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.'"

Comments

Oh microsoft

[falcon5768]

Graphical user interfaces, the way menus and windows look on the screen, breach 65

You really DONT want to open that can of worms. Trust me you really dont.

Re:Oh microsoft

[UnknowingFool]

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. :)

Re:Oh microsoft

[$RANDOMLUSER]

MS can't seriously believe they invented any part of the WIMP (GUI) system?

It doesn't matter if they invented it, only if they patented it. Which is what's wrong with the whole system.

Re:Oh microsoft

[koh]

I'm confused. How many Xerox patents does MS infringe, then? All of them? Or maybe Xerox couldn't file any patents because software patents did not exist at that time? And what about Apple's UI patents?

Re:Oh microsoft

[psbrogna]

Anybody else see parallels between this & Disney whining about infringment after they made movies based on long standing folklore?

Re:Oh microsoft

[MadJo]

How can you even have 65 patents on menu's and windows?
Did they patent the location of every button and menu option?

Re:Oh microsoft

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Yeah. All I have to do is take on Microsoft's legal department and the USPTO to prove that it's a bad patent.

Re:Oh microsoft

[Kadin2048]

It doesn't matter if they invented it, only if they patented it. Which is what's wrong with the whole system.

Not true. The U.S. patent system is based on a "first to invent" doctrine, not "first to file."

Applying for a patent often serves as proof that you had indeed invented something at a certain time (at least the filing date), and creates a bit of a barrier for someone else to prove that they invented it earlier (since they'd need to conclusively demonstrate that they had done it before you had), but it's not unheard of or even especially uncommon historically.

That's the whole idea behind 'prior art' in the U.S.: if you can demonstrate that you, or somebody else, had invented something and published it before the person who got the patent for it did, then the patent can be ruled invalid.

There are some (IMO, really poorly thought-out) proposals that would change the U.S. system to a "first to file" one, which is more common throughout the rest of the world, but it hasn't happened yet.

Re:Oh microsoft

[xiong.chiamiov]

Especially Vista. It looks to me like a bad mash-up of OSX and KDE.

Re:Oh microsoft

[kalidasa]

Hey, Microsoft, 1988 called. They want their look-and-feel lawsuit back.

Re:Oh microsoft

[Kadin2048]

I'm confused. How many Xerox patents does MS infringe, then? All of them? Or maybe Xerox couldn't file any patents because software patents did not exist at that time? And what about Apple's UI patents?

I think Apple and Microsoft have a patent cross-licensing agreement. (They certainly seem to have an informal one, but I suspect it's been formalized at some point, maybe in one of their lawsuit-settlement stock trades.)

From the NY Times: "In Its Case Against Microsoft, U.S. Now Cites Note From Apple," Oct 28, 1998

Microsoft said that Apple agreed to opt for its browser as part of broad agreement that included a $150 million investment by Microsoft, cross-licensing of patents and settlement of an old legal case -- not just because of Microsoft's commitment to continue making business software for the Macintosh.

It's been widely alleged that Microsoft got the patent cross-licensing agreement, and the IE-preinstall deal, by threatening to kill Office for Mac back in the late 90s, when a lot of people were ready to stick a fork in Apple.

Re:Oh microsoft

[andy314159pi]

You forgot Red Hat which now has some resources.

Re:Oh microsoft

[Kadin2048]

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.

Re:Oh microsoft

[dAzED1]

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.

Re:Oh microsoft

[Kadin2048]

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.

Re:Oh microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Oh microsoft

[drgonzo59]

A System and Method for Selecting Options from a List

All those poor people, for thousands of years, just sat there looking at a set of items and couldn't select any of them. I can see the cave men, looking at a pile of bones and trying to select one of them, but of course, Microsoft wasn't around so there was nobody to help them...how sad.

Re:Oh microsoft

[dAzED1]

examples? Please filter out all examples from when the customers knew specifically what patents were being violated, and how, yet bought the product anyway. Suing the customer in that scenario is defined under civil law.

That's the crux of this, really - because of the lawsuit-happy world we live in, people have gotten the idea that you can actually sue anyone for anything; you can't. You have to cite what civil law was violated, how it was violated, when it was violated, etc.

So yeah - give me an example that remotely compares to this situation. If examples exist, I sincerely would love to see them. Up to now, all I've done is read the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure, and done research. I am certainly not a lawyer, but I'm also not subscribing to the Great FUD Machine. Seems like the fear of FUD is stronger than the FUD itself these days on /.

Re:Oh microsoft

[ptrace]

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.

Re:Oh microsoft

[gunnk]

Or...

Hey, Microsoft, SCO called. They want their business model back.

Re:Oh microsoft

[LWATCDR]

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?

Re:Oh microsoft

[Skapare]

Not true. The U.S. patent system is based on a "first to invent" doctrine, not "first to file."

That may be the theory behind the patent system, but it is not how it behaves in practice. The high cost to prove a patent owner was not the first inventor is prohibitively high for most people to pursue, especially against a corporation.

Additionally, most patents (particularly in software) are issued for things that are not genuine innovations. That is, there is no net benefit to the country for these patents because what was created would have been created anyway.

