Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft, Sue Me First
corigo writes "Supporters of free and open source solutions have thrown down the gauntlet at Microsoft's feet. Christian Einfeldt of Digital Tipping Point says 'Sue Me First,' and he's not alone. More and more people are signing up and challenging Microsoft to put their lawyers where their mouth is. The open source community is far from running scared. Will Microsoft step up to the plate, or are they just continuing a scare campaign with no real ability to leverage the patents they claim open source is infringing?"
Microsoft: O.K.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
as an open source software user, i back christian einfeldt completely.
sue him first, pls.
fp btw!
Microsoft sues you! Oh wait ...
A: Will Microsoft step up to the plate...
B: or are they just continuing a scare campaign with no real ability to leverage the patents they claim open source is infringing?
I'll take B for all the money in the world, Bob.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I remember stories about McDonalds and Disney taking aggressive action to defend their exclusive rights even against small-time infringers with the justification that refraining to sue could have been construed as abandoning their trademark. So, if microsoft does not sue these people, would it be tantamount to abandoning their right to sue later, or is it all just a bunch of meaningless hot air?
Trademark != Patent != Copyright.
If MS had strong infringement claims, they would have named them years ago. The fact they're pulling a SCO-esque FUD campaign means that these supposed infringements are questionable at best, and can be challenged, at which point prior art will probably be found. If not, they can be coded around. In all cases, MS is pretty much spent once it's named these supposed infringements, which is why they won't do so publically. Their strategy is a combination of public FUD and private protection-money shakedowns. Calling their bluff is exactly the right thing to do.
(I'm looking at OLTP, because that's a worldwide non-Microsoft venture that could seriously dent Microsoft revenue in growing markets and because it's the biggest event due any time soon. Microsoft's FUD is generally not random but very purposeful and has a specific goal in mind. There simply isn't another goal on a comparable scale on any kind of near-term timeframe.)
There are a few other avenues that Linux could be doing well in, but Microsoft is growing faster in the server market despite inferior performance, reliability or security, and that's the only other area Linux and Microsoft have any serious rivalry at this time. Linux could be doing well on the desktop, but not while it is playing catch-up. It would have to invent a whole new metaphor before it could seriously threaten Microsoft in the home market.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Is there actually a legal way to tell them to "put up or shut up"?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Microsoft doesn't want to step up the plate - they don't want to solidify their claims. They want to create in the midns of existing and potential Microsoft products that Linux and assorted alternatives are too risky to switch towards. Patents this week, usability next week, compatability the week after. This is not a game about patents, this is a game of unobservable quality and obfuscating the quality determination process. "What if there really are problems with Linux? Maybe it isn't the good solution I've heard it is? Best to stick with Microsoft, the lemon/devil I know".
This may sound like a troll, but it really is not: in my opinion, Linux enthusiasts crying, "sue me first!" creates in the mind of traditional business people the idea that such enthusiasts are risk-seeking. Not everyone wants to be associated with a risk-seeker.
"You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
IANAL, and you shouldn't rely on this as legal advice, YMMV, etc.:
It might affect their ability to sue the particular people for reasons unrelated to abandonment (statutes of limitations, laches, and various estoppel theories), especially if it can be shown that Microsoft knew about the particular facts that it would allege are violations by the particular users early on and didn't act.
It probably won't affect their ability to sue other people, though.
But trademarks are very different from copyrights, and there is nothing in copyright similar to abandoning a trademark. Trademarks are protected based largely on use, copyrights are not.
Wouldn't it have been pointed out in the Lindows case? I mean if Lindows is stealing patents AND your trademark, wouldn't it be an open and shut case?
"I AM SPARTACUS!!!"
Let's see whether Microsoft runs out of cruciforms first or the Open Source community runs out of people first.
It's on.
Actually, I think this is great. People standing up and telling Microsoft to shove it.
For too long Microsoft has bullied and intimidated. They have monopolized, stolen code (remember the Stacker lawsuit?), and tried to dominate the entire world. Sadly, they did pretty well at it.
But now, Linux is, IMHO, ready for the general user and the common desktop. It doesn't require the skills that it once did thanks to Gnome and KDE. For most people, web browsing, reading e-mail, and processing word documents, spreadsheets, and presentations, Linux looks and feels pretty damn close to Windows - but has added enhancements, has better security, and is far cheaper to own.
I'm sure these latest developments, with Dell offering Ubuntu, Vista being bad-mouthed by gamers and office users alike, and open sourcers far and wide mocking Microsoft and it's chair-throwing flunkie, Bill and company are just a wee tad worried.
