Slashdot Mirror
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."
Didn't they claim (after they signed the agreement) that Linux did not have any patent issues with Microsoft?
Where is their press release regarding this?
You get the feel there's some sort of end-game being played out here, but it all started well before it became clear Vista was going to be a dog.
The thing is, if Microsoft divulges what the FOSS patent breaches actually are, the community will respond promptly, and that particular bullet will have been fired. Until Microsoft's list is actually available, we don't know how much harm they'll be able to do, but there's not much chance they'll be able to inflict fatal damage to FOSS.
This patent grab is essentially a one-shot hit, and until now, was always more valuable as a FUD threat than an actual tool of coercion. Micah hacks the computer system so Nathan can win. Peter controls the radiation power, and the ending is a cliffhanger into the next and final episode. That Microsoft is choosing to use it now is indicative that they believe it's value as FUD has waned, and I suspect that has more to do with the outcome of their their patent proxy SCO's efforts than with Vista's failure.
Perhaps, as in the case of SCO, MSFT would rather not have PJ at Groklaw dissect their claims...
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
MS likely has as many patent violations in its secret list as McCarthy had Communist names on his.
Sure Microsoft can go after companies with legal threats, but ultimately the patents would have to come out. You can't sue and not be prepared for the information to become public. There was a little software company in Utah that is finding this out. Is this just SCO vs. IBM where SCO has been replaced by a much bigger company that isn't going to run out of money in 5 years?
Translation:
The SCO vs IBM assault (funded by Microsoft) is about to implode.
Therefore, Microsoft is poised to move on to their next strategy of
attacking free software.
Just take a look at the amusing comments on the Office blogs about licensing their Office 2007 user interface IP. It's abundantly clear that some of the bigwigs in management there are not lawyers, and haven't even read about their own company's history in this area with Apple and others in the past. Some of them really do believe that just because they spent a significant amount of time and money researching something, they automatically get perfect monopoly protection of that research under IP laws.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I know this is Slashdot and everything, but at what point do the Microsoft stories become redundant?
Yesterday there was a link to a story on this issue, followed by lots of discussion as to why Microsoft is doing what they are doing. Today there is an opinion piece regarding the original story, in which someone lays out unsubstantiated brainstorms, all of which were covered yesterday.
I understand that Microsoft stories are huge traffic and comment generators on this website (any MS story is a guaranteed 300+ comments), but often times it seems as though the editors like to fuel the fire.
I don't know. Just thinking out loud...
- Scott
Sure Microsoft can go after companies with legal threats, but ultimately the patents would have to come out. You can't sue and not be prepared for the information to become public. There was a little software company in Utah that is finding this out.
It's been 4 years since this came out. SCO didn't have any facts to put into the case, and it's still banging around after 4 years. The only thing that will really limit them is their bankroll, which is running out.
MS has a much larger bank roll.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Imagine this, you get pulled over by the cops, they say you've broken 235 traffic laws, but won't tell you exactly what you've infringed. Ridiculous.
When someone points out a mistake I made, I appreciate when they tell me exactly what it was, or tell me where to look if it's in my best interest to learn how to be more diligent with my work. I don't suffer fools, and being a smart-ass doesn't help.
What MS is doing is simply saying "hey you guys, there are 235 things you're doing that's going to get you in trouble, but we won't tell you what it is"
Will it make us go away? It has definitely incensed a bunch of us to either be even more anti-MS in our stance at their sword waving, (hopefully we can do the Indiana Jones thing from Raiders')
HEX offender mugshot ID: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Where is the C&D from the FSF?
If someone is making a dubious claim, slap them with a c&d, and force this thing into court.
... hi bingo
IANAL, but I have some small knowledge of the law in this area...
If MS has knowledge that their patents are being violated, yet refuses to tell the violators exactly what patents they are violating and how, aren't the patent claims automatically nullified, since they made no good faith attempt to resolve the situation? If Linus or the OSDL contacts Microsoft and are rebuffed when they formally requests details of the patents in question and how they are being infringed, I would expect they would be laughed out of the courtroom in the best case. At worst, this might be viewed as a thinly diguised extortion attempt.
This is sort of like delivering a copyright infringement notice to a website without telling them what the infringing material is, and demanding the entire site be shut down or pay the claimants whatever they see fit.
My rights don't need management.
They'll be able to repeat this process as for as many patent violations as they can come up with. Should be able to do a lot of damage.
SCO failed Microsoft... so, as the old saying goes, if you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself.