The real issue with the patent system today is that it serves less as a means to encourage innovation, and more as a means for corporations to stifle competition. I am not proposing to eliminate the patent system, nor am I proposing to prohibit patents on software. Instead, I believe the patent system needs to be fixed in a way that requires every patent issued to show that there is genuine innovation that would not have come about, at least in a timely manner, without the opportunity of exclusivity driving the investment in the invention, or the coincidental intellectual creation beyond the routine.

Re:Oh microsoft

[Kadin2048]

Okay, really, and I'm being serious, not making a point obliquely - why is Alexander Graham Bell listed as the inventor of the telephone? I thought it was the first to file thing that was the difference.

Because the other guy -- Elisha Gray -- wasn't able to prove that he invented it earlier. It's pretty clear now, in hindsight, that Gray really did invent it first, and what occurred was really a miscarriage of justice on a grand scale, but at the time he couldn't show sufficient evidence of earlier invention, and Edison got the patent based on his date of filing. [1]

Although 'first to invent' is the rule, if you file a patent application which describes the invention, you've firmly established a date when you had invented it by. So then the onus is on someone else to present a whole lot of evidence showing that they had invented it first. Unless they had published it, or filed a provisional application, or somehow got their earlier version irrefutably dated, this is pretty tough to do.

So if you're an inventor or researcher, you have to be concerned not only with inventing stuff and patenting it, but also documenting your work religiously in a way that's tough to fabricate or backdate. There are several examples historically of inventors who have been essentially robbed of their inventions because they couldn't prove the date of invention with enough authority to overturn a later inventor's patent.

Today, there would seem to be a lot more ways to conclusively date your work as you go along than there were in the 1870s; cryptographic date-stamping would probably be my pick

[1] There is some debate even today as to who really invented it first; Bell's actual patent was filed on the same day that Gray was filing a "caveat" (basically a patent without any claims, a warning/notice that you're starting work on a particular area) on the same thing. IIRC there was a similar situation regarding the invention of the single-needle sewing machine.

Re:Oh microsoft

[danbert8]

Ford can't sue Chevy... Chevy isn't a company, it's a brand. Ford would sue General Motors.

Re:Oh microsoft

[number6x]

I think the Lanham Act deals with trademarks not patents, but IANAL.

However using unsupported claims to weaken competition could be a violation of anti-trust law.

Of course since Microsoft Just sold thousands of copies of Linux to Dell, they have distributed any possibly infringing material under the GPL. As the owner of that material it is legal for Microsoft to choose the distribution license, but Microsoft now has to abide by the license they have chosen.

From this Groklaw interview with an EFF lawyer who has seen the MS/Novell dael under NDA:

"The deal between Microsoft and Novell also includes some marketing cooperation. Microsoft provides coupons for SUSE to companies, who then go to Novell to redeem the coupons and get their copy of the software. Those coupons procure the conveyance of lots of free software.

Our lawyers have seen the terms of the deal under NDA--unfortunately, they're still secret--but they're confident that Microsoft is already conveying GPLed software under this agreement. The coupons are the most direct proof; there is some other evidence to support that idea as well."

These 'coupons' are called coupons, but are not what most people would consider a 'coupon'. They don't discount the purchase of something from Novell, they are actually a license for a complete copy of Novell's SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop. Microsoft is like that kid who comes to your door and is selling magazine subscriptions. You'll get the magazine from the publisher, but you pay the kid.

Re:Oh microsoft

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It's debatable whether any of the MS software patents would stand up in the EU anyway. Although the Europe-wide patent body has awarded a few patents that might be described in those terms over the years, as a general principle we don't currently have them, and the enforceability of the odd few in European countries is doubtful.

Re:Oh microsoft

[greenbird]

MS has already tried the FUD of scaring people away. They've already cried wolf. Have you seen SCO's stock price lately?

And the press has reported that they have gotten a fair number of OSS customers to sign licensing agreements. One theory is they started this again because the rate of those license agreements slowed down. If Microsoft establishes enough of a precedent with these license agreements they essentially control OSS (in the US) through the ability to not license the patents or at least make the license agreements cost more than going with Microsoft products. And the best part is with todays patent system in the US the patents don't even have to be valid. Just ask RIM. All Microsoft has to do is make the initial cost of the license agreement cost less than fighting it. Once they have a company on the hook there is very little chance of them successfully fighting so Microsoft can jack up the prices to the point that using OSS is cost prohibitive. Or even outright refuse to renew the patent licenses.

SCO was a major frontal attack on OSS that cost Microsoft mere pocket change of $40,000,000. It was a long shot and it probably didn't go as well as they hoped so they've switched from the frontal attack to infiltration tactics and guerrilla warfare. This could easily destroy the OSS industry in the US and in the process pretty much trash the entire technology industry there also. If you don't think so consider the fact that any tech company that becomes successful enough to show up on the radar immediately gets attacked and ends up spending more on the resource sinkhole of lawyers than they spend on R&D for improving their products. Given that in the tech industry things become obsolete in a matter of months Europe, India, Russia and China will be flying past them before the first hearings on the lawsuits start.

Zoom in...

[mccalli]

One more level of zoom required, Microsoft. Still can't tell what you're actually saying.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Zoom in...

[RealEstateGuy]

Google probably has a patent on zooming so you're probably out of luck

Why not do it the other way

[MikeRT]

Have some people at IBM tally up publicly how many patents Windows and Microsoft Office violate. Then have them say, "what's the point, are you going to actually sue someone over this?"

