Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Details FOSS Patent Breaches
CptRevelation writes "Microsoft has released more detailed information on the patents supposedly in breach by the open-source community. Despite their accusations of infringement, they state they would rather do licensing deals instead of any legal action. 'Open-source programs step on 235 Microsoft patents, the company said. Free Linux software violates 42 patents. Graphical user interfaces, the way menus and windows look on the screen, breach 65. E-mail programs step on 15, and other programs touch 68 other patents, the company said. The patent figures were first reported by Fortune magazine. Microsoft also said Open Office, an open-source program supported in part by Sun Microsystems Inc., infringes on 45 patents. Sun declined to comment on the allegation.'"
Somewhere in the legal departments of Apple, Xerox, HP, AT&T, and IBM, IP lawyers are getting ready for a counter strike. Complete with pirate uniforms. This cold war will escalate into a very hot war if MS goes through with it. :)
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I really doubt that they'll go into any more detail. They're using this as a scare tactic, and if they give *actual* details, that means that FOSS companies can develop strategies for dealing with it instead of paying fees to Microsoft. Basically, it would throw a monkey wrench into their whole plan, as you pointed out.
Its really sad to see this happen. A lot of people predicted something like this, but I was really hoping (naively) it wouldn't happen. I could see projects like Mono being hit really hard, which is a shame because I actually like Mono.
until we get patent numbers and exactly what it is that is infringing on it. Put up or shut up.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
By getting ourselves worked up about this we are only playing into their strategy. This threat worries only the people who don't know better. (Not coincidentally, these are frequently the people making technology investment and purchasing decisions. This is an old, faithful Microsoft business technique.)
We all know that this is a ruse. We know it.
We can do our part by ignoring this non-event.
--Richard
Microsoft is afraid, plain and simple. This an edorsement by the market leader that Linux is ready for the desktop. They were afraid to see Novell pushing it but when Dell went onboard and picked the most user friendly of distros to do it with; Microsoft became terrified.
Do you know why you never saw something like this from Microsoft before? They didn't think it was worth their time.
In any case, it is FUD; there might be a vulnerable project or two but there is basically a stalemate on this one. That is why they are pushing for licensing instead of filing a lawsuit.
This is a good thing. Most MBA's will see right through both the motivation and the push for licensing.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I think this is a great evil and I want it to get lots of attention, but even I think there are more pressing issues in the world right now.
I for one don't feel like working around patents. I decided to ignore them completely. Yeah, I'm from Europe. If they ever institute software patents here I will continue to ignore them as a form of civil disobedience.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
In case you haven't realized, "Linux" is not a single entity. When you say Linux breaches patents on email or graphical user interfaces, are you aware that:
Best Regards from Sweden,
Someone who doesn't care about your patent claims.
Strategically, though, the US is comitting seppuku if it allows a few fat cats to patent obvious things, stifle innovation, destroy productivity, and otherwise distract from useful work.
Ellsworth Toohey would be proud of those cretins.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
If so, then this country's in more trouble than I'd realized before, and I thought it was in a sorry shape *then*.
The implications for all this are interesting. Does Microsoft really want European software slowly to drift away from its link to the US? Because they are exposing more and more to European legislators that, in effect, they want to enforce a charge on European businesses based on US law that is not applicable in the EU. They already have done themselves no favours with the Competition Commission. Given that the Open Document format is now an international standard, the EU is quite free to use free software to implement it while the US might end up having to pay a Microsoft tax. That is an interesting possibility.
Many years ago at a seminar on patent and trademark law, I asked the lawyer who was acting as convenor what, in his view, the position would be if a manufacturer attempted to claim that only their patented technology was able to create an instance of something complying with an international standard which was embodied in European harmonisation. To which his reply was "You're just being a smartass." It looks like there could yet be a test case.
Pining for the fjords
I encourage people to do so. Shooting for the average never helps, it lowers the average in the wrong direction.
(Also, I think your view that tries to be realistic is exaggerated)
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Yeah. All I have to do is take on Microsoft's legal department and the USPTO to prove that it's a bad patent.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
I mean really, are they going to claim that outbreak's calendar integration is patentable, I can think of 15 mailers that do calendar integration, no bother and that covers the 15 breaches of their patent.
As for UI/Menus really guys do you think you'll get "Heirarchical menus" past a wide awake patent court?
Don't Sun have a cross licensing deal over Star Office, so there go those
And if your trying to tell me that the Linux kernel infringes, where, in the drivers?
