range is based on other people's ideas and much of that, e.g. IE was ripped from small business with minimal reward to the innovator.
Basically, name them. Yep, name the infringements. Don't hide behind lawyers and withhold information, BE SPECIFIC!! Many of the IP claims that Microsoft put forward to the EU were minor extensions to existing Open Source software and are no "innovative" enough to justify the high fees requested, equivalent to making an add on to a car and claiming IP over the entire car. If accidental infringment has occured then it's reasonable to allow the FOSS authors the chance to remedy the situation by rewriting code but it's also reasonable to give them access to the information required to perform the task.
It's a constant embarrassment to me that the toadying twat that runs my country saw fit to give a convicted monopolist and proven unfair player like Gates a knighthood and until Microsoft starts behaving in a reasonable and honest manner Gates, Ballmer and Co. can stick their royalties up their arses where their heads have been for the last twenty years.
To reiterate, STATE YOUR CLAIMS IN FULL. Stop hiding behind misinformation, partial information and the pathetic, sad bullshit that has for so long been a trademark for Microsoft business practice.
There, I feel a bit better now.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
MS violates a goodly portion of the Open Innovation Network patent pool. Sue Linux or a batch of participating FOSS projects and get a goodly portion of their server and other products shut down but good. They flatly don't want to do this. In all honesty they really don't want to be doing this sabre rattling either, but they're being stupid because Vista's NOT doing well for them and costing them dearly.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
First, free here means free as in freedom, not free as in beer. Many companies have made money from "free software" (e.g., Red Hat), and it's considered perfectly kosher to do so provided you keep to the terms of the licenses.
Second, patents apply to almost all use, not just to things that are bought and sold - you can't undercut someone else's patents by giving away their inventions for free.
Third, every company that uses free software (and who doesn't?) does so presumably for commercial advantage.
Maybe, because Apple and MS have made special a deal. MS protected Apple at the time of its near demise. Apple's OS X is partly based on public support with the incorporation of software that was open source, so the PR in crying foul to FOSS (like MS just did,) would be negative to their unprecedented move to Unix back in 2000. On that last point, since I remember the Apple ads promoting their new *UNIX* roots, Apple didn't get sued on similar grounds by Sun --do they pay SUN? I thought mentioning UNIX when you use a BSD release, instead of Solaris, would have some kind of "lie label" attached. To our dismay, "Linux" was expressly ignored in their ads for OS X, btw.
Anyway, when a company flat out comes for patent infringement claims on OpenOffice, which has been out for years, and uncontested by other companies, you know there's a claim to be BS'ed somewhere. It's not like they had foresight to let the SCO thing die down, and already know they were going to do the same patent-suits in 2007. Is it?
US Patents are a matter of public record. USPTO even has a web search feature.
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
If Microsoft put as much energy into making a good operating system as they did in planning how to "defeat" open source, they might have a halfway decent product. Sadly, they keep dicking around with crappy models and outdated notions. If M$ released a product which was as interoperable as Linux, as customizable as Linux, as modular as Linux, and as user-supportive as Linux, there would be no pressing need for Linux. Imagine if M$ sold Windows in boxes at a retail store for one base price (for individuals and families,) where you could install updates/optimizations/customizations/etc without having to buy a new OS to get said features. M$ would indeed make more money selling a license in this manner due to sheer popularity. (For comparison, see http://kerneltrap.org/node/8197 where Linus talks of all the new architectures and stacks available on 2.6.22-RC1) Imagine if users of M$ products could get new, optimized stacks for free. Would that not make you love Windows? Sadly, M$ is committed to charging more and providing less. That's why we have Linux.
Windows has detected an undetectable error.
Not that it's at all unexpected, coming from Fortune--a bastion of support for giant corporations--but man, is that article biased. I love the photos on the right: A picture of Steve Ballmer, wearing a suit, looking harmless, and captioned "The patent owner", followed by a picture of Richard Stallman, looking like an Al Qaeda member, captioned "The patent hater". Maybe this is just a coincidence but I like how they refer to RMS specifically as "Richard Matthew Stallman," which makes him sound like a presidential assassin or serial killer. Like there's another Richard Stallman we might get him confused with if they didn't use his middle name? :)
Later the article manages to imply that there's only one license that all FOSS projects use. You get three guesses which license it is, and the first two don't count.
Does anyone know where we can find out the 235 patents that MS claims are infringed? TFA didn't give any examples.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
- How many GPL and other licensing violations are there in MS software?
- How many patent violations are there within MS software, particularly those patents owned by OSS contributors?
I'm sure there are violations, and when we've been made aware of the issue, many distributions go out of their way to correct the issue. But as long as we're making accusations, lets get everything out in the open.P.S. Pot, the kettle is on line 2, seems to be upset about some "black" comment you made.
Microsoft wants to take on FOSS? Oh, this oughta be hilarious. This is going to make the SCO debacle look like "Great Moments in Brain Surgery."
Gifts for Geeks
IBM announces to that they believe Microsoft is in violation of several thousand of their patents, and it is time for them [Microsoft] to pay up.
Listen, if MS wants to wind up in an eternal battle with the only company in the US that could probably sue their asses under the table, then by all means, please sue FOSS projects. People may not want to think IBM is some great savior of FOSS, but they are the closest thing to a large money source the movement is going to have. They also have a good deal to lose since they have sort of positioned themselves into this position. We have already seen that Novell doesn't want to have to defend FOSS. (Why do you think they signed that deal with MS?) Red Hat does not have the money to do it. HP has too much to lose since their business is still largely dependent on Windows based PCs. This really leaves you with one company, IBM.
I believe Microsoft has spread words like this before, and it seems to be a common thing whenever they feel they are losing some degree of steam. (After all, I think we are at the consensus that Vista is a flop, well until they officially force computer manufacturers to switch to Vista full-time, sometime around EOY.) The idea of the software industry and software patents has been the idea of a mutual peace. The industry will probably destroy itself if suits started flying. I also find this odd after the recent SCOTUS ruling in KSR v. Teleflex, which should make patents infinitely easier to overturn on obviousness issues, even some of those old flimsy software ones.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Come on Microsoft, don't pull a SCO. If you think there's a problem, point it out so we can fix it. Tell us what patents, exactly, are infringed and what software, exactly, is infringing.