We all knew this day would probably come, just as soon as the usefulness of the SCO lawsuit ended. Guess this means Microsoft has decided SCO is no longer enough to scare people off.
It also means they have decided the odds of getting Europe to adopt software patents had become too low for it to make sense on holding their fire any longer. Because this will almost certainly put the pro patent forces in the EU on defense while everyone decides that waiting to see how this afair shakes out is the prudent course.
It also means they feel threatened. Now normally that would be sorta good news, but Microsoft is paranoid and fearful as a matter of policy, always afraid of being knocked off their perch. They never choose to wait and 'hope for the best' when attack is an option for dealing with any real of imagined competitive threat. I suspect the only reason they have held their fire for so long was they felt they could use SCO to buy time to come up with a better plan that risking a Patent War that will have unpredictable results.
But SCO is used up and they only came up with the one twist to a plain patent fight, the Novell deal. It a) takes Novell out of the fight and b) offers an escape path for any corporation who decides the risk is too great, just throw Novell money and opt out of the fight. It will probably clear the field of everyone except the principles, which was the plan. Before it is over we will be following, at a minimum, RedHat V Microsoft, probably IBM v Microsoft and since this will probably trigger another anti-trust action we will also get DOJ v Microsoft.
Democrat delenda est
The real shame is that Microsoft have hidden away some of the greatest programmers that have ever lived, and essentially corralled them into harmlessness in MS Research.
.NET OS. It's very impressive in and of itself, but the programmers who put that together could have been working on something that would actually see the light of day. Imagine if Borland hadn't been steamrollered into oblivion. .NET could have been a Borland or IBM project.
.NET guys, the Haskell guys, and what they actually release such as Office 2007 (though the interface is nice now) is like night and day.
The singularity OS is basically a
The comparison between the assets that Microsoft have, such as Singularity, the
Microsoft have held back the general state of computing in order to preserve their monopoly. It's absolutely clear. Yahoo for Douglas Crockford and watch his Javascript videos. It stands out like a sore thumb how many examples of Microsoft throwing a spanner in the works of Javascript. Repeat this across a whole industry, many times a year and it becomes clear that FOSS and contributors to FOSS are going to be how this industry is driven forward.
Any time there is even a sniff of a state legislating for open standards and Microsoft goons pop out of the woodwork.
GNU/Linux and the web have now cracked Microsoft, the water is starting to flow in, and the whole edifice needs to start bailing, or flounder. Start using your research. Cooperate with open standards, and start to compete on merit, and maybe Microsoft will have a chance.
-- "It's not stalking if you're married!" My Wife.
Pamela Jones has an interesting take on this story: now that Dell has bought some of the SLES coupons that Microsoft bought from Novell, Microsoft has effectively distributed a GPLed Linux distribution, thereby granting an implied license to any patents it may infringe.
Consider the MS FAT file system patent. There is no way you can work around the patent and still provide FAT functionality (required to work with cards from cameras etc.). For such patents there are three choices (i) Keep infringing, (ii) pull support or (iii) challenge the patent and get it overturned. With these types of patent, MS will have to weigh up whether it is worth exposing their patents to challenge, especially since many of the claims are probably quite unlikely to succeed.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
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.
The Microsoft version of the playbook is slightly different:
Microsoft to random corporation: You are violating patents A, B, C, D and E
Random Corporation: A, B, C, D and E are total BS
Microsoft: Not to worry. You are violating F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N and O.
Random Corporation: They're BS too.
Microsoft: Surely there's something worthwhile in this box (rummages in box). How about P, Q, R, S, T, U and V?
Random Corporation: BS
Microsoft: W, X, Y and Z, pleeease?
Random Corporation: Look. IBM had a real research lab that did patentable original research. Yours is just a bunch of people sitting in front of PCs animating paper clips. Now get lost.
Microsoft: Damn
Microsoft can look for patent violations in Linux source code, but no-one can look for patent violations in Microsoft's source code. If you have a patent on the way an internal piece of software works you have no way of telling whether MS is breaking it, but they can tell whether Linux is.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
I would assume this is true, I've always wondered why M$ didn't go after the Samba team - I'm sure there are plenty of patents associated with specifics in protocols like SMB/CIFS.
Personal note: I'd be glad to get rid of Samba in Linux - it would be a push in the direction of getting rid of M$ on the client/workstation side, which is a good direction. There are plenty of Linux servers in business, and if M$ made everyone stop using Samba, a lot of business owners would sooner replace the network filesharing protocol to something better like SSHFS, or something similar.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
I don't think the (entire) problem with the SCO case is that the lawyers don't know what they're doing, it's that they don't have anything to work with. Their lawyers are trying every creative stall tactic they can think of, and then trying more, just to get out of having to finally break down and admit that they have absolutely nothing - no evidence, no lines of infringing code, no case.