- SMB/NET Bios was an IBM technology from '84
- vfat, I heard you intend suing camera/flash card manufacturers for this too, but do you really want to start a war with (the much derided) Sony, they're also part of the OIN
Look I could go on playing guessing games but unless you are willing to stand up a case why in the name of Xenu should I take you at all seriously?"Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
They don't want to sue because that will trigger pledges from several companies like RedHat and IBM to use their own patent portfolios against anybody who attacks open source.
Yes yes, we all know that MS copied apple copied xerox... and so on... But putting aside knee jerk reactions that, "MS is bad" and "OSS is good", could Microsoft have some standing? I've noticed that many Linux versions try to emulate the windows setup, as closely as possible, to entice new users with a sense of familiarity. Many have similar "start" button functions, application bars and menu layouts. All distros certainyl have their own style and have definitely not copied MS, but it is hard to say that they were not inspired by the layout and form of Windows (and OSX too).
Since Windows95, Microsoft and Windows have developed their own brand identity, different from the Apple OS they emulated so long ago... and settled with long ago. Maybe Linux distros, in trying to create familiarity and entice users by creating a similar look and feel of windows, are slightly guilty of some, albeit probably small, degree of infringement.
These articles say nothing. Patent counts are useless. Scalability.org fisks the articles and quotes. See these two posts for more. Joe also covers the original PR-FUD.
Probably things like:
"A System and Method for Selecting Options from a List"
"A System and Method for Choosing Between Several Options"
"A System and Method for Displaying Information on a Video Device"
"A System and Method for the Representation of Electronic Documents on a Video Device"
&c.
In short, just a lot of nonsense, overbroad, long-after-the-fact patents that they managed to squeeze through that goatse.cx-like orifice that is the Patent Office, and they believe will cost too much for Free Software to invalidate.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
no, MS has to take on you. They have to sue you for patent infringement.
And if you really think MS's pockets are so deep that they can carry themselves through their current lull, survive the dip their stock is going to take, AND sue a couple thousand companies...without details from each of the defendants being shared between said defendants...
This isn't the RIAA going after grandmothers living on welfare. MS is aiming to go up against people that will put up a tremendous fight. You don't think RMS would happily go to court every day just to make MS hire the team of lawyers it would take to argue against him, for instance? You don't think the fact that it was shown they were propping up SCO hurt their case? You don't think that public opinion is already swinging against MS, and would do so even more if they followed through with such a thing? You don't think that the battle-hardened troops that dealt with SCO (much smaller, yes, but that fight was only against IBM, and SCO was claiming much more solid (and false) infringements) are licking their lips to take on MS in the "look and feel" BS that they're saying is being infringed upon? You don't think Motif Windows Manager was around prior to Windows 3.0? You don't think other things were around long before the Motif toolkit?
When the RIAA sues a grandmother living on welfare, all they have to do is show that an IP given to her computer by her ISP downloaded songs from a p2p site. Going after someone for actual patent violations, when the patents are bad patents, is not quite as cut and dry. And you can believe that if MS tries to "make an example" of someone, that someone will have a hell of a lot of support standing not behind them, but with them.
Patent reform is honestly a more pressing issue than gay marriage or abortion, and those have been at the forefront of election politics for the past 20 years.
no, MS has to take on you. They have to sue you for patent infringement.
No, all they have to do is scare your customers away, by dropping unsubtle hints that they might be sued at some point in the future, if they use your software (without buying a "license" from MS).
It's a protection racket; you don't need to actually be assaulted for it to adversely impact you.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
OK, so let's look at historical precedent. Microsoft was sued by Apple (unsuccessfully) for infringement of look-and-feel "copyrights" and various UI patents. This case dragged on for years, and resulted in Apple and Microsoft eventually calling a truce.
Then along came Adobe, which sued Macromedia because Adobe had patents on certain types of tool palettes. Adobe then turned around and bought Macromedia. (Yes, some time elapsed between these two events, but still...)
Now Microsoft is alleging that they own intellectual property used in the Linux kernel and various key pieces of software outside the kernel. The above claims are interesting, considering Microsoft's track record of claiming ownership of various UI elements. So far, Apple and Xerox have remained silent, but they may not for much longer. I'm even more curious about the claim of 15 patents in e-mail. After all, e-mail technology has been with us since ARPANet; SMTP and POP are exceedingly well established, and were certainly not invented by Microsoft; I don't even think MS can claim ownership of IMAP. So, what exactly are they claiming ownership of?