Sure, it's a bit risky. Any patents you point out are going to be put under a microscope and the collective knowledge of a very large and lore-rich community will be brought to bear in an exhaustive search for prior art, but if you really think the patents are truly valuable, novel inventions, and that you are really being damaged by their infringement, tell us so we can find a way to avoid infringing.
If we can't find prior art, and can't find a way to show that the software isn't actually infringing, and can't find a FOSS-friendly company to use its patent portfolio to negotiate a deal, then we'll get busy finding a way to change the software so it doesn't infringe. Actually, given the nature of the community, we'll probably change the software so it doesn't infringe even if we can address the issue another way. We don't like software patents, but we feel quite strongly about making sure that our software is free from any legal encumbrance. Tell us what the problem is and we'll try to fix it.
But, please, the biggest software company in the world should have at least a *little* dignity. Don't pull a SCO.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
This is part of Microsoft's new Vista campaign for 2007 and 2008:
"If you can't innovate... LITIGATE!"
I RTFA, and I don't see an itemized list of the FOSS packages which they claim infringe, and the relevant patent numbers that are apparently infringed-upon. Until I see an itemized list, I can't properly audit my collection of FOSS to replace or rewrite those referenced packages.
Until I see an itemized list of FOSS packages and relevant patent numbers, this is all just smoke.
Problem: the language of patents is interpretable only by lawyers.
Problem: most FOSS projects don't have the resources to make sure they don't violate patents. Even the SFLC probably doesn't have the resources to help anywhere near the number of FOSS projects that are potentially affected.
Microsoft now knows through research that a large portion of the enterprise market is holding off on switching to "Linux" because they are afraid that a company will come after them for license fees unexpectedly (SCO for example). Mainly CEOs and CTOs who don't get it.
By having an article like this in Fortune, Microsoft is using FUD to keep that market group too nervous to make the switch. Even if it's only 10% (or less), it's still a very cheap way for them to retain their current customer base.
None of this will hold up in court (and Microsoft knows it wont), but it makes good business sense to keep people thinking that they need to be paying you because the alternative is illeagle.
I wouldn't loose any sleep over it. Free Software is something that is too big to die now. We have delt with software pattents before (LZW). If there is a legitimate pattent we'll either find prior art or we'll replace it with something that hasn't been patented (zlib) and in the process probablly come up with something better anyway.
but if you go read it, you'll see how.
Ahh, who am I kiddin'? Here's the skinny:
Microsoft has been approaching Fortune 500's for years now and offering to sell "patent licenses" on any of the software that the companies might be using without one. Basically, it's extortion. "We think you might be running software which utilizes our patented technology without a license, but don't worry, we're not going to sue you, so long as you buy this license from us."
That takes care of all the big fish.. last year they went after the little fish too, by approaching Novell and making that patent deal you might have heard of. When Redhat crumbles (assuming they haven't already) we'll all be paying a Microsoft tax.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Yet more scaremongering from Ballmer's boys.
... and this ladies and gentlemen is why this will not come to court because M$ never want to talk about their code or clarify their claims. This is merely saber rattling for their current racket of frightening more spineless corporations into signing patent covenants.
SHOW US THE CODE OR STFU.
I'm looking forwards to the day when someone in the FOSS community takes M$ to court for deformation, and wins, and subsequently all these corps that signed patent covenants come knocking on their door with lawyers demanding their money back.
Very deniable of course, since Microsoft was only being oh-so careful with other peoples' "Intellectual Property". Nevermind that Microsoft has a long history of being sued for blithely copying other people's code.
Now the SCO scam really lost altitude ever since judge Kimball ruled that SCO had been able to show "no competent evidence" for copyright infringement, and magistrate judge Wells ruled that, no, SCO cannot bring to trial allegations for which they cannot show specific lines of allegedly infringing Linux code. That case is now really a question of how much time and money Flexner Boies and Schiller are willing to spend on a lost cause (their fees have been capped a long time ago in a sudden display of far-sightedness on part of SCO).
So does Microsoft do now? Ah yes ... they have been stocking up on patents, of which they seem to have a couple of hundred that were "triggered". By Linux (remember Microsoft's XOR patent and their "not is" patent? With that calibre of patents you can quickly amass a portfolio.)
Now I think we can all agree that the patents that Microsoft is waving are anything but good-faith results of hard work that they would like to protect. On the contrary ... they even refuse to disclose what patents are allegedly infringed in order to get a maximum "chilling effect". They clearly don't want revenue ... they just want to kill Linux. Not a "good faith" manouver, but who cares? It's "Legal", so they will be able to win in court and then use that to get a national crackdown on all Linux distributions that aren't under the umbrella of firms that they have patent license agreements with.
And quite regardless of what folk here on Slashdot seem to think ... it doesn't matter what those patents say and whether they can be upheld on appeal. Appeal of patents takes a looong time (years), and in the mean time there are all those nice shiny letters stating "patent awarded", and they happen to have value. Especially when it comes to demanding injunctions to stop the spread of Linux. Microsoft can now argue that it looses money and market-share to free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-speech Linux because Linux competes with their commercial offerings.
And it only takes one single patent (out of 235) to be found "infringed" by Linux to make whoever distributes, sells, or uses Linux liable for license fees. License fees which only corporate editions of Linux can pay, but free-as-in-beer distros cannot. Therefore their distribution has to be stopped by way of injunctive relief. And this is precisely what Microsoft wants ... Linux out of the "free as in speech" domain because of the patent infringements, and only corporate opponents which it can cut to shreds with time-honoured tactics. And no more "free as in beer" distributions for the same reason.
The long and the short of it seems to be that Linux is dead in all countries that allow US style software patents.
Too bad ... it has been nice knowing you Linux. We will miss you.