With 235 possible infringing patents Microsoft has a lot more to work with. I believe that most of the patents will be found invalid and the rest will be worked around, but the process will take time and money.
I wonder if litigation is really in their best interest though. Part of the reason IBM is defending themselves so vigorously against SCO is to defend against the implication that they were behaving unethically; donating someone else's copyrighted code in bad faith to Linux. IBM makes a good deal of money supplying products and consulting services based around Linux. Wouldn't IBM's business be threatened by implications of intellectual property problems? Does Microsoft really want to go up against IBM over patents? Whatever you may think of SCO's legal team, IBM's is frighteningly competent.
"Seek first to understand." - Socrates
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.
These tactics, if they can be proven as intentional (another halloween memo out there?), should be indication of their abuse of the patent system. Is it reasonable to expect every coder to search the entire patent system database for possible infringement before release to the public? I don't think so given the enormity of the database as it exists today. So their refusal to inform which patents are allegedly offending amounts to an abuse of the system ... by a monopoly power no less.
Frankly, they shouldn't be allowed to continue their predatory and intimidating ways because they are a convicted monopolist. Where's the oversight?
If MS really had this big patent portfolio on which Linux was infringing, then Novell would have been in a very weak bargaining position.
Both parties are in awkward positions, if pro-Free-software legal experts are correct in their interpretation of the MS-Novell agreement and the GPL.
Increasingly it looks like the agreement will be in conflict with GPL3, and as software included in SLES migrates towards using GPL3 Novell will either have to freeze SLES at the last version of code relesed under GPL2 or somehow find their way out of the agreement to stay current.
MS is in an awkward position because in their end of the deal they are obligated to sell SLES certificates. Technically they are now a Linux distributor. To sell a distribution you MUST abide by the GPL--even under GPL2 when you distribute GPL software you MUST make the source code available without restriction. It does not matter if the code implements a patented invention, MS could not charge a royalty/licensing fee to restrict use of the application or its source code without violating GPL. If MS is serious about trying to enforce its patents it must immediately terminate its agreement with Novell. GPL3 would not make the above situation any different for these existing patents from what I understand--what GPL3 does is keep authors of GPLed code from creating NEW patents based on the functionality of that GPLed code (could a lawyer out there tell me if that is a valid interpretation?).
I'm not convinced MS will get very far with this latest cage-rattling. I suspect many of the involved patents are pretty dubious in nature--and some may be very old and could be close to expiration by the time litigation has finally reached a conclusion (another reason why they wouldn't pull a SCO and head into an embarrassing, protracted legal battle over IP). I also suspect that the Linux kernel itself violates few if any patents at all given how architecturally different it is from the Windows kernel. Microsoft would most likely go after the more outer layers of the OS onion--those involving interoperability with Windows. That is, after all, the stated focus of the MS-Novell deal.
I think we'd first see action against Samba for example. Mono would've been a target as well, but the Novell agreement took care of that. Frontpage interoperability with Apache is another likely Free software target (I realise not all of their targets are GPL, though that is their prime concern). ODBC drivers that let Linux talk to Microsoft databases might be in the crosshairs. This strategy could be part of the "if you can't beat them, join them" plan: If Vista and the corresponding to-be-released server OS prove to be disappointments over the long term the Windows platform as it exists today may be allowed to wither and die on the vine, to be replaced with something more Linux-like (or perhaps BSD-like).
If it does indeed "pull an Apple" and underpin its OS with such Free content it'll need a differentiator--and they intend that to be backwards compatibility with what will be "legacy Windows", which will also allow them to maintain their vendor lock-in. That key piece of the puzzle cannot be Free under the MSFT business model so the goal of more aggressively enforcing patents is likely to explore the feasibility of taking the "MSFT/Linux" or "BSD Windows" route whilst maintaining the leverage they enjoy as a monopoly.
Their investment in "open source research" as of late has provided them with some ammunition, however I think they are still too clumsy with the gun and will only be able to shoot themselves in the foot with such a clumsy strategy. MS is resilient though, so I hope defenders of Free software can keep them off balance before they recover.