The Camerons are spot on:

[smittyoneeach]

Chlanna nan con thigibh a so's gheibh sibh feoil
(Sons of the hounds, come here and get flesh)
http://www.theflyingscotsman.ca/claninfo.htm

Did not the United States declared independence specifically to end this sort of long-distance pick-pocketing?
What we have is a great opportunity for a Lessig or a Moglen to lead a peaceful overthrow of a sorry state of affairs.
The software patent issue needs to be driven to the front of 2008 election politics.

Re:The Camerons are spot on:

[Yusaku Godai]

The software patent issue needs to be driven to the front of 2008 election politics. Good luck with that. The average voter thinks that the Internet is the little blue 'e' icon on their desktop, and that Windows is a type of computer (the other type of computer is a Mac). They don't even know about FOSS or could scarcely give a hoot how it's affected by Microsoft, or how software patents affect innovation in general.

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.

Re:The Camerons are spot on:

[smittyoneeach]

I think there are more pressing issues in the world right now.

Possibly in a tactical sense.
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.

Re:The Camerons are spot on:

[tygt]

needs to be driven to the front of 2008 election

Are you seriously saying that this is the most important issue for you in the 2008 election?

If so, then this country's in more trouble than I'd realized before, and I thought it was in a sorry shape *then*.

Re:The Camerons are spot on:

[urbanradar]

Did not the United States declared independence specifically to end this sort of long-distance pick-pocketing?
What we have is a great opportunity for a Lessig or a Moglen to lead a peaceful overthrow of a sorry state of affairs.
The software patent issue needs to be driven to the front of 2008 election politics.

Disclaimer: I am not an American, so this doesn't affect me directly, but here's my two Euro-cents anyway...

I consider the software patent issue an important one -- like the majority of people here on Slashdot, I imagine. But even so, I am certain there must be dozens and dozens of more pressing and more important issues facing the US -- civil rights, the social system, education, the environment, the war in Iraq... Do you think that the average citizen will ever let himself be convinced that software patents are a major issue? To most people, it's a mere legal technicality that is rarely even heard of -- much less cared about -- outside of IT or business environments.

I can't see anyone building a successful political platform on top of software patents. As much as I am against them, it just seems too trivial compared to the issues on most people's minds.

Re:The Camerons are spot on:

[A beautiful mind]

Good luck with that. The average voter thinks that the Internet is the little blue 'e' icon on their desktop, and that Windows is a type of computer (the other type of computer is a Mac). They don't even know about FOSS or could scarcely give a hoot how it's affected by Microsoft, or how software patents affect innovation in general.

There is a reason I hate cynical, trying to be realistic assessments. The problem with it is that by taking a view like that, no progress is possible. I deliberately overshoot what I think is the current average state of affairs both in politics and in computing. I _expect_ a voter or citizen to know the basics of what is a democracy, I _expect_ that an average person knows the basics of how a computer works. The reason is simple trends. It will continue to be important knowing about the basic operating principles of a democratic society and will increase in importance. It's going to grow much more important in the future to know about computers since computing is really only getting more widespead and slowly embedded in most everyday aspects of life.

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)

Re:The Camerons are spot on:

[Ryan Amos]

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.

Re:The Camerons are spot on:

[Roarkk]

I _expect_ a voter or citizen to know the basics of what is a democracy, I _expect_ that an average person knows the basics of how a computer works. The reason is simple trends. It will continue to be important knowing about the basic operating principles of a democratic society and will increase in importance.

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?

Re:The Camerons are spot on:

[ciggieposeur]

Ellsworth Toohey would be proud of those cretins.

Sorry, all your credibility was lost with the reference to Ayn Rand.

Re:The Camerons are spot on:

[Anonymous Coward]

I've found the loophole in democracy. It's stupid people. Vast masses of stupid people.

Re:The Camerons are spot on:

[rbanffy]

It affects everyone's life deeply.

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 /. 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.

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.

Re:The Camerons are spot on:

[ciggieposeur]

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.

Re:The Camerons are spot on:

[dan the person]

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.

Re:The Camerons are spot on:

[Burz]

homosexuality and abortion are much bigger life changing events in my book, and touch a far greater proportion of the population than patent law.

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.

Re:The Camerons are spot on:

[z_gringo]

I would also like a "-1 Idiotic"

Re:The Camerons are spot on:

[Haeleth]

So, if there is an idea that would help the African situation, but Marx said it, the idea is invalid, and Africa must suffer?

Not at all. That would be the old "Hitler breathed, so breathing is evil" fallacy.

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. :)

Re:The Camerons are spot on:

[colinrichardday]

Toohey was in the Fountainhead, not Atlas Shrugged. You also could have
mentioned that Rand wrote, "You cannot patent an idea,"

Re:The Camerons are spot on:

[node 3]

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. How did you come to that conclusion? The US is a Constitutional Democratic Republic, which is a form of democracy. The founding fathers were aware of the potential "mob rule" pitfall of a pure direct democracy, so they built in safeguards.

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.

I, for one, trust Microsoft on this

[Anonymous Coward]

after all, who knows more about breaches than Microsoft

Microsoft's customers too...they get used to having their breaches around their ankles on a daily basis

Can't beat em, claim they stole from you.

[wobedraggled]

Maybe if Microsoft were a little more "open" we would find just as many if not more "borrowed" ideas. This is gonna get messy...