All those who wish to continue to work on and enjoy free-as-in-beer Linux: buy a one-way ticket to a European country of your choice (well ... perhaps better buy an open return in case the EU decides to adopt US-style software patents after all).
everyone else.
There is a human characteristic about software that make its not patentable.
MS has teamed up with CMU on a project that distorts the origins of computation and gives credit to the machine rather than the humans who have made the computer all that it is. Do a google on "Computational Thinking".
At any rate the human characteristic is that if the natural ability to apply Abstraction Physics and as such software is really not of patentable nature.
All the software patent law suits are fraudlent. It s really rather ignorant due to the fact that copyright is more appropriate and terms are longer. Patents on the other hand try and be what copyright doesn't cover, and that is broad claims.
All it takes is for the first case to make it to SCOTUS and for SCOTUS to agree with Moglin (which i bet they would if it's explained how assinine they are - IE something someone invented 25 years ago is "patented" by microsoft 6 months ago, and now they're suing over it).
If SCOTUS agrees with Moglin it instantly invalidates all software patents. 235 Motions to dismiss with prejudice from the defendants, and possible countersuits.
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
At the same time, Smith was having Microsoft's lawyers figure out how many of its patents were being infringed by free and open-source software. Gutierrez refuses to identify specific patents or explain how they're being infringed, lest FOSS advocates start filing challenges to them.
But he does break down the total number allegedly violated - 235 - into categories. He says that the Linux kernel - the deepest layer of the free operating system, which interacts most directly with the computer hardware - violates 42 Microsoft patents. The Linux graphical user interfaces - essentially, the way design elements like menus and toolbars are set up - run afoul of another 65, he claims. The Open Office suite of programs, which is analogous to Microsoft Office, infringes 45 more. E-mail programs infringe 15, while other assorted FOSS programs allegedly transgress 68.
Still numbers out of thin air - and the real reason is more likely that the Linux groups would work on rectifying the patent conflicts much to the disadvantage of Microsoft.
I would count no infringement until Microsoft tells us what we are infringing on. Kind of like me telling you guys on Slashdot you owe me $800, $500 is for my time and the other $300 is for stuff I provided. without offering any proof besides a mention of a lawyer verifying my amount (yep, he said it was $800 too). Hmm, kind of sounds like the RIAA come to think of it....
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Well look at it this way, we will NEVER KNOW how many patents their "proprietary software" infringes on, since we will never be allowed to look at their source code. Win for Microsoft, (or anyone else who can be bothered to go through open source code looking for violations) unless software patents are seriously reviewed to disallow vague and abstract patents.
Perhaps the strength of open source is that since it's free, the programmers surely can't be considered professionals, and if they can come up with that code, then it's obvious. As far as I know obvious solutions to a problem were not patentable.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
LFreeBSDX. LSolarisX. Ah, crap, I couldn't do it :)
Sam ty sig.
We could screw them over.
But not without simultaneously screwing over millions of windows users.
Which would piss people off with the FOSS community, not MS for breaking standards.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
They would stop fighting other OSes and port their software as widely as possible. No reason why libraries like DX, and programs like Visual Studio can't exist for other platforms. All this anti-OSS shit is just bullshit posturing, and history will judge them poorly for avoiding the obvious.
Of course this is most likely due to the marketingdroids that run MSFT who have zero community experience and don't see how useful OSS can be. This is what happens when a tech company is run by non-technical people.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
*psst* The answer is Lynx.
After all, I am strangely colored.
Seriously, write to Fortune magazine and complain about the bias you feel they entertain, by not giving anyone else the chance to offer some refutation to yet another *yawn* Microsoft FUD attack, just like back in 2001 when MS' Craig Mundie was frothing at the mouth and calling Linux a Cancer.
Better yet, write to every major newspaper and offer your view before they, in their usual utter clueless manner, copy the story verbatim. The BBC, for instance, since they tend to be especially dumb when it comes to parroting the Microsoft party line.
I don't think this is real because IBM has a lot at stake in Linux and MS almost certainly infringes on many of those. I'm pretty sure that MS also infringes on numerous Apple copyrights and Aplle could do something good for once and shake their own stick at MS.
Lastly, Microsoft, you should be ashamed at your behaviour. You know why so many countries and institutions are ditching your products for Linux and others? It's because of the way you behave. SCO almost certainly got the idea to sue IBM from you, Microsoft, and if that ever comes out in court, Fatman Ballmer is going to be doing some dancing in court, because IBM also knows this and they won't take it kindly.
Hope your tube of KY is ready Steve.
Let's see if I've understood this correctly... Microsoft claims that some piece of free software infringes an MS-held patent. MS identifies me as a user of said software. MS sues me for patent infringement? Let's change the names, to see if this makes any more sense. Let's imagine a purely hypothetical situation involving automobile manufacturers. Toyota claims that certain models of Volkswagen infringe a toyota held patent. I drive one of those VWs. Toyota sues me for patent infringment? Nope. Doesn't make any sense to me... Beef.
I take none of those products was a spell checker.
Microsoft loses this one not because their enemies have vast resources, but because a world of lilliputians is allied against them.
235 is specific. There must have been a study. The study is discoverable. Somewhere in the world Microsoft is in court facing discovery every day.
Therefore we will soon have a list and prior art, non-original and obvious matter will be found for the vast majority of these patents. In a few cases, some projects will work around the issue. Two or three projects will have to be abandonded. Mono will probably be one of them. It will take a few years but it's inevitable that these patents will never be licensed by the OSS community, and Microsoft will never prevail against a single one in a meaningful way. Microsoft will _not_ begin suing end users -- sadly they're not that stupid because the backlash from that would wipe them out for good.
In short, this headline could read "frantic Microsoft voids 200+ patents". Nothing else new will come of it.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Their problem is that they can't just keep braging that there are "238 patent violations in various OSS". The SCO case has proven how much staying vague about the actual violations is useful.
...BUT...
Microsoft, for credibility will have to produce a detailled list of said patent violations (and eventually a list of specific OSS application that they think are infringing).
And this, my friends, is a double edged sword.