DUDE! You suck! why would you tell us that!? Did we eat your children or something..... not kewl -Seething pile of Man-Anger
This whole move by Microsoft confuses me. Surely they would know that the Open source community would basically hit back with "Show us the code", "Your patents won't hold up in court" and "Whatever you have, we will work around it". My guess is that either: Steve Ballmer really is an idiot and doesn't understand what is happening, or that there is some other end game in this. I refuse to believe that such an idiot at least wouldn't be stopped by someone else in Microsoft's camp with a simple "Just think about it first", so my guess is that there is another end game.
e nt-violations/ that basically, MS's won't reveal the infringing source code because it will get traced back to MS agents. Either way though, it doesn't explain this.
Yes, this is bad publicity for open source through mainstream media (as, like it or not, most people don't get their tech news from people that can program), and yes, this will scare some companies into buying MS software in their next cycle, but really... what is the end game?
I saw an interesting comment here: http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/microsoft-linux-pat
Like it or not, Microsoft, as a company, are as smart as they are evil. There is something else behind this.
There are plenty of reasons why MS wouldn't be able to stall as long as SCO, and I'm sure MS knows that. That's why they've been using SCO so far, instead of doing it all directly.
Think about it. If MS were to actually start suing Linux users, it would make the front page of most newspapers in the US. The last time Microsoft was that involved in legal disputes in the US, it took a presidential impeachment to distract the public and the press. Microsoft would be under far more scrutiny than SCO, and the truth about their baseless claims would come out. By the time the dust settled and the judges dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's, precedents would have been established that would destroy Microsoft's core business practices. And because of the importance of the case(s), all the Fortune 500 companies would be demanding a speedy trial so that they could get on with running a business.
The more MS stalls, the more solid the case against them will be. If they come up with an excuse, it will be analyzed and probably debunked quickly, leaving them with fewer options. If they don't dig up every technicality they can think of, then they will lose sooner. The only option they have now to avoid inevitable humiliation in court is to stay out of court. Unfortunately for them, their FUD alone might provide enough grounds for somebody else to sue them, thus setting up the showdown they can't afford to have happen.
One thing is certain: once MS gets into court about these issues, they won't get to decide when they leave (just like SCO cannot drop charges and walk away). That makes it a huge risk for them to ever get near a court with their FUD.
And then, there is always the fact that IBM's Nazgul could beat the shit out of Microsoft with their all-encompassing Patent Portfolio. That might actually be the best delaying tactic: get into long fights with IBM, and make sure the real cases can't proceed until they are settled.
I'm under the belief that a monopoly cannot ever sustain itself. Ever. At least not with some ACTIVE help from the government (see ATT). In this case, I saw the collapse of Microsoft coming in the year 2008, some six or seven years ago. I saw what Linux was back in its infancy, in the late 90s, and saw it steadily improve.
I may have been a little later to jump on the Linux bandwagon back then, but I've been onboard since 99 or 00, and by the time 02 or 03 came around, I saw the writing on the wall. This whole thing was magnified by the ME disaster, BOB, and Clippy. These failures are key to understanding WHY Microsoft is doomed to failure.
ME, BOB, and Clippy are all UI designs, not core components. Microsoft has stopped making core improvements to the OS for some time. And by CORE improvements I mean innovations to the underlying OS. By now, Windows should have been FULLY virtualized and abstracted away from the underlying hardware. Microsoft has made the error of tying itself to x86 architecture to much, and that is now limiting its ability to add true functionality (like virtualization), something that is vastly needed, especially in the server market, where each service almost needs its own host.
Along comes Linux, which ISN'T tied to a piece of hardware, and has abstacted various layers so that it doesn't need to be tied to specific hardware, and it is leading into virtualized hosted environment. I suspect the next revolution in OS is going to be complete abstraction of the core OS from the underlying HW via vitualization, which will break the bonds from x86 architecture.
So, by NOT interfering (protecting MS), the US Government is actually helping Microsoft CRUSH itself by trying to maintain a codebase that is incomprehensible because it has never had to change architecture. If the US government tried to break up Microsoft all those years ago, Windows and the core application and server products might have been improved to the point that the monopoly would still exist, only in three parts.
As it looks right now, MS is a beached Whale, and the tide is still moving out. The mighty leviathan is being crushed under its own weight in an environment that is changing faster than it can. Be warned, Microsoft (or whatever happens to it) will still have remains, but it will not be the powerhouse it once was.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
In the beginning:
When this linux-child was born, like all Spartans, he was inspected.
For the strength of the code lies only in its openness.
---oOo---
The Threat:
Microsoft Messenger:
Choose your next words carefully, Leon-ix-idas. They may be your last as king.