No new details

[NakNomik]

This is still old news. There are no new details in this article that were not already present in the one Slashdot reported on Sunday (the CNN Money article, http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_arc hive/2007/05/28/100033867/index.htm?section=money_ latest)

Underway

[Mateo_LeFou]

Just starting out, but go here
http://twoclick.org/unnamed/

Re:Underway

[neomunk]

It's modding like this that make me meta-mod. How can you even possibly consider this offtopic. The whole point of the linked to page is to try and clarify what patents MS is claiming are violated.

Smells like an astroturfer with mod points to me, and we all know that astroturfers are an unclean and heathen band of pansies who have sold out their freedom of speech rights for cash. Spineless chumps, I hope you choke on that paycheck.

I'm gonna meta-mod my ass off... YOU'RE GOING DOWN SHILL!

Re:E-MAIL?????

[Rob Kaper]

...should have went to law school

Or one teaching proper English perhaps!

Re:The devil is in the details

[Rycross]

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.

That is NOT specificity..

[the_rajah]

until we get patent numbers and exactly what it is that is infringing on it. Put up or shut up.

Re:E-MAIL?????

[Timesprout]

They said 'EMail programs', not email itself.

You're Giving Them What They Want

[repetty]

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

Re:You're Giving Them What They Want

[hxnwix]

By getting ourselves worked up about this we are only playing into their strategy. Microsoft's strategy fooor taking over ze vorld:

Step 1: Troll slashdot.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!!!

My patents

[Ziest]

"You are violating a bunch of my double secret patents. You have to guess which ones. I don't have to tell you. Give me money."

Now, where have I heard this before?

Re:E-MAIL?????

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno, executing JavaScript in emails was a pretty novel idea. Mostly because nobody else was stupid enough to think of it.

They are afraid.

[shaitand]

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.

Re:Quick !! Lets examine and change them all !!

[A beautiful mind]

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.

mmm... worms

[Mateo_LeFou]

Sorry to keep plugging myself, but I really want this to take off and pling-style sites need users to go
twoclick looks at patents in the GUI category:

http://twoclick.org/unnamed/index.php?category=GUI

And who are they going to sue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Microsoft,

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:

• there are multiple email programs and window managers produced in many countries around the world, a lot of which do not have software patenting laws
• Linus & co. working on the kernel have absolutely nothing (or at the most, extremely little) to do with email applications and GUI prettiness
• Unix predates Windows and there is a LOT of prior art (and I imagine patents as well) on most of the aspects of the Windows operating system and Office suite
• Going up against big companies who rely on Linux (Sun, IBM, etc) could unleash a patent war in the reverse direction (and a lot of unfriendliness)

Best Regards from Sweden,

Someone who doesn't care about your patent claims.

Microsoft will win everytime

[packetmon]

Method and apparatus for clicking

Abstract

A click is made when someone's finger presses down on a mouse

Inventors: Microsoft
Assignee: Microsoft
Filed: March 14, 1929

See!

Of course!

[TheWoozle]

"...but the company says it still prefers licensing deals with open-source developers, software distributors and users instead of legal action against them."

Me too! I prefer people to just give me money rather than have to go through all the hassle of producing something of value.

Hey, Microsoft! I've got a bunch of patents that you're infringing and I would prefer that you go ahead and license them from me rather than starting an ugly legal battle. I'll even give you a deal (just this once, because you like a nice kid): $100 Million for the lot. This offer won't be repeated, so take advantage while you still can!

Re:Of course!

[A beautiful mind]

Where is the $699 SCO license fee troll when you need him? Now is his chance to be ontopic...

Pull a Microsoft on Microsoft

[qwijibo]

The owners of these projects should make a deal with Microsoft to give them 30% of the revenue from the open source code in return for licensing the patents. 30% of 0 is still 0.

Re:E-MAIL?????

[mikael]

A Google search will help...

Microsoft Patent Could Hamper E-Mail Authentication Group

John R. Levine provides an analysis

Microsoft patents E-mail addresses as clip-board objects

Microsot patents eternal E-mail

Another link

In other news...

[Baavgai]

SCO called and wants it's business plan back.

Giving counts is pretty useless. Calling it more detailed it like saying you'll release the personal information of the vicitms and just giving a list of nationalities; you really don't know more than you did before, but the feed got you to stay tuned.

Infringements in optional modules

[crow]

I expect most of the kernel infringements are in optional kernel modules. I've heard rumblings about vfat having patents in the past, and I expect there are some in the SMB client code. Unfortunately, it may be impossible to re-implement those to avoid the patent issues, because the patents may cover core aspects that are required for interoperability.

If we ever get a full detailed list of patent issues, I can foresee the day that one of the first questions in the kernel configuration is whether to include portions that may violate patent rights, and the help text on various options would cite specific patent numbers that have been claimed. Or, perhaps more generally, it could ask what legal jurisdiction you're in, so that it can block the modules that are protected in that country.

I didn't know US patent law

[Flying pig]

Applied in the Isle of Man (Ubuntu) and Germany (the home of StarOffice). Let alone the rest of the EU.

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.

Re:Nothing new here

[Fordiman]

Yeah. Microsoft, Look and Feel is not actionable - otherwise Apple would have had your ass years ago. Drop those claims first.

Moving along: detail the rest of 'em, and we'll give a shit. No seriously. You can't just say, "You infringe on 25 of my patents. Can I have my licensing fee now?"