On one hand, it will show that Microsoft HAS tangible proof that OSS are inferior because no company can be held responsible for patents infringement, and that patent lawyers will go after the users.
On another hand, such a list, and maybe a couple of days of work distributed across the whole community is everything needed to circumvent said patent and implement it either with a slightly different approach (see marching cubes vs. tetrahedron in 3D), using more generalised version (arithmetic coding vs. range coding in compression), or simply recycle some very old code in place - code who's age is a proof of prior art.
And suddenly, all this MS PR stunt is moot.
Just imagine :
This week press titles "Microsoft says OSS dangerous because patent mine field", "New microsoft sponsored studies proves TCO to by higher for OSS because of patent fees", "Microsoft to go after individual users MAFIAA style".
Next week press titles "238 patches and upgrades on Debian and Ubuntu repositories", "OSDL sponsored study proves that OSS has the highest reaction time in terms of patch release", "RMS & Linus to give speech about strengths of OSS development ; Ballmer responds throwing chairs".
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I'm guessing he's better at English than you are at whatever language he speaks natively.
Problem: most FOSS projects don't have the resources to make sure they don't violate patents.
No, those are not the problems you're looking for.
There are roughly 1,400 (Patent Storm Search) Microsoft patents covering OS kernels. Microsoft says Linux is infringing 45 of them. A quick look through those patents will bring up gems like Patent 6711625, found on the first page of results;
Microsoft currently has about 24,000 Patent Storm patents in its portfolio, a significant proportion of which should never have been granted. Microsoft is using those dodgy patents to generate FUD, and make businesses less likely to use software which competes with its own products. That's the real problem."I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
"The idea is to ... make people start to get nervous..."
So, Microsoft is the new SCO. The result will eventually be the same.
Adversarial behavior eventually destroys those who engage in it.
If you want a very good indication of the effect this new rotten behavior by Microsoft will have, just look at the Slashdot comments. People are ready for this after years of considering SCO. The parent comment is an example of this; the parent comment shows complete understanding. The SCO case has prepared us.
Microsoft has always depended on ignorance. That ignorance is disappearing.
This Slashdot story about "235 patents in free software" reminds me of 205 communists in the State Department: "... in February 1950, an undistinguished, first-term Republican senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy, burst into national prominence when, in a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, he held up a piece of paper that he claimed was a list of 205 known communists currently working in the State Department. McCarthy never produced documentation for a single one of his charges, but for the next four years he exploited an issue that he realized had touched a nerve in the American public."
Microsoft is to software what McCarthy was to politics?
Windows Vista costs US$ 300. I'm dividing and conquering it.
US$ 50 for many lawyers + US$ 50 for the judgement coasts + US$ 50 for the tons of papers + US$ 50 for the fueling + US$ 50 for the food diets + US$ 50 for SCOX's NASDAQ + US$ 200 for my pockets = US$ 500!!
US$ 300 - US$ 500 = US$ -200!!! And no money to pay to the M$ developers!!!
Conclusion: the M$'s software is bad software for the users.
This is an interesting idea. If MS files patent lawsuits, all FOSS supporters should shut down their websites on the same day and display the same message in protest of MS. Even if Google and IBM were the only major players who did so, that would get everyone's attention :-)
Look, if you're going to lump "intellectual property" together* for your politics, you should be aware of the difference between them.
A trademark is the right to keep anyone else from using a particular name or logo. Like it or hate it, there is only one IBM in the computer world.
A copyright is the right to control who can make copies of a work of art. You cannot simply take the Lord of the Rings, wrap it as an e-book, and sell it without the permission of the Tolkien estate. You can, however, re-write its story into your own novel. ("Specific implementation" and all that.)
A patent is the absolute monopoly on a particular idea. Magic: The Gathering came up with the idea of turning cards 90-degrees to mark them as "played", and no one else can use that idea. Period.
Now, these three have some overlap and blur -- a graphic logo is likely copyrighted, in addition to being a trademark. The individual cards and rulebooks of Magic are copyrighted, in addition to the "tap" being patented. However, they are very distinct things nonetheless -- you can get around copyright with a clean-room implentation, but you can't clean-room a patent. (You can, however, just wait it out.)
(*: Note that "personal" property includes everything from a slave, to your underwear, to your family company.)
M$ has always had a pretty good patent rep--their arsenal has been considered mostly defensive.
That being said, I'm all for royalties and patents for truly innovative work--but I suspect most of the "infringed" patents are fairly obvious things. (Consider: In the anti-SCO suit, IBM accused them of stepping on, among other things, IBM's patent for a "hierarchical menu system." That was a defensive use of something so obvious it ought not to have been patentable, but expecting people to pay royalties for it is ridiculous.)
Sure. They'll get exactly the same amount that SCO got.
Fuck you Gates.
I would think that Microsoft throwing around these sort of claims, spreading the FUD, would count as libel?
If thats right, then shouldn't the Linux community threaten MS with a lawsuit, especially due to the repeated "show us the code and we will remove it" message sent by the open source software community?
You can't just go throwing around claims like that without expecting some sort of action. Unless, of course Microsoft thinks that the open source community can't/won't/doesn't want to do anything about this...
By the way, I heard Microsoft once burnt down an orphange because they thought the ophans were using illegal software...
What a serious strategic error this is, even if its only a PR trial balloon. Not only has Microsoft ignored a significant shift in national intellectual property law (per recent Supreme court decisions) and pretended the collapse of SCO litigation was irrelevant, but Microsoft once again presumes all commerce is predicated on U.S. intellectual property law.
Faced with serious issues in Australia, China, nearly every emerging market and even much of the EU, Microsoft wants to play "us vs. them" with open source? Even much of the Fortune 500 has been investing significantly into Linux (such as the corporation I work for, which is one of the larger global financial companies). Our company didn't take previous patent trolls lightly, and Microsoft's reliability issues don't give it a reliable foundation on which to make life any more difficult for us.