Linux:
You bring the skulls and crowns of conquered corporations to my desktop, you insult my queen, and you threaten my people with lawsuits and FUD! Oh, I've chosen my words carefully, Microsoft. Perhaps you should have done the same! *kick*
---oOo---
The preliminary skirmishes :
Microsoft :
Send in the SCOuts to test the strength of these Spartan defences.
Linux :
Our Unix ancestors built this wall. Using ancient stones from the bosom of Greece herself.
And with a little Spartan help, your Microsoft-sponsored SCOuts supplied the mortar.
---oOo---
The battle:
Microsoft :
A thousand lawyers of the Microsoft empire descend upon you. Our patents will blot out the sun!
Linux :
Then we will code in the shade !
---oOo---
The aftermath:
Narrator:
The world will know that freemen stood against a tyrant, that few stood against many,
and that before this battle is done, that even a god king can bleed.
Microsoft:
WTF happened ? Who threw that chair ?
And the fact that we, as the BSD crowd, can see nothing wrong with that, and believe that that is the way the entire world should be, nicely demonstrates the difference between us and the Linux zealots. We believe that having to rewrite code that is already available, for any reason (Apart from "I can do this better", of course), is a criminal waste of resources. Even more so if it is because of the legal restrictions. I demand the freedom to be able to choose how I release my code. Therefore, I BSD. I believe that anyone using my code should have the same freedoms I do. Therefore, I BSD.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
I really don't understand what happens at microsoft. They really do hire the industry's best and brightest. They pay them a lot of money, give them all the resources they need and...they give us vista. And asp.net. wtf?
Sig removed because it was obnoxious
It's odd that you would bring this up in defense of BSD/Expat/MIT vs copyleft, because this is almost exactly the same reasoning behind the Free Software movement: the inability to modify software that is not freely available in source code format leads to us rewriting it. Having done so, we license the resultant works so that we won't have to do so again.
At the end of the day, though, most of us wouldn't care what licenser something is released under so long as we can modify it and combine it with other free works; the unfortunate nature of closed source software is the only reason that the GPL exists... if everyone gave away source code, we would never had left the halcyon days of the dawn of computing.
http://www.donarmstrong.com
the collapse of the tech industry from all the businesses going under
My goodness, how apocalyptic.
Take a look around -- there is a whole big world out there beyond the borders of the USA, and a healthy technical industry as well.
If the US decides to blow their own industry away, that's more for everyone else.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Microsoft mentioned the Linux kernel proper, the "Linux GUI", and OpenOffice.org as the software in violation of Microsoft patents. None of these are owned by the FSF, and only Gnome (if that is what the "Linux GUI" refers to) is the only GNU project among them.
There are two good reasons why no FSF owned code has been challenged:
1) The FSF is a legal entity, and can actually defend itself. The FUD factor is much higher for the project with no/many owners. Who is going to stand up for them?
2) The FSF is very careful about patents, it is quite common on the GCC list to see comments along the line of "the obvious technique for doing this is patented, but I found an alternative way to do it, so let's implement that". The core GCC developers seems to read patents in order to know what to avoid.
The obvious exception seems to be OpenOffice.org which is owned by Sun, but Microsoft has a cross-license agreement with Sun (like most of the large technological companies has with each other), which may make it difficult for Sun to defend OpenOffice.org. After all, thanks to the cross-license agreement, Microsoft is not accusing Sun of any wrongdoing.
Surely these "infringments" can be requested under the UK's Freedom of information act 2000, as it is in the public interest to know which patents that are infringed upon, and as MS have an office in england surely that makes them subject to UK law.
A DRAFT Open Letter to Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith
Dear Mr. Smith:
My name is ______. I am the maintainer for Linux kernel 2.6. I package its various components for general distribution.
It has come to my attention that that you allege the Linux kernel infringes 42 Microsoft patents. It is my emphatic belief that the Linux 2.6 kernel infringes no intellectual properties, least of all Microsoft's patents. Nevertheless, I will rigorously investigate any bona fide infringement claim and take appropriate remedial action.
Accordingly, I ask that you specify the 42 patents you allege to be infringed. Please include concise technical descriptions of the allegedly infringing components of the Linux kernel and the claims which you believe each component violates. For the sake of everyone's peace of mind, I ask that you do so no later than July 1, 2007.
Until such a time as you have done so, I insist that you refrain from making further potentially slanderous remarks to members of the press regarding the legality of the Linux kernel and thus of my behavior as its maintainer.
Respectfully Yours,
X
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.