It doesn't work like that.

Of course, the reason MS won't name names is that they want their license fees. They don't want Linux and its related projects going, "Ok, we'll code around that, thanks."

Nothing to see here, move along...

[radtea]

Until they tell us specifically which patents are being violated by what software, we cannot take any remedial action.

There are two possible cases: 1) no free software violates any MS patents; and 2) some free software violates some MS patents, but we don't know what software violates what patents because MS refuses to tell us.

Ergo, it is reasonable to assume that since MS has made it impossible for potential infringers to take any action to avoid infringement, that they have an interest in any infringement that occurs. That is, MS is promoting infringement of their own patents.

Indeed, the article says, "But Augustin also acknowledged that it's not in Microsoft's interest to do so: Open-source programmers could rewrite their code to avoid infringing on specific patents, or the courts could find that Microsoft's patent isn't valid."

I am not a lawyer, but when a party promotes the infringement of their own patents it might be reasonable to assume that they may be estopped from ever enforcing those patents in the future.

MS needs to tell us specifically which free software is violating what patents. If they do not tell us that we are justified in assuming that either no free software violates any patents, or that MS is entirely ok with all the free software that violates any of their patents. If they were not ok with it, they would tell us exactly which free software violated exactly what patents.

Re:Nothing to see here, move along...

[Anonymous Coward]

No they cannot sue anyone and they cannot take legal action unless they state upfront which patents are being violated. But they are not planning on taking legal action, this is just FUD. They failed with SCO as their proxy so now they are coming out with the directed FUD attack.

Re:Nothing to see here, move along...

[thomas.galvin]

I am not a lawyer, but when a party promotes the infringement of their own patents it might be reasonable to assume that they may be estopped from ever enforcing those patents in the future.

That is true of copyright law, but not patent law. See, for example, the GIF fiasco.

How is this detailed?

[seebs]

I didn't see any detail in this article that wasn't in the previous one.

Re:E-MAIL?????

[Jon Luckey]

I'm wondering what patents Microsoft could be holding regarding email, which is several decades older than Microsoft itself.

Maybe they patented automatic execution of trojan programs, when email is displayed in a preview pane.

I'm pretty sure they came up with that first.

Re:Nothing new here

[Skrynesaver]

Indeed this is just a random number series associated with various FOSS apps.
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?

Devil's Advocate...

[PixelScuba]

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.

Re:Devil's Advocate...

[igb]

I think it was RMS --- all hail! --- who pointed out that anyone who uses the phrase ``intellectual property'' almost certainly has no idea what they are talking about. And the concept of the patent appears to pass a lot of people by. It's possible (I don't know) that MS copyrighted the design of the Windows Start Button. But your chances of fighting a copyright action over the word `start' are approximately zero.

It's possible that they had a trademark on `Start', except they're not using it as a trademark, nor marking it as such, nor defending actions (Trademarks are really `defend NOW or lose' items).

It's even vaguely possible that they patented the idea of having one button which accesses the primary menus of a system. But they'll lose on obviousness, prior art (the Mac Apple-logo button) and laches (the offences, if offences there were, have been happening since forever, and you can't delay an action until the transgressor has made enough money to make them worth suing).

But those are very different claims, with very different routes to court or settlement. And all of them would ultimately fail. Remember, the EU has not accepted software patents, nor is likely to; Blair is no longer around to suck up to Gates, and the other major EU players aren't as obviously in the thrall of American riches. Sarkozy will veto anything that weakens French companies in the face of US competition, for example, especially in his first few years, and Merkel isn't any more favourable.

This isn't some high school ``he copied my homework'' thing: Microsoft would have to prove very carefully the nature, chronology, intent and effect of the purported copying. And all the evidence is that Ballmer and Gates aren't much smarter than ``he copied my homework''. Meawwhile IBM's Nazgul are quiet, careful, implacable, playing for the highest stakes and --- to mix a metaphor --- they will not stop. Ever. IBM cannot allow Microsoft to gain an inch on this, and they have a patent portfolio to make Microsoft's utterly irrelevant.

Patent portfolios are like nuclear weapons (I spent the weekend in Hiroshima, so the metaphor is live for me). When no-one uses them, they ensure a tense peace. But the first to use them offensively loses as badly as their target.

ian

Let them get a percentage

[fishthegeek]

of the profits.... I downloaded Feisty a month ago and I say that Microsoft should get 30% of what Canonical charged me for it.

Re:First to file

[LionMage]

first to file is the rule

Not in the United States. In the U.S., first-to-invent is the rule, not first-to-file.

to quote Vizzini

[BenSchuarmer]

"You're trying to kidnap what I've rightfully stolen."

Re:Quick !! Lets examine and change them all !!

[richie2000]

If they ever institute software patents here I will continue to ignore them as a form of civil disobedience. You are aware that the EPO has already granted tens of thousands software patents, right?

So lets be pre-emptive

[lnxnomad]

According to Google (Issued Patents) Microsoft has apx 600 issued patents dating back to January 1987 (don't care about any issued prior to that). So lets create a project to evaluate each patent for validity and non-obivousness, locate prior-art if any, and identify possible infringement in FOSS code.