In an era of unprecedented foreign confiscation of pharmaceutical intellectual property, can Microsoft be this utterly ignorant and stupid? Does Microsoft not realize it has zero leverage outside the U.S., facing serious penalties in the EU for its disregard for their law and even worse conditions elsewhere? Does it really believe it can force Brazil, China, Mexico, India, Malaysia, emerging Eastern Europe, Russia and countless other markets to pay excessive royalties for a bunch of questionable patents it had its attorneys sneak through? The only certain outcome is that U.S. intellectual property law will be even further ignored and real issues like drug patent confiscations more common.
Apparently SCO was only the warm-up act. This certainly is going to be an interesting train wreck for us to watch if they venture down this path.
*scoove*
The thing I see good about this is as follows:
1. We knew this was going to happen sooner or later.
2. Its better it happens sooner, Linus was getting impatient with the FSF folks
and rightly seeing them as paranoid. If it had been a year or so more, the kernel
might've been forked with some GPL v3 and GPL v2... This forces the FOSS community
to circle their wagons and get along.
3. I welcome this challenge, because what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
MS executives are doing it now to appear like they're working hard because the
great Redmond machine is running out of steam and they need to keep that stock
price propped up for a few more years while they sell:
When was the last time you saw an insider trade of 'buy' MSFT? They have a
good margin and great revenue, but so did Kodak and Palaroid just a short while back.
Ideas can last forever, companies don't.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
The king of thieves has been robbed? What rubbish! Now M$ in fairness has made some good stuff at times. There are usergroups that would still be left in the cold without M$ projects, I cite Microsoft Robotics Studio. They have driven the industry to move fast even if was under a whip. This is an all time low blow even for them. I do have to applaud thier tactic of using Forbes as the vehicle in its latest fear/smear campaign. Like someone mentioned earlier non tech savy CEOs will be re-made weary of OSS. 'Techies' have thier info sources they trust, and so do the 'suits'. Im a techie and think of Forbes as glossy toilet paper. =) My 'manager' thinks /. is a liberal, hacker-ego-handjob site. So touche' M$ and En Garde! This may hurt you more than Vista.
As a sidenote does M$'s pet, Mac, risk any impact of said patents since thier OS is somewhat linux too? I admit im not as savy with OSwhatever as id like to be....I know it looks beter than vista ;)
I wonder if Microsoft took into account all the copyrights they have infringed on when coming up with this anwser!
I would also think that Microsoft winning the Look and Feel lawsuit against Apple will shoot it in the foot when it comes to the FOSS bunch.
From the CNN linked article... "The Redmond behemoth asserts that one reason free software is of such high quality is that it violates more than 200 of Microsoft's patents." Funny, Microsoft owns the patents and you guys code it in a higher quality fashion? I'm suitably impressed that the FOSS coders are better at coding STABLE projects than the owner of the patents. GOOD WORK, folks!
I see it happening only after the global patent war. I don't think that anything less than that can move Congress to revise the patent law.
Crackberry users weren't sued, that is true. But there are only 2 ways end users can be protected:
1. Patent holder decides not to go after them. This is purely at the whim of the patent holder.
2. Indemnity. Manufacturer foots the bill when the end user is sued. Note that the end user is still sued in this case, it is just they don't have to pay the (full) bill.
...they just want to kill Linux. Not a "good faith" manouver, but who cares? It's "Legal", so they will be able to win in court and then use that to get a national crackdown on all Linux distributions that aren't under the umbrella of firms that they have patent license agreements with.
That national crackdown is EXACTLY what will happen...and sooner rather than later. Microsot will sue some easy and vulnerable target, then get an injunction against distributions of ALL Linux distributions that are not under their licensing umbrella. Then they'll selectively use that to hammer on users. Then it won't be long before the BSA will be scanning for the presence of non-conforming linux during their 'audits' and disgruntled employees will be turning in their employers for having linux somewhere. If you want to buy Linux pre-installed on a pc, it will have to be Novell...and so on.
People here are underestimating the financial power, the tenacity and the absolute desperation of Microsoft. Microsoft will stop at nothing to keep their monopoly franchise.
Really, it's not the users responsibility, it's whomeever violated the patent.
If the playstation III violated your patents, you go after Sony, not the users. You would never have the suit get passed a judge.
Bring it MS, I dare you.
FUD spreading cum stains.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The good news is that most of those patents are violated by MONO and when Microsoft hoists them up as an example the debate on whether that was ever a good idea will be settled once and for all.
I was idly chatting with my mom not too long ago. She's no computer
expert and uses windows on her home system (solitaire). She knows I
use something different and that it's 'open-free-something'[1].
I told her that Microsoft was threatening this sort of software with
patent lawsuits. Her reaction?
"Those greedy sons-o'-bleep, don't they have enough money without
attacking free stuff?" And so on. I admit I was a little shocked
and, now that I think about it, if she recognizes this as a bully
tactic, so will an awful lot of other people.
I now feel slightly better about the whole thing. Thanks Mom!
[1] I mainly use FreeBSD, cue the eulogy.
http://www.converium.com/2103.asp
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
Ironically, McCarthy underestimated the number of Communists working in the state department - the 'true' number derived from Venona intercepts was even higher.A few years later a Senator from Massachusetts (initials were JFK) claimed that the Soviet Union had close to 200 missiles ready to launch against the US - the truth was that the Soviets had 6 ICBM's ready by mid-1960. So maybe it is safe to say that Microsoft is to software what Kennedy was to politics?
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
- I don't see blue screens of death with Linux.
- I must have rebooted my wife's new Vista laptop a dozen times while setting it up and installing the updates. I only reboot Linux boxes when there's a new kernel.
- I don't have to worry about trojans and other malware with Linux.
- I don't have to do "theraputic reboots" on my Linux boxes to keep them stable; they just run.
- Linux has mature technology for limiting program actions called SE Linux. It would make the intrusive actions of UAC seem laughable if they weren't so annoying (UAC is kind of like clippy but able to stop programs from running).
- etc.