The open source community should call Microsoft's bluff and file a pre-emptive class action lawsuit. The lawsuit would basically challenge the court to decide whether or not Linux and other open source projects violate Microsoft's patents. This has been done before when a company is under threat of lawsuit, they preemptively ask the court to decide if what they are doing is legal. This removes the cloud of a potential lawsuit so that the threatened company can conduct business. Of course you would want to file the lawsuit in Federal court in San Francisco.
Digitaltippingpoint - Hmmm, appropriately named.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Seems the site is a bit swamped...must be all the people signing up to be sued...
from digg.. Much has been written about Microsoft's allegation of patent infringements in Linux (by which I'm sure they mean GNU/Linux ;-) ). I don't think Microsoft is the real threat, and in fact, I think Microsoft and the Linux community will actually end up fighting on the same side of this issue. ....
And I'm pretty certain that, within a few years, Microsoft themselves will be strong advocates against software patents. Why? Because Microsoft is irrevocably committed to shipping new software every year, and software patents represent landmines in their roadmap which they are going to step on, like it or not, with increasing regularity. They can't sit on the sidelines of the software game - they actually have to ship new products. And every time they do that, they risk stepping on a patent landmine.
They are a perfect target - they have deep pockets, and they have no option but to negotiate a settlement, or go to court, when confronted with a patent suit...
Read the rest here.
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/118
First they came for the Hackers, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Hacker. Then they came for Novell, and I didn't speak up, because I don't use Novell. Then they came for the Linux Users, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Windows user. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
Microsoft may well step up but that does not mean they want to. I believe they are intending to scare the open source community, which will in turn (however subconsciously) affect the future open source development. Not insulting the open source community's intelligence in any way, i'm just saying when a developer is working on a new feature they're gonna have this threat in the back of their mind and may choose to make less inovative choices due to this threat, no matter how "fuck you" they think they are. I find this all the more interesting after the article about who really owns linuz trademarks and mozilla's financial success. I mean who really gets sued?
Remember, that in America at least, court cases are generally won by money not truth. On television, people win court cases on merit. Frankly, Micro$oft can throw in a few attorney's to fud things up and confuse the judge, then throw in a bribe or two to close the deal. It really is not relevant if M$ has any patents or not. They have money...like O.J. did.
How many SUSE using Susie's could Microsoft sue If Microsoft could sue SUSE using Susie's who sell sea shells down by the sea shore?
Answer: None. I think.
FAQs are evil.
MS is just jealous that IBM's stock price almost caught up to MS's
At close of market today, IBM's market capitalization was 158.94 billion Dollars. Microsoft's was 297.05 billion. Your definition of "almost" is rather loose.
would you want to sue an organisation that routinely blows people up?
i'd think its a bloody smart idea to leave dealing with those guys to those with the protection of governement (cops, armed forces etc) if you value your life.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
I'm Sparticus! No, I'm Sparticus!
(OK, so they aren't searching for someone in particular but close enough).
1 - no im not
2 - regardless of who wins, the stakes ARE high. We are talking about basic freedoms here. Not just some IP thing. Think outside the box here.
3 - time will tell who wins i dont think its going to blow over this time. Microsoft on one side trying to screw us, RIAA on the other. Its going to get ugly before it gets better.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
How does it feel to be fringe?
MS doesn't have an open source business model. They have a "we'll give you almost anything if you pay us" business model.
You also should know that back in the 70s and 80s IBM had a multistory building full of lawyers for the sole purpose of fighting the US government. SCO is nothing.
BTW. IBM's market cap (source) is $159 US billion. Microsoft's is $297 US billion. Neither company could possibly litigate until their opponent went out of business.
I suggest that anyone who takes up Microsoft's offer of a patent license, henceforth be labeled a 'Stig', in honor of Stig O'Tracy from Monty Pythons 'Piranha Brothers' Sketch
Presenter Another man who had his head nailed to the floor was Stig O' Tracey.
Cut to another younger more cheerful man on sofa.
Interviewer Stig, I've been told Dinsdale Piranha nailed your head to the floor.
Stig No, no. Never, never. He was a smashing bloke. He used to give his mother flowers and that. He was like a brother to me.
Interviewer But the police have film of Dinsdale actually nailing your head to the floor.
Stig Oh yeah, well - he did that, yeah.
Interviewer Why?
Stig Well he had to, didn't he? I mean, be fair, there was nothing else he could do. I mean, I had transgressed the unwritten law.
Interviewer What had you done?
Stig Er... Well he never told me that. But he gave me his word that it was the case, and that's good enough for me with old Dinsy. I mean, he didn't want to nail my head to the floor. I had to insist. He wanted to let me off. There's nothing Dinsdale wouldn't do for you.