Note that many of these are for things we may not care about (like mice, keyboards etc) so the number to analyse will go down. Still non-trivial, but all it needs is persistence, the help of a few law students, and the IT crowd to hunt down prior art. And lets put it all in one place where anyone that gets sued can go to for a definitive reference.

BTW, I am not aware of such a thing being out there already, if so then please let me know, my quick search didn't find it this morning.

What do you all think?

Re:So lets be pre-emptive

[castrox]

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)?

Short answer: yes

[Mateo_LeFou]

MS has 155 patents with the word "User Interface" in the title. Have a look:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-b ool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Microsoft&FIELD1=ASNM& co1=AND&TERM2=user+interface&FIELD2=TI&d=PTXT

What sucks is that yesterday they only had 151...

Re:Short answer: yes

[dfoulger]

Interesting point, but its a little worse than you think. I count some 2500 patents in which Microsoft is the assignee and the term "user interface" appears somewhere in the patent.

The good news:

• IBM has at least 6300 patents with the words user interface in them.
• Sun has over a thousand more.
• Xerox, which really got the ball rolling on user interface patents, has 2000 plus patents that refer to user interfaces.

The somewhat wierd news: Apple has only 600 or so patents with the words user interface in them. Of course all of these players together account for less than a sixth of all the patents (currently over 70,000 that include the words "user interface".

Re:Short answer: yes

[Mateo_LeFou]

I think "user interface" *anywhere in the patent makes the results overwhelming. But I also think the title-only search was too strict. Thanks for the freepatentsonline link, it's a lot faster than uspto's. Here are the 408 with that term in the Abstract
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/result.html?p=1&e dit_alert=&srch=xprtsrch&query_txt=AN%2FMicrosoft+ and+ABST%2F%22user+interface%22&uspat=on&date_rang e=all&stemming=on&sort=chron&search=Search

PS: come by my site (www.twoclick.org/unnamed). Sounds like you're pretty familiar with this stuff

Re:Correction is needed

[Delkster]

Not all patents can be worked around without removing functionality, because some of the patents are either defined in such a way or simply cover such functionality that it can't be done in any other ways than the ones the patent covers.

Re:Nothing new here

[mabhatter654]

It would be smart of the FSF to file a suit right now for slander of title against Microsoft. They need to put up or shut up... doing otherwise is "tortuous interference" with Linux and other OSS vendors' businesses by making legal accusations that aren't true to stymie their business. It may be good to deal with 200 patents at once rather than one at a time. Microsoft has money to play that game, the FSF does not. Also, patents en mass in court can show a clear misappropriation of the patent system in the field of software and business model patents that one-at-a-time can't prove effectively in separate non-connected cases.

No, no, no:

[excelsior_gr]

The InterNet is a little red fox curled around a blue sphere.

There, fixed that for you...

Re:First to file

[mabhatter654]

first to file means nothing if the invention is already PUBLISHED... then NOBODY can patent it. I've often thought that Sourceforge would be a good place to convert to a software "patent-free" house. Sourceforge is a public forum, that counts as published.. if we took all the crazy ideas posted in slashdot, fleshed them out to be usable, and posted them on sourceforge that would quickly make vast swaths of programing permanently unpatentable.

It's called the doctrine of laches

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l056.htm

LACHES, DOCTRINE OF - Based on the maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who procrastinate regarding their rights; Neglect to assert a right or claim that, together with lapse of time and other circumstances, prejudices an adverse party. Neglecting to do what should or could, have been done to assert a claim or right for an unreasonable and unjustified time causing disadvantage to another.

Laches is similar to 'statute of limitations'

I see a dangerous pattern here

[LionMage]

Graphical user interfaces, the way menus and windows look on the screen, breach 65. E-mail programs step on 15

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.

Too general, that's not protected.

[Kadin2048]

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).

Layout and form aren't patentable or even copywritable (aside from specific logos and words). That's how Microsoft got away with copying Apple.

This is all settled law; it was beaten to death in the 80s and 90s. The fact that Linux uses some of the same general design elements that Windows (and in many cases the Classic Mac OS, and OS X, and AmigaOS, and god knows how many other GUI OSes that are now basically extinct) doesn't necessarily constitute infringement.

What Microsoft probably has are some very overbroad patents that were granted in error, and they're hoping that they can use to rustle up some protection money with, because the cost of challenging them and getting them invalidated, even with lots of prior art, is so ridiculously high.

MS has a LOUSY legal record

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:Quick !! Lets examine and change them all !!

[A beautiful mind]

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.

Is Mono dead?

[L'homme de Fromage]

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.

No patents actually specified

[Todd Knarr]

Objection. So far MS hasn't actually specified any patents which they claim are infringed. They've given numbers, but they've declined to say which patents are on the list. I think I'll have to borrow the phrasing from IBM's very first few interrogatories to SCO: Please identify with specificity which patents held by Microsoft are alleged to be infringed, and which code (by software project, file, version and line) is alleged to infringe upon those patents.

Despite their accusations of infringement, they state they would rather do licensing deals instead of any legal action.

A prerequisite for licensing is to identify exactly what the licensee will be paying for a license to. Until MS places that on the table, why should I pay good money for a pig in a poke?

The boy who cried wolf?

[Evardsson]

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?

Further reading

[Kadin2048]

Probably relevant articles:

Apple Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994), aka the "Look and Feel case" on Wikipedia, and the actual ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The MIT AI Lab has a fairly good introduction to the basis for the current U.S. software IP system, including what elements are typically protected by copyright and which by patents. (Basically: "Expression" = copyright; "idea/implementation" = patent, "concept" = (hopefully) neither.)