The only way the quoted assertion could be true is if Microsoft has such patented technology but it doesn't put into Windoze. Darl McBride of SCO fame claimed Linux couldn't have matured and become "enterprise capable" unless it infringed SCO's IP for it's OS that doesn't scale and that is rapidly becoming ever more obsolete. Wouldn't Linux incorporating Microsoft IP mean that Linux should be the same sort of unstable piece of bloated crap that Windoze is?Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
And the thing is: If they sue some random company over a supposed MS patent in Linux, what happens when that company gets disclosure of all of MS's software and gets someone to go over it looking for patents that they (or someone in the OS movement has)? And then what happens if they find all sorts of embarrassing things in that source code that come out in court?
The nasty thing (for Microsoft) is that just about anybody who has contributed to the code that Microsoft sues some random user for using can probably ask for standing "because it's my code that they're impugning", and then counter-sue MS over some patent that they have (or have just been assigned by some friend in the OS community).
We've already seen what's happen(ed,ing) to SCOX over their claims of 'millions of lines' of Linux code, now Microsoft is making similar claims -- and with the SCOTUS just having gutted patents, this seems to me like calling wolf, but everybody knows that, even if the wolf is real, it's lost most of it's teeth and claws and may be on a leash.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I think it is about time that some FOSS friendly company started making noise about MS patent violations, without specifying which ones are being violated. Make sure that customers don't feel any safer using MS software than they do using Linux.
Unfortunately, it seems that nobody wants to rock the boat like that, for fear of the brutal retaliation that MS would provide for them. And MS has already cross-licensed their IP portfolio with many of the companies that they payed off in the anti-trust lawsuits, so they've taken away that avenue of attack.
Red Hat and Google are the only ones I can think of right now. Red Hat would probably be crazy to try such a stunt, and I'm not sure they're big enough to scare MS or their big customers anyhow. Google has the motive (MS has basically outright stated they want to kill Google), but do they have the resources to fight MS in the IP arena? I'm not so sure.
Welcome to being the most hated company on Earth.
Sincerely,
The Computing World.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
You know, if having patents equated to high quality software, Microsoft would have high quality software as well, rather than exploit ridden code that causes problems for millions of users that Microsoft disclaims any responsibility for.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
(This is completely bogus, but is an interesting thought experiment.)
What if Microsoft's direct goal were not harming Linux, but rather destroying the software patent system? Obviously, Microsoft would love for Linux to disappear, but they could be thinking much deeper. Microsoft has argued for patent reform before when they lost $521000000 to Eolas. Clearly appeal to Congress and the courts has not worked.
By creating complete chaos in the software industry, these legal threats could force changes to the laws to avoid a breakdown.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
LAMO, that is not just in Soviet Russia!
www.aleo.no
If such a trivial patent is valid, then the US patent system is realy b0rked.
But even, in such a case, the patent can be circumvented.
See, given the era when screensavers started to appear (i.e.: when CRT was the main method of displaying image for computers), so there a very high chance that such a patent will be formulated as the GP poster said : method in which the display shows random or non-random patterns in order to avoid screen burn-in.
See, the main point is that, as pointed-out by the Wikipedia, nowadays screensavers are primarily used for entertainment or security purposes, because LCD panels are a lot less susceptible to burn-ins than CRTs.
So the whole idea is to do exactly the same result, using slightly differently stated method. Call it a "screen protector". Define it as a piece of software that :
- Monitors user (in)activity.
- After a given time, turns the LCD panel of for power saving
- After a given time, switches from the user desktop to a different environment for security reasons (protect both the access to the desktop and the data displayed on the desktop from undesired intruders/eavesdroper)
- Switching back from protected mode to desktop mode requires that the user enters his log-in credential again.
- Password prompt conditions may be optionnal : one may decide to use auto-logon and only protect data visually (can't eavesdrop through window, but anyone could unlock)
- The protected mode may be just blank screen. As an added bonus, the protected mode may also display some sort of audio-visual entertainment.
It does exactly the same thing, but it is defined as a different product.
It's not just a flying toaster on the screen to avoid burnins,
it's a "screen protector" with "power saving and protection of privacy, with audio-visual entertainment option activated".
It's the same way the Arithmetic coding can be circumvented by substituing it with the closely related Range encoding.
Or substituing the patented Marching cubes algorithme for producing a surface from a volume, with the simplier but functionnaly equivalent patent-free Marching tetrahedron.
The only limitation is for a couple of things where, to achieve it's goal (interoperability with formats or network communication between microsoft and linux softwares), the software has to follow one specific implementation (ffmpeg may infringe on some of microsoft patent on VC-1 video) but the implementation can't be changed because compatibility will be lost (using alternative non-patented algorithms for video compression/decompression will result in incompatible data).
That hapened during the GIF and MP3 patent controversies. (Although in GIF's case the patent could be circumvented to produce legal GIF although not compressed).
But in the specific case of those 235 patents, some juridiction - mostly EU - will back the open source community as patents are used in ways to explicitely stop interoperation from concurrence. (See what happened with Samba)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Seasoned readers may remember that when Netscape forked the code tree for the browser and made it open source, Wang, backed by Microsoft, sued for an alleged patent infringement. Mozilla.org put out a call for cases of prior art, received several hundred, and buried the case. If Microsoft is stupid enough to go ahead with a case for any of these so-called infringements, the chances are that every one will have prior art or one kind or another. Patents rarely stand up in court with the right amount of expert support.
RMS has proven himself a visionary once more where some thought he was going too far. The whole GPLv3 thing might seem a bit paranoid in the beginning, not just for Linus, with all this talk about forking off a lot of commercially-backed development --- people took SCO's failure as a governing example and thought that other big players would abide by the status quo, with the patent stockpiling by both sides to be an assurance of mutual peace... Following this new development, however, GPLv3 WILL mature and get adopted much quicker and on a larger scale. You're right on the money saying that now the forks will not likely happen.
VKh
Clearly this round of sabre rattling is not going to end up in court. For a start MS would find itself in very hot water about these vague patent claims : it would create doubt in Microsoft's ranks and jeopardize the stock value.