To me, this looks like a ploy to "convert" Linux and all of the ancillary GNU programs and FOSS programs that are widely used. By "convert," I mean obtain ownership of. Since Microsoft can't litigate a particular company out of business in order to kill Linux, they're playing a much sneakier game. They've already bought off Novell so as to avoid having to deal with them in any SCO-style lawsuits. How long before the settlement offers start pouring in -- and the settlements basically mean ownership of the code?
As has been pointed out by others, this article really doesn't demonstrate that Microsoft has revealed any more information -- they'd already broken down the number of patent violations by category a couple days ago. But you can bet that Microsoft will make sure to keep this story in the news as often as possible... especially with an Attorney General in office who's willing to push legislation to favor Microsoft.
Er. You understand that published prior art still invalidates patents in the first-to-file world, right? The rest of the world has major problems with the US's first-to-invent, because of cases where the invention history is fabricated.
They lose the vast majority of their cases. In fact, they routinely settle far more. I think that once the patents are found out, some will be discarded, others will be worked around, and many will be shot down with prior art. Obviously, that is why MS is not being forthcoming on what the infringements are.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yeah. The EPO doesn't carry any force though. Everyone can create an organization that collects descriptions of certain things, but it is not enforced by law.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
While Microsoft still hasn't said exactly which patents are being violated, and many of their claims are likely invalid, they probably do have valid claims on certain parts of Mono's implementation of .NET (specifically, Windows.Forms, ASP.NET and ADO.NET). If the Mono team removes those parts, then Mono is effectively dead, in my opinion. Not that I'll be losing any sleep over that, mind you. I always thought Mono was a waste of time for Linux. Even more so now that Java is GPLed.
This 'magic number' keeps coming up, and the idea that by saying Linux 42, UI 65, etc etc somehow equates to a detailed description of patent breaches? Let's get real here. I want to see the actual claim. Show us the code.
Perchance the MS IP team are worried that if they actually showed which of their patents were infringed they would be laughed at? IANAL but it seems to me that even if by some remote chance a MS patent had been infringed by a kernel developer somewhere, that MS has the responsibility to let them know exactly what patent they have infringed. Failure to do so would seem to make any legal action they attempt nothing short of harassment. Or am I way off-base here? /. lawyers, where are you?
Death looks every man in the face. All any man can do is look back and smile. - Marcus Aurelius
to what Microsoft is really doing. They're not trying to stop the innovation or progress of OSS development. They are trying to stop the adoption of OSS by making these patent claims and then having the claims published in trade magazines and the web.
This is probably the most effective way to protect their bottom line. Going into court isn't what they want. They want doubt in prospective OSS adopters. With doubt comes the likelihood of sticking with what's safe. It's the same sort of campaign they "allegedly" helped SCO take-on to help stifle OSS adoption. From what I can tell, it had a impact for quite some time.
I am sure Microsoft knows that quite a few patents may not hold up. They'll only get bad publicity in the tech world, but to shareholders and the rest of the world, they'll look like they're protecting their assets. They had record profits last quarter and will continue to do so by spreading doubt in prospective adopters minds. It's so simple and yet so effective.
What makes you think Apple would fall on Linux's side? Apple has cross-patent deals with Microsoft that protect them from this kind of thing and Apple is very clear in the marketing materials that they are just as eager as Microsoft to see Linux go away. There seems to be this naive idea within the Linux community that Apple is a friendly company. Here's a clue guys, the enemy of my enemy is NOT always my friend.
Considering that the original concept of a GUI comes from Xerox Parc, I fail to see how Microsoft or Apple either one can hold patents on that. Considering that Microsoft totally rips off each new version of Apple's OS, I fail to see how they can hold patents on that too.... I think that the FOSS folks should claim that they, too, ripped off Apple and not Microsoft. Since they're both ripping off the same source, of course they look familiar. As for OpenOffice, I can only imagine that the patents in question are the ones that concern document (data) formatting for the Microsoft proprietary document formats.
2 cents,
Queen B.
HDGary secures my bank
Knowingly using non-open source code is a violation of the GPL and making such a deal with MS would acknowledge MS bogus claims and imply that non-open source code was indeed used.
It's a misconception that all open source projects are non-profit, even if the ones in question do not generate any revenue a derivative project could decide to generate a profit.
This is just a sign that Microsoft has "jumped the shark". Pursuing this line of 'competition' just means that Microsoft is growing more and more wary of FOSS software momentum... SaaS, Web Services, Linux, etc. is slowly starting to press on Microsoft. Where are they going to innovate (or appropriate) next? Wait another six years for the next OS release? Microsoft main objective is not really to extort money from FOSS users; they're just trying to inject the typical Microsoft FUD to slow adoption of alternatives while they scramble to find a way to hijack the train.