Don't be blind

[shelterpaw]

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.

Re:First to file

[Courageous]

I really wish what you said ("permanently unpatentable") were true. Alas, it is not. Rather, what can and will happen is that people will get patents, and it will take literally millions of dollars to get them undone.

C//

Apple is no friend of Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Apple is no friend of Linux

[falcon5768]

Apple is very clear in the marketing materials that they are just as eager as Microsoft to see Linux go away

Source. Because seriously right now your talking out of your ass.

Re:Apple is no friend of Linux

[aaarrrgggh]

A quick perusal of Apple's site suggests otherwise. Refer to This link for the following accolades of Free Software:

The power and simplicity of Mac OS X Server begin with a UNIX-based foundation built around the Mach microkernel and the latest advances from the open source BSD community.

nstead of developing proprietary technologies, Apple has embraced the best open source projects, such as Apache, Samba, OpenLDAP, Kerberos, Postfix, Jabber and SpamAssassin.

Granted, Apple wants to sell their software. They do however rely on Open Source software to help create a total solution, which is about the only way for them to compete with MS. The only "cut" on Linux I saw was a reference to the complexities of Linux... which in my book is a fair enough comment relative to their target audience.

Re:Apple is no friend of Linux

[Hack'n'Slash]

I believe this is their source:

http://tv.truenuff.com/mac/gaming.php

It is clear both Mac and PC despise Linux in this insightful video.

(Warning, some coarse language.)

Violation of Patents for Ideas They Stole???

[queenb**ch]

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.

Unenforceable if it's Incomprehensible

[viewtouch]

Just take a look at this one, for instance.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT 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

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.

Re:Unenforceable if it's Incomprehensible

[glas_gow]

Hate to prove myself correct, but I found this at the foot of the patent:

In conclusion, the present invention enables users to select elements in a GUI quickly, with minimal processor computations, using an element selection perimeter or "lasso."

There are no infringments....

[3seas]

... 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.

This isn't news

[twistedcubic]

They didn't release any details. I was shocked to hear the headline, but as usual, Slashdot summaries never fail to disappoint.

They could.

[Kadin2048]

Ford doesn't sue the soccer mom that drives a Chevy Suburban if the Suburban violates patents Ford owns - Ford sues Chevy.

Funny you should bring that up. You should take a look at this page, in particular, to the broadside that's reproduced about 1/3rd of the way down the page. The "Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers" (holders of the infamous Selden Patent) frequently threatened to sue not only the manufacturers of unlicensed autos, but also their owners, since "use" of (not just manufacturing) an infringing device constitutes patent infringement by law. I don't know whether they ever actually bothered to do it though, because like Microsoft, their aim was to funnel business into the coffers of their financiers.

So anyway, the reason Ford might sue Chevy for patent infringement, rather than going directly after Chevy drivers, is mostly because Chevy is a much bigger (and deeper-pocketed) target.

We need to be proactive

[noldrin]

We need to be proactive. Let's create a groklaw type service just for Microsoft Patents and start building prior art cases for any patent Free Software is potentially infringing on. They are gathering their troops, let's start gathering ours. See if they are as bold.

My take on this

[rabtech]

I think this is a result of the recent Supreme Court action that raised the bar for patentability. I suspect that a large number of Microsoft's software patents (and everyone else's for that matter) will not withstand scrutiny under the new test.

This is just a net being scattered far and wide to try and turn some of their (now worthless) patents into revenue before anyone has the chance to challenge the validity of those patents.

My suggestion? Don't take the bait.

Question about Timeliness

[popo]

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?

It's not a friend, or an enemy, it's a company.

[Kadin2048]

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.

Not sure I buy this. I wouldn't say that Apple is exactly #1 in the "Linux Fan Club," but they have a lot to gain via open standards, at least when it's a choice of "open standards or Microsoft's proprietary standard." (I'm sure they'd much prefer their own proprietary standard being the One True Way, but as long as that's not going to happen, it's better nobody own it than a competitor.)

I don't think you can sum up Apple or the Macintosh platform's relationship to open source in general, or Linux in particular, as just "love" or "hate." It's much more nuanced. Apple has a lot to gain by any slip in Windows marketshare and a loosening of Microsoft's hold on the desktop, particularly the home desktop (it's been a while since they've gone after the business desktop and I doubt they'll ever really try again). It's a lot easier for Apple to compete against Linux than it is to compete against Windows, because Linux has less lock-in. (I.e., you can switch a Linux user to Mac more easily than you can switch a Windows user to Mac.) However, at the same time, they compete with Linux in the smaller segment of "non-Windows OSes." (So, it's the converse of before -- it's easier to switch a Mac user to Linux, than a Windows user to Linux. Such is the double-edged sword of open standards.)

You see the same issue with IBM -- on some levels, IBM is (or was) competing with Linux; e.g. vs AIX. (For this to make much sense you really have to think back a few years before they jumped on the open-source/open-standards bandwagon heavily.) Some of their divisions I'd expect still do (maybe database software?). There are probably a lot of non-IT examples around that people could come up with, too.

Corporations, because they don't have a single controlling mind, can in many cases do things that would appear to be hypocritical or contradictory if they're anthropomorphized. There's a lot that's been written about this sort of behavior (Google "coopetition"), and it's a lot more complex than 'friends' and 'enemies.'

What about PR?

[akozakie]

I think you missed the point of this game. Given the size of MS pool of patents this set is ridiculously small. I think the ones they selected are pretty bulletproof and - surprisingly - that this won't be a legal war of attrition, MS will play nice about it. Why? Because this is just a battle in a PR war, a strategic attack. This is not meant to harm OSS directly - it's a preparation for a major offensive and will be fought without determination, since a minor victory, not a real triumph, is all MS needs.

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:

• Most of the disclosed patents will be dealt with using workarounds, others will be donated. MS defended its rights, acted benevolent and the problems were solved. PR effect: Bully? Who, us?
• The story is public. The workarounds etc. will be a proof that OSS was infringing. And that's not just Linux - the patents they chose hit many projects, and MS is doing everything to make sure it gets noticed (that's why they publish these numbers instead of listing the patents). PR effect: IP violations in OSS are a fact.
• Now MS will explain why the set of patents was so small compared to the number of patents owned by the company - they weren't really trying, these were just the cases they spotted almost by accident. This will be hard to argue with, especially if they keep a few identified patents secret and show them as further proof if challenged. PR effect: OSS is in violation of IP rights and the scale of the problem is difficult to estimate.
• For a moment MS threatened that they might go after the users. This will be remembered as a possibility. PR effect: Other companies might actually do it in the future.

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?

Re:What about PR?

[nizo]

Why Microsoft won't name the patents, straight from the horse's mouth (go here for the blog article):

The question I anticipate that most readers will want to ask (and that isn't really answered in the feature story) is: Why doesn't Microsoft identify the specific patents and explain what specific aspects of free software infringe them. I did ask Gutierrez that question, and here was his answer: "We do. But in private conversations in the process of licensing discussions with companies that are looking in good faith for ways of resolving the situation." In those contexts, he says, "we walk through a number of exemplary patents and go as deep as they want us to go. Our experience has been every time we've done that, it doesn't take companies a long time to figure out that there is an issue here."

Why won't he do the same thing in public? "There are a number of legal reasons why companies don't do that. No company does that. IBM (IBM) doesn't do that. HP (HPQ) doesn't. Fujitsu (FJTSY.PK) doesn't. For a number of practical reasons. Once you've made that statement from a public perspective, anybody in the world can go to court and ask for a declaratory judgment. That would spur potentially hundreds or thousands of lawsuits around the world, or reexaminations of patents around the world. Even if they're perfectly good patents, it would create an administrative nightmare."

You cannot patent thinking!

[zukinux]

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 !

Apple v. eMachines

[Kadin2048]

The Apple vs eMachines dispute was a more straightforward trade dress case than Apple vs Microsoft. It comes from some portions of the Lanham Act that allow trademark-like protections for distinctive design elements of a product.

If you take a look at the eOne, it's pretty blatantly iMac-like; I kinda wonder what their lawyers were thinking when they green-lit that.

At any rate, that suit, like most things that Apple seems to get involved in, was eventually settled out of court, and no precedent resulted. But we can infer that eMachines didn't feel like they were winning, because the eOne disappeared quickly afterwards. (It didn't help that the thing never sold well, either, or that it was offered exclusively through Circuit City.)

Re:It's dead Jim

[Pausanias]

This is only partly true. I am not a big fan of mono (I always make sure not to install anything depending on it); however, it seems that only the parts not submitted for standardization (ASP.NET etc) are liable to patent claims. The other parts, if they are approved as standards, will be non-patentable.

Unfortunately for mono, the parts that could be liable to patent claims are the parts that allow Windows interoperability. Given that interoperability is the chief claim to fame of .net, this seriously reduced the attractiveness of this platform.

From wikipedia:

The base technologies submitted to the ECMA, and therefore also the Unix/Gnome-specific parts, may be non-problematic. The concerns primarily relate to technologies developed by Microsoft on top of the .NET Framework, such as ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Forms, i.e. parts composing Mono's Windows compatibility stack. These technologies are today not fully implemented in Mono and not required for developing Mono-applications. Not providing a patented capability would weaken the interoperability, but it would still provide the free software / open source software community with good development tools, which is the primary reason for developing Mono. This has been summed up by Richard Stallman[5]:

Mono is a free implementation of Microsoft's language C#. Microsoft has declared itself our enemy and we know that Microsoft is getting patents on some features of C#. So I think it's dangerous to use C#, and it may be dangerous to use Mono. There's nothing wrong with Mono. Mono is a free implementation of a language that users use. It's good to provide free implementations. We should have free implementations of every language. But, depending on it is dangerous, and we better not do that.

The way menus and windows look and feel?

[aztektum]

So if I install an Aqua theme, then there isn't a problem right?

Come fuckin' on. Any patents that fall in that category would cover any modern OS. Drop down menus and "windows" were around before Windows.

They keep saying Linux. Last I checked nearly any window manager, e-mail client and many other applications that run on Linux run on BSD as well. However they repeat "Linux, Linux, Linux...!" to steer people from Ubuntu Linux, Debian Linux, Slackware Linux. How much more obvious a FUD campaign can they make this?

Show the world your code MS. There has to be a little bits of GPL crawling around in there somewhere.

Look and feel. Give me a break.