Microsoft Will Not Sue Over Linux Patents

San Muel writes "In an official statement, Microsoft has said it has no immediate plans to sue after alleging patent infringements by open-source vendors for the time being. The company goes on to say that, essentially, it could have done that any time in the last three years if it wanted to. So what's the purpose of these bold announcements? '[John McCreesh, OpenOffice.org marketing project lead] added that while Microsoft may not have plans to sue, it could be using the threat of litigation to try to encourage corporate customers to move to those open-source product vendors with whom it had signed licensing agreements, such as Novell. "Microsoft has spent time and money accumulating patents. Maybe it has started using that armory to move corporate customers to open-source software that Microsoft approves of."'"

Comments

Open Letter to Brad Smith

[morgan_greywolf]

Dear Brad Smith,

Sue us! C'mon, Brad. That's right. Put it all out there! You tried and failed with your feeble little pawn, SCO. Then the big bad judge ordered them to show the code! Oh my, got called on your bluff, eh?

Now you're too afraid to sue because you think the same thing will happen to you. C'mon, Brad, go ahead? What are you -- chicken?

Because then you'll have to show us the code, and your bluff will called and it will be all over. That's why you're not going to sue, you spineless twit.

Thanks,

Rob Shinn
An Open Source developer.

Re:Open Letter to Brad Smith

[aegisalpha]

The real shame is that the ones these statements are designed to influence probably don't know that much about OSS, SCO, or anything else that would clue them in to the FUD. That's the problem with open letters, unless published in the right place you won't reach your intended audience.

So who wants to buy a full page ad in a trade magazine or national newspaper?

Re:Open Letter to Brad Smith

[jimstapleton]

Also, another logic that probably scares them - MS's legal department probably is well aware that OSS groups are much more likely to play the prior-art/patent-invalidation card than other groups.

Re:Open Letter to Brad Smith

[TheRaven64]

Exactly. Within the industry, most of the big players have cross-licensing deals. They each try to put a similar number of patents in the pile, and so no one ends up owing anyone else any money. If Microsoft got a load of their patents invalidated, then their pile would become smaller than everyone else's and they would have to start paying.

Re:Open Letter to Brad Smith

[monxrtr]

Right, all the big corporate interests form oligopalys to shut out further competition. But if I were Microsoft I'd watch out. I'm sure the pharmaceutical industry feels very threatened by all the negative attention the software industry has brought towards patents. When Microsoft is applying for 3-5 thousand patents a year! and getting 500-1000 patents granted, $800 million drug research costs are threatened. No doubt somebody inside Microsoft told Brad Smith to STFU after that fortune article.

Re:Open Letter to Brad Smith

[Vulva R. Thompson, P]

Here are some devil's advocate questions.

On these IP issues specifically, isn't it safe to assume that Microsoft has a master plan and playing chicken/bluffing like SCO did serves no long term purpose? And if that's the case, would they honestly enter the battle unarmed (i.e. patents don't have some teeth)?

Doesn't this issue strike at their very lifeblood? No matter how much distaste you feel for them (myself included), it's a serious, profitable company with lots of clever lawyers on the payroll and a penchant for solving problems with bags of money.

Comparing SCO and Microsoft, one could argue that SCO's purpose was always a focused, short-term goal. How the money got distributed/funneled is irrelevant. It was a bluff from the beginning designed to cash out for the interested parties.

But it seems obvious that Microsoft's goal is aimed at how they'll derive and expand future revenue to satisfy their shareholders (a long-term goal which the directors also benefit from). In both cases ultimately it all leads to the share price but comparing SCO to Microsoft appears to be like comparing a pink sheet to IBM.

So in summary, what arguments are there against thinking that Microsoft hasn't planned out every last move and contingency (including the ideas in your post)? Honestly, how many predicted something like the Novell agreement?

Re:Open Letter to Brad Smith

[morgan_greywolf]

Comparing SCO and Microsoft,

You don't need to compare Microsoft to SCO. SCO was Microsoft's puppet, funded by PIPEs whose primary investors were likely Paul Allen's Vulcan Ventures and/or one of several other ways that Microsoft used to hide the fact that they themselves provided the capital to keep SCO's case going. At least until RBC and BayStar pulled out.

These tactics are all part of the same plan -- to hurt the credibility of Linux and open source in the eyes and minds of CxOs everywhere so they will feel scared enough to quit using Linux. It's all FUD and Brad Smith, Microsoft's counsel, damned well knows it.

Strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

In an official statement, Microsoft has said it has no immediate plans to sue after alleging patent infringements by open-source vendors for the time being. The company goes on to say that, essentially, it could have done that any time in the last three years if it wanted to.

Ah, I see you've chosen the 2nd grade playground method for conflict resolution. Well played.

I have this strange new feeling of amusement coupled with annoyance ... I can't quite describe it so I'll just come up with a new adjective:

Adjective

microsofty

1. Causing irritation or annoyance; troublesome; making amusing claims; vexatious towards everyone else.

Example: Richard Simmons sure is microsofty.

Boring

[cerberusss]

*yawn* This is getting boring. The minute uncle Bill comes up with some stupid supposed violation, we'll code around it. In the meantime, let's not pay attention to this craphola.

Re:Boring

[Aim Here]

Err, Microsoft got a big pile of FUD around these supposed patent breaches. Maybe some CEOs and IT procurement people believed them and maybe it affected their buying decisions. That's bad.

Now when we've got them to make a humiliating climbdown, you want us to shut up?

I say we scream this headline all the way to Bangalore and back, just so everyone gets the message that the patent threat was a pile of worthless hot air all along...

Corporate Intimidation Tactic

[Apple Acolyte]

M$ shakes its fist at Linux and cries infringement but says it's not going to sue. So why did it make the announcement in the first place? It's a corporate intimidation play. M$ wants to convince enterprise that Linux is somehow evil and illegitimate because it knows it doesn't have the goods to shut Linux down, nor can it buy Linux out. The only alternative for a sleazy corporation like M$, which is propped up almost exclusively by inertia, is to defame the competition. I hope most will be savvy enough to see through this transparently evil act.

Huh ?

[Daishiman]

So they're not going to sue you but they'll force corporate customers to license under threat of litigation, even though they won't sue??

Legality

[Falesh]

At what point does this become illegal? Are you allowed to threaten whoever you like to strong arm customers into buying your product?

There should be a way to make MS go to court or lose the right to sue.

Re:Legality

[rucs_hack]

Unless they actually do something libellous in their campaign there's not a whole lot we can do about it.

However their threats are empty, and only likely to sway companies still entrenched in the 'threaten to use open source to secure discounts' camp.

The big problem for Microsