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?
MS likely has as many patent violations in its secret list as McCarthy had Communist names on his.
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
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
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.
I think this is possible from something called "the Latham Act" which is about unsupported claims which can negatively impact a company's business.
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.
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.
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
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.
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)
just a ghost in the machine.
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!