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
hi, sorry about this. Slashdot has crushed our server. I hope to get it back up soon. My apologies for the inconvenience.
Christian Einfeldt,
Producer, The Digital Tipping Point
1) Demand the business or government body to disclose copies of the anti virus logs for all of their desktops and laptops.
2) Generate a list of all the malware that
a) was cleaned up post infection ( the malware was actually executed and run ) AND
b) exploited vulnerabilities in Microsoft applications and operating system prior to an update fix being made available by Microsoft.
In comparison to MacOSX or Linux based desktop, Microsoft's desktop operating systems and Microsoft's desktop applications face a disproportionally higher risk of being "infected" with hostile malware. Just relying on third party Antivirus software to prop up a Microsoft flagging security record in no way puts you any closer to the level of security that a switch to another vendors desktop platform can provide. ( Just updating to Vista is no guarantee of better security in comparison to another vendors platform )
A business or government body is not taking due care with the private information they hold on the public if they continue to use Microsoft desktop OS environments or Microsoft desktop applications. That is your credit card data, banking details , health care info and social security information. If switching to Linux or MacOSX based desktops would greatly reduce the risk of further intrusion why should not organizations be "encouraged" to make the move.
If anyone's customers are at greater risk of being sued it is Microsoft's own customers that face the greatest risk.
But wait untill I'm done being Slashdotted, please.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
In legal matters, The Free Software Foundation [[http://www.techliberation.com/archives/041419.ph p doesn't want money; they want compliance]]. Microsoft, on the other hand, doesn't want compliance; they want money. It should be no surprise, then that they are not interested in helping the FOSS community to come back into compliance with their patents; any violation could mean revenue.
Of course, "could" is just a possibility. If they actually ever went to court, software patents might be overturned in general, particular patents could be invalidated specifically, claims made with valid patents could be found non-infringing, the community would likely recode the claims found infringing to steer clear of the patent, AND Microsoft would still have to deal patent infringement countersuits launched in retaliation.
It is far better for them attempt to profit from vague fear than vague fact.
That's fucking gross man! You don't know where those have been!
Software patents are like a virus that attaches itself, in an intellectual property sense, to anything it touches.
Yes. Enthusiasts are risk-seeking.
Airplane enthusiasts are risk-seeking. Baseball card enthusiasts are risk-seeking. Stock market enthusiasts are risk-seeking. Insurance enthusiasts.
Enthusiasts, by nature, like to push the envelope. They try to see how far, or in which interesting new directions, they can take their pet.
But that doesn't stop traditional business people from using airplanes or insurance. Traditional business people understand that enthusiasts are enthusiasts. Many business people realize that when enthusiasts for some unheard of something-or-other start showing up in the news a lot, there is likely some new business opportunity opening up.
SCO was Microsoft's sock puppet.
...SCO dies/fades into obscurity, people stop taking it seriously.
a) SCO/Microsoft: "You're infringing, we're suing!!"
b) Microsoft: "You're infringing, we're suing!!"
Different singer, same song.
No sig today...
hi,
I am a lawyer with a very small civil practice in San Francisco. IMHO, t would be possible to file a declaratory relief action. Almost anyone who has been encumbered by a Microsoft patent threat would have standing to do so. I would be willing to participate in such a lawsuit, obviously, since my name is the first on the TFA "Sue me" list.
In order for a declaratory relief lawsuit to work, we would need to have coordinated action by some of the other large stakeholders whose businesses would be impacted by Microsoft's questionable PR patent campaign against FOSS. That takes time, planning, and money, though.
In the meantime, I wanted to take some action now to see if we could at least get a show of hands of people who doubt Microsoft's questionable PR patent campaign. I believe that few in the FOSS community really believe that Microsoft's purported patent claims have merit. So we probably need to shout really loud, so that the rest of the world can see and hear us. We don't want people to believe that a) We in the FOSS community are doing anything that is illegal, because we're not; or b) that we have doubts about whether or not Microsoft's questionable PR patent claims have merit (they don't, IMHO).
IMHO, we really can't allow Microsoft to dominate the airwaves with its questionable patent claims against us.
Christian Einfeldt,
Producer, The Digital Tipping Point
Mickey Mouse as a trademark has expired. He's now in the public domain.
_ Term_Extension_Act The "Copyright Extension Act" is unofficially known as the "Mickey Mouse Act". How is that for 'corporate sponsorship' gone mad?