On the other hand, the issue is to create doubt among traditional US corporate structures. Some might be frightened enough to move back to Windows. On the other hand, smart IT shops won't probably care. When Microsoft start suing their own customers RIAA/MPAA style it might be a sign of their own impending doom.
The results are..... interesting, to say the least.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Thanks for clarification. Thanks god my country (Italy) is not positive as regards software patents as well.
It seems anyway good to me that a first try to introduce software patents in the UE has been formaly rejected: this sould be important in case Miscrosft (or someone else) is going to push again in this direction.
As far as I am concerned I will send some money to those fighting for free software in Europe, just in case...
Now ... all Microsoft needs to do (and is doing) is to demand license fees for the use of their patents. This won't affect Linux'es availability for anyone who's willing to pay for a license. How much opposition do you think this will engender in corporate America? How outworldish is it to try to monetise your patents? I have this sinking feeling that most of the industry will shrug it off with "Well ... we knew they're bastards, but that's why they make such a lot of money.", and simply make sure that their Linux distributions are covered by patent license agreements.
Google
Will Google suddenly litigate 150-odd patents (they won't be using the gui or Open Office, just the kernel), or will it consent to pay, say 15$ a copy in licensing fees? Eh? What would you advise Google's CEO if you were in charge of Legal Affairs?
Novell
Novell has signed this patent-agreement, so wouldn't automatically be required to oppose Microsoft when MS asserts its patents. And what about Red-Hat? Will they charge the windmills?
IBM ... will Microsoft see it as a winning strategy to get into a court battle with IBM about anything they can sue other much smaller companies for first? I'd be surprised.
And IBM? Will they even be a party in the initial legal battles? I mean
SUN
And yes, SUN will not take allegations that it's Open Office infringes on Microsoft's patents lying down. But will it take up the cudgels to protect the Linux kernel when it's trying to make a go of Open Solaris? Really?
The little guys
Although I will readily admit that "corporate" use of Linux has helped it along enormously, there are still the "purist" and "hobbyist" distributions. I'm guessing that there are hundreds of small specialised tweaked Linux distributions (ranging from Knoppix to firewalls) brought out by individuals and tiny little companies. That's where Linux shines. And that's where you see the oddball experiments and many of the interesting new developments.
So what are those small guys going to do when they receive a pay-license-fees-or-cease-and-desist nastygram? Their entire assets might just be enough to have a lawyer read the letter and explain to them what it means. My guess is that they will be unable to defend themselves and will quickly fold and withdraw their distros. That alone would be a blow.
The Kernel repositories
And then the Kernel repositories. What are the chances that those will have to take down the infringing portions of their code, if asked? Of course I can't say how likely this might be, as I'm not a lawyer. But Denis Crouch is and his response here ( http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/05/microsoft_ foss_.html) doesn't completely reassure me that Microsoft won't get anywhere.
What does Microsoft have to loose really? ... who likes buying Microsoft? A show of hands please! ... And now, who of you buy Microsoft because it happens to come with the hardware, and it works after a fashion, and you're locked-in anyway?
And about other companies giving Micorsoft a hard time
Really ... what does Microsoft have to loose from some bad publicity when trying to collect licenses on their patents? Somehow I can't even imagine that it would spark off an anti-trust suit, because all the "corporate" Linux distros aren't affected. Microsoft isn't (formally) trying to siderail an opponent, it's trying to get money for patents they own. Well yes, it's lethal to free-as
If they dare do it, I am sure many people like me, normally apathetic regarding these issues, will work to help any company or individuals singled out by MS.
I don't know what is MS's budget for this sort of issue, but if they think they can defeat an army of commited people doing things for the love of a product and an idea that has given freedom back to them, then they will have a very rude awakening.
Go on MS. We dare you. Just try it please.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
IBM is largely a consulting house these days, one with a big, fat patent portfolio. They're also not a consumer company; people don't get upset at them because most people barely perceive them. There's little Microsoft can do to their bottom line.
But: if Microsoft pisses of the wrong people enough and gets stuck with a bunch of patent lawsuits, their core businesses are in trouble: Windows, Office, Outlook, Exchange.
This is pure FUD!! This article says nothing about any software other than Linux. THere is nothing about any of the BSDs.
Given that actually attacking Linux is equivalent to attacking IBM, it's clear that Microsoft's objective is merely to spread FUD and scare away corporate users from Linux. Microsoft is not dumb enough (unlike Caldera/SCO) to take IBM to court, who have deep enough pockets to fight it out legally.
Microsoft is scared of Linux, as it is not scared of the BSDs, because the GNU GPL keps Linux from being absorbed and co-opted (otherwise known as "Embrace and Extend") by Microsoft.
Fizz
Did they? I thought it just made everyone switch to PNG.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Not only has Microsoft ignored a significant shift in national intellectual property law (per recent Supreme court decisions)
Ignored a shift in IP law? By asserting their patents are infringed? I don't think the Supreme Court said you can't infringe a patent anymore.
As I understand it, the Supreme Court eliminated the Federal Circuit's bogus requirement that a prior art showing be a description of EXACTLY the claim to be rendered invalid.
As this percolates through the case law it should put teeth back into "obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art". This implies both the end of the flood of bogus patents on all aspects of computing and the invalidation of the bulk of those currently in the "stack of barganing chips" portfolios of companies such as Microsoft, as soon as any attempt is made to actually ENFORCE them.
With the value of the asset about to vanish, acquiring more bogus patents about to become extremely hard, and the bulk of the patents ready to self-destruct if challenged, it make sense for Microsoft to stop sitting on them and use them in a FUD campaign while the count is at its peak.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Ahh...
I wish that we would have had software patents in the 80s. Then there would be no Microsoft. Apple and Oracle probably wouldn't exist today either. All of the technology they used to build their companies would have been patented by Xerox and we wouldnt have email, GUIs, pointing devices and many other things.
I wonder if anyone is going to realize that software patents dont work. I could tell 10 different developers to code a "desktop publishing app" and all 10 of them would come back with an app that would accomplish the goal in 10 different ways. Who do you award the patent to? The guy who finished first?
Software is an expression of ideas, like writing a novel or making a movie. Sure the ideas are structured, like math, but they are still an expression of ideas. We must protect them as such. We already have a mechanism for that, its called copyright.
Imagine what would happen if we could patent movies. A director could patent the scene "a girl in a bar sitting down" and now thousands of movies would infringe on that patent, even though the shot may be completely different. What about someone patenting "2+2". Many of you will probably think that is stupid, why would we let someone patent that, it's an idea. You would be correct, "2+2" is an idea and software is just a more complicated form of that same idea.
Right now, several incredibly creative developers are scared of releasing their own software because they have no idea whether they are infringing on patents or not. If you want to go back to the heydays of the early-mid 90s we need to get rid of software patents so that the software market can flourish again.
my $.02
--jake
I'm just wondering why MS is pointing this up in front.
People at home who change their OS (as a normal graduated linux user would do) how can that be stopped ?. What is someone writes down in code true type fonts acka windows quality, and say this is the code I provide it here a number, people cannot patent numbers the post would be legal. And basicly computer code is numbers.
Mainly i wondr why MS does this, probaply its not targeted to people who would do just that generate a treutype font or something else based on code (numbers) or alternative numbers (as alternative math) Math itself cannot be copyrighted (only kept secret as for encryption). So who they are targeting, perhaps the large deploys of linux, i can imagine that MS would visit a company who had hundreds of linux machine with violating code?
But whatif a company would also say this program is just a long number, like there are thousends of numbers, the numbers here happen to control a device working with numbers called a CPU, it's math device build for numbers working with other devices who work based on numbers. Together they hafe a function who ends up similair on display like the numbers and math you used. I just wonder where patents can define numbers as somthing that can be owned.
Probaply the only method to realy get it right is to create an encrypted operating system, no opensource at all, only protected by math itself. But then we get european style courts.
Well probaply the whole thinkg is a big joke for how long we will use current style PC's i think their design is outdated.. but it's just a matter of time before i386 design will make place for new designs, based on the knowledge of these days. Remember it wouldnt be the apolo to be the first choise to fly someone to mars.
I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
The article quotes Linus Torvalds as saying he is not worried about proprietary software because while the "FSF considers proprietary software to be something evil and immoral" he just doesn't care about it. Well, that's refreshing. It is what I believe Roger Parloff was getting at earlier in the article when he talks about businesses working out non-GPL licenses that that accommodate to the proprietary sector.
It is in that same vein that Microsoft has worked out licenses with customers and the agreement last year with Novell.
Richard Stallman once referred to a study - that was done by Open Source Risk Management - that the Linux kernel infringed more than the 235 patents cited in the Fortune article. So, patents on Linux is not new. What is new is a statement that Microsoft has identified 235 patents in its patent portfolio that cover free and open source software.
The statements by Ballmer and Smith are not a call to a war on patents. Stallman and Moglen seem to be the ones calling for that. Rather, Ballmer and Smith talk about licensing and not patent infringement actions. I suppose that that is one of the reasons for not naming specific patents and specific products covered by them - to avoid being dragged into court where they don't want to be on declaratory judgment actions.
It is true that recent Supreme Court decisions have pared back patentability of inventions and infringement actions - but I think that is an evolutionary and not radical alteration. There is also the peer to patent project of NYU. Really, all of this is good if it means weeding out good patents from bad. But none of this goes to the true desire of the FSF - to eliminate patent protection for software. In GPLv3, FSF makes their disdain for patents on computer software clear. But rather than taking the issue to the only party that can do something about it - the US Congress - FSF is more inclined to take it to the streets and fan the flames to ignite the "tinderbox" that Moglen referred to in the article. They would apparently welcome it. But it is cooperation and not conflagration that Microsoft is interested in.
No, we cannot all be friends - but we need not put our friends, customers, and software users in a cross fire, which is precisely what the GPLv3 does.
So, I am not worried about proprietary software or patents. I am not worried about how many patents Richard Stallman or Brad Smith thinks cover Linux. I am worried about the combatants on the anti-patent side of the aisle that do not take the issue on directly but who actively seek confrontation instead.
Luckily, GNU/Linux starts with a G.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
I imagine that many of these ideas were developed independently, but that doesn't mean there will always be prior art. For example:
Linux Timeline for developing "Feature X"
Spring 2001: Think of Feature X
Summer 2001: Release initial code for Feature X
Fall 2001: Test and debug
Winter 2001: Release Feature X
Windows Timeline for developing "Feature X"
Spring 2001: Think of Feature X
Spring 2001: Patent Feature X
2003-2004: Hack away at Feature X
2005: Release Feature X
In this case, Microsoft holds the patent, but only due to their speedy legal department. Thus showing, once again, how stupid software patents are.
"Did he infringe 235 patents or only 347?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a GPL License, the most powerful free software agreement in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, Ballmer?
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
Apparently Smith didn't pay much attention in his equity classes in law school (not surprising since most people find equity boring and difficult - I on the other hand topped my year so :-P to Smith). This behaviour is going to give rise to a proprietary estoppel against Microsoft, and he has now publicly stated the hardest things a defendant would have to prove to get the estoppel. This is just about rule #1 of equity - if you know somebody is violating your property rights, and you let them expend time, effort and resources building something in violation of those rights without them having knowledge of the breach of your rights, the courts will not let you enforce your rights against those people or anybody who claims through them.
It would be a different matter if Microsoft had no knowledge of the breach, but having investigated it and found the breach, if they don't tell the projects affected what the alleged breach is in fairly short order, they are not going to be able to enforce their rights at all.
Even if he did not pay a lot of attention in his equity classes it seems unlikely Smith would not have some awareness of this. This suggests to me that Microsoft have no intention whatsoever of using the patents to pursue open source projects or even users who are building businesses based around open source products. If they did intend to do this, they would give specific notice. This leaves them with only intimidation as a strategy for exploiting their patents against open source.
It is a shame we have no examples of another company that turned to using unspecified intellectual property violations as an intimidation strategy against open source. Such an example might give us an indication of the ultimate result.