Why Microsoft Won't List Claimed Patent Violations

BlueOni0n writes "Earlier today, Microsoft announced it will begin actively seeking reparations for claimed patent infringement by Linux and the open source community in general. One opinion on why Microsoft won't reveal these 235 alleged IP infringements to the public is that they're afraid of having the claims debunked or challenged — so instead they're waiting until the OS community comes to the bargaining table. But a more optimistic thought is that Microsoft may be afraid to list these supposed violations because it knows the patents can be worked around by the open source community, leaving Microsoft high and dry without any leverage at all."

Comments

Re:Devil's Advocate

[SecurityGuy]

You're making the Look-and-Feel argument, which was legally thrown out in the 80s, not a patent argument.

Thanks for playing. Please try again.

Re:Declaratory Judgement

[bb5ch39t]

I think this is possible from something called "the Latham Act" which is about unsupported claims which can negatively impact a company's business.

Re:Declaratory Judgement

[notamisfit]

It's the Lanham Act, and I think that in this case it would probably be a really stupid thing for a company like Red Hat to do. Out of 235, they really only need one upheld patent to hang themselves with.

Re:Declaratory Judgement

[tyme]

cpaluc wrote:

Isn't it be possible to get some sort of declaratory judgement from a court? Say you're RedHat (or any other Linux distributor), who happens to sell Linux and related services - in light of MS's statements, wouldn't you be entitled to know which patents are involved? MS's statements have a direct impact on your business.

And if MS refused to tell you then couldn't you get a declaration from a court that your product doesn't infringe? IIRC, this is similar to what RedHat is pursuing in its case against SCO (which is on hold while SCO v IBM drags on).

Maybe a small Linux distributor with no assets and not much to lose could pursue a case like this against MS.

First, any party bringing a lawsuit under the American legal system must have standing to sue, meaning that they must have a material interest in the outcome of the suit. Since Microsoft has not specifically threatened anybody, at the moment, it would be hard to establish standing. A really good lawyer might be able to argue that a Linux vendor is harmed by the implication that Microsoft will sue that vendors customers for patent infringement, but with any actual patent suits in process, it would be a hard sell.

Second, the American legal system refuses to issue advisory judgements, and requires that a case be 'ripe' before it can be adjudicated. Since the court would be ruling on a hypothetical ("if Microsoft were to sue for patent infringement, would we be found to be infringing?") the court would (and should) simply refuse to hear the case.

Here is a good reference for standing, advisory opinions and ripeness. A little google-foo should easily turn up others.

The only bright spot in this, from a potential plaintif's point of view, is that, as a convicted monopolist, there might be a way to accuse Microsoft of restrain-of-trade, or some other violation of the Sherman Act. Unfortunately, I think that prosecution of anti-trust cases must be brought by the federal government, and that is not very likely with the current administration. Private actions can be brought for violations of the Clayton Act but I don't quite see how it could aply in this case, and only consumers injured by their dealings with the violator have standing to sue, which puts most direct competitors out of the running.

Disclaimer: IANALBIHTBL (IANAL But I Have Taken Business Law)