No wait... Disney called in a favor from their brown-paper-bag-shills at Congress, who promptly introduced this legislation which kept Mickey from entering the public domain. AFAIAC Disney used Congress to steal it. No wonder Disney grew old and stale: They have no incentive to come up with anything new. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright
Who were the Congressional Shills? Despite the name it wasn't Congressman Sonny Bono, but I can't tell you who did it. This is what sucks about Congress. We get nasty bills passed that take away our rights, but Congressmen are shy to stick their name on it. So while grumbling about this, the DMCA, the Parrot Act, you could be voting for a shill who sponsored it.
How about someone do a web site showing who is a shill and who isn't. Wikipedia doesn't carry this sort of info.
Red Hat was able to pre-emptively sue SCO, asking the court to declare that they are not violating any copyrights owned by SCO, only because SCO revealed enough information that Red Hat could show that they were in danger of being sued by SCO.
For someone to do something similar against Microsoft's threats, Microsoft would first have to reveal exactly which patents they are threatening to sue over. Once Microsoft did that, people who think they may be infringing have the right to file with the patent office to have the patent invalidated.
That is exactly what Microsoft said is the reason that they are not announcing what those 200+ patents are.
That's also a good indication that they are not likely to sue anyone, and that the only purpose of this FUD is FUD.
They can't sue for patent infringement without saying which patents are being infringed. That's why "sue me first" is such a good idea, and why Microsoft can't really take anyone up on it.
Hey, dontcha just love the Microsoft PR machine!!! Here we are on Slashdot, talking about Microsoft's PR prowess, and Microsoft is kind enough to come along and give us a demonstration! On my screen, I am seeing advertisements for a kinder, gentler Microsoft, one that makes a donation to some unknown charity every time you use Microsoft IM. Oh, that's so sweet and cuddly! Just ignore those patent threats, boys and girls! We didn't mean any harm!
8 7/
8 3/
3 8/
4 1/
4 1/
This is exactly my point, and it's why I offered to have Microsoft sue me. Microsoft is doing an excellent job of PR, and we need to draw public attention to two basic facts: 1) Microsoft's patent claims are unmeritorious; and 2) Microsoft is making vague patent threats because self-censorship is cheaper and more powerful than filing patent infringement lawsuits that only work in the US, if they work at all.
If you are not seeing the kinder, gentler IM donations on your screen, you can see them here on the Digital Tipping Point Flickr account, at least until Microsoft buys Yahoo, at which point you will see them only on our Google Picasa account:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49947835@N00/5088135
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49947835@N00/5088135
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49947835@N00/5087770
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49947835@N00/5087826
Note to Microsoft counsel Brad Smith, Esq.: If you need documentary proof for your trial against me that I use Ubuntu GNU Linux, you can use this screenshot, which I am hereby vouching is a true and accurate shot depicting my Edgy Ubuntu desktop which, coincidentally, I am using to produce the Digital Tipping Point film. Among other things, the DTP film will suggest that Microsoft, like RCA and IBM before it, is facing an "innovator's dilemma" that will disrupt its current monopolistic business model. The funny thing is that the same market forces that propelled Microsoft to hammer IBM is now going to help IBM return the favor, this time using GNU Linux and OpenOffice.org. But I guess you knew that already, Sir Brad, because that is why you have been filing patents. You once worked at IBM. You learned well. Here is that proof you will want if you ever do file a case against me:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49947835@N00/5087826
My favorite instance of McDonalds taking aggressive action is when 60 minutes, a US news program, did a report on McDonalds going through the UK shutting down restaurants using the McDonalds name. The best part was near the end. They showed a beautiful scene of rolling green hills in the country side and then a very nice 5-star restaurant on a hill with a man in the foreground in a kilt. Apparently that restaurant was also called McDonalds. The man addressed the camera and said something like this in his Scottish accent, "My name is John McDonald, head of the clan McDonald. If anyone is going to be changing their name, it's going to be them!"
According to this article, Microsoft can't sue because they've opened up the CIFS protocol...
Interestingly, SMB started with IBM, not Microsoft. Pretty common theme at Microsoft eh?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I just had a good laugh at the expense of the people signed up for this. Either they don't care that their addresses are going to get harvested, or they're working under the delusion that obfuscation techniques like "jim at website dot com" can't be beaten by some very simple Perl.
Now they seem to want to fight us.
Just like good politicians and good lawyers: you provoke a fight and make the opponent so angry that people will just forget who began the whole thing and tell them hey, they wanted to fight, no wonder we try to defend ourselves. Thing is, this is a very well proven tactic, and we all should just try to clearly avoid it, and try not to make this "sue me first" outburst look like FOSS wanted to challenge Microsoft in the first place. The FOSS world just needs to be very careful in this matter. Maybe this whole thing is just a FUD campaign with a lot of smoke, but we could never know what they hide under the smoke.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
What a perfect match!
Rethinking email