The iceberg is starting to melt... quickly.
Just take a look at this one, for instance.
T O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-b ool.html&r=4&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=Microsoft. ASNM.&s2=%22user+interface%22.TI.&OS=AN/Microsoft+ AND+TTL/%22user+interface%22&RS=AN/Microsoft+AND+T TL/%22user+interface%22
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
There is not a judge in the world, much less a jury, that could possibly even comprehend the text of this patent.
And there is no way in hell that the patent examiner could possibly have comprehended what the patent application was about.
While I agree with your argument in principle, it's uncomfortable to see someone expecting a "higher level" of socio-political knowledge touting democracy. Assuming that you're a U.S. citizen, you live in a country that (thank the deity of your choice) has never been, nor (hopefully) ever will be, a democracy.
Democracy is a logical equivalent to mob rule.
A Representative Republic is the U.S. form of government
Do you really want the majority opinion to rule in many of the issues facing this country?
... untill MS presents the evidence, the evidence is researched by those who are the coders of suppose infringments, and recognition of infringment is done by such coders.
Until then it can safely be assumed that MS is being what we all have come to expect them to be, due the reputation they have worked to establish. Dishonest.
Its best to call MS's cards on this. The sooner it is addressed openly and honestly the better.
No offense but the parent of this parent is right... I mean lots of questions I get from my own family in my own house....
Does this computer have google? (Ofcourse it does its just a website)
Wheres the internet? (Internet Explorer Icon)
How do I get to my email? (well if you dont know how the hell am I supposed to? I dont know if you are using MSN, Gmail, etc...)
So yeah to Joe Average end user the internet is just that blue icon you click on to get to google and check your email. Its sad but I'd expect over 80% of computer users are this way with no basic knowledge of how the stuff works behind it mostly because a majority havent grown up with the internet being commonplace. To Joe Average end user the Internet is just a series of tubes... straight out of Sen. Ted Stevens mouth
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Or...
Hey, Microsoft, SCO called. They want their business model back.
Life is short: void the warranty.
The big risk is that they loose and this then taken as evidence of anti-trust. Microsoft is a convicted monopoly after all. They got a wrist slap last time this time could be different.
Since some EU companies are involved could this get Microsoft into even deeper hot water with the EU?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Ellsworth Toohey would be proud of those cretins.
Sorry, all your credibility was lost with the reference to Ayn Rand.
They didn't release any details. I was shocked to hear the headline, but as usual, Slashdot summaries never fail to disappoint.
Why is Microsoft doing this now? And more importantly, is the onus on the patent holder to make this claim in a timely manner?
It seems to me that a viable strategy of patent holders (looking to profit from previously unprofitable patents) would be to
allow them to be tread upon by competing products, until at such time that those competing products become financially viable...
and *then* file suit.
This strategy seems less about protecting one's intellectual property, and more about encouraging the competition to cement
its dependency on your patents in order to extract greater compensation at a later date.
Anyone know if there's a requirement to file a cease-and-desist in a timely manner?
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
I've found the loophole in democracy. It's stupid people. Vast masses of stupid people.
It affects everyone's life deeply.
/. users are innovators and inventors to some degree, from people who develop end-user products to people who think of clever ways to make a computer do something. We can see first hand how hard is to start a company in a world where just about everything is patented - how can one compete with a giant company that has patented the way your display shows information and how its buttons are laid out. Patents should cover innovative and _non_obvious_ uses of technology. The simple fact someone complains of massive violations could mean that the patents being violated are too vague or too obvious to be avoidable.
The direct effect of patents is that US$ 50 digital camera could cost US$ 49 if it weren't for the patents, which is quite acceptable.
The indirect effects, on the other hand, although less obvious, run deep in the way our society works.
I suppose many
This scenario creates a world where in order to do something new you need licenses to a sizable patent portfolio, maybe a cross-licensing agreement with your older and larger competitor and to secure funds to defend yourself and your products from submarine patents. This environment is as hostile to the small inventors as it could get.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
So, her charicature of a spineless leech of a human is useless simply because she said it?
Essentially, yes. One may as well quote Marx (a noted racist) when discussing the economic pitfalls of modern-day Africa. It isn't merely that she wrote a caricature, it is that the idea itself is a straw man to begin with, she uses this idea to push an agenda, and finally that her agenda has been thoroughly discredited on historical, scientific, and philosophical grounds. If you want to score an intellectual point, invoking Rand is not the way to do it.
Her philosophy doesn't do much for me, but her critique of Socialism seems accurate.
Socialism is not a monolithic political ideology so any particular characterization is useless. Beyond that, Rand's ideas about it don't fit ANY of the major flavors of socialism, even those of her own day.
That is true of copyright law, but not patent law. See, for example, the GIF fiasco.
Thomas Galvin
I think this is a small step in a FUD campaign, a kind of damage control. The SCO FUD is grinding to a halt and likely to backfire. The reason is simple: nonobvious copyright infringement is quite hard to prove and unlikely to be ubiquitous in OSS. The outcome of the SCO case may convince users that OSS is reasonably free of IP problems. MS has to act now, proactively.
This new case will be pushed to the media. It'll linger for some time. MS won't disclose the patents too quickly, waiting for satisfactory media coverage. Finally they will, and then MS will be very reasonable - first they'll just want compensation (we can see that already), then they may even choose to donate some of the patent rights to OSS. No real harm done, end of story. But the PR effects will be great for MS:
So, just as copyright FUD started by SCO is dying, MS is preparing an exhibit A for further FUD campaign, a proof that at least patent infringement is a real problem in OSS and a basis for the line "there are IP issues in OSS and sometime, someone might go after YOU, the user, and noone will be able to help you".
In short: a lot of the patents are probably rock solid, and the fact that OSS can work around them should not make you think this case is not a serious problem. Who will invest a sum of money comparable to the MS PR budget in a media campaign showing just how easy it was to deal with the patent issues?
Sorry, but to me (approximately) 600 patents sounds very few. What's your source on this (since I myself don't know where to look)?
Fight for your digital freedom, join the EFF *now*: http://www.eff.org/support/
Patent reform is honestly a more pressing issue than gay marriage or abortion
homosexuality and abortion are much bigger life changing events in my book, and touch a far greater proportion of the population than patent law.
Patent law reform, while it should still be addressed, pales in comparison to the big issues in society.
Code ways, and algorithms shouldn't be able to be patented on.
If you patent code, you make other people, who will think of this trivial (as a developer) ideas and wouldn't be able to use them cause it violates some patents. THIS WILL MAKE COMPUTING STOP and not to develop further.
code cannot be patented !
Read and Comment at my BLOG
!!!
As a gay man who wants to marry, I think that software patents are a bigger issue.
The artistic and literal aspects of software are already covered well by copyright.
But the mechanisms used in software and controlled by patents are indeed pure mathematics. Any functional description of software can be reduced to uniform symbolic relationships, pcode, which is math. Avoiding the encumbrance of mathematics has long been one of the most basic intellectual freedoms in our society-- so basic that very few people ever discuss it today.
I would also like a "-1 Idiotic"
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
It is reasonable to say, however, that an idea about Africa that was proposed by a known racist is more likely than other ideas to be founded on racist assumptions. This may make it less likely that it would be helpful. That doesn't mean that it should be dismissed out of hand, of course, but those who advocate it will have to work hard to convince people of that fact. Far simpler just to leave the racist out of it, and either find a more politically correct source for the idea (it's unlikely to be totally unique), or gloss over its source altogether until its merits are clear enough to support it against kneejerk rejection.
Bringing things back out of the analogy, it's sadly the case that some authors - Marx and Rand among them - are extremely controversial, to the extent that it's very difficult indeed to cite them without it being assumed that you're a brainwashed Communist or Objectivist who laps up their every word without a hint of critical thought in your brain. That is clearly a totally unreasonable assumption, but expecting any other reaction from Slashdot does perhaps betray terminal optimism on your part.
First, we have the Constitution, which has a Bill of Rights intended to protect liberty from mob rule, with rules that make it really hard to modify.
And second, we have three co-equal branches of government, to keep their power in check. The only significant mistake, in my mind, is that the founding fathers designed an election system which favors a two-party system, which does not represent the will of the people nearly as well as newer systems do.
Since you are against democracy (where power comes from the people, which can take many forms, including direct democracy (which we are not) and representative democracy (where the people choose their government, which we are)), what alternative do you propose? Monarchy? Fascism? Dictatorship? Feudalism?
I know of no governmental system superior to Democracy, but if you have any ideas, I'm all ears. There are definitely drawbacks to democracy (one of which you noted), but they are not insurmountable, and for all its flaws, all other known systems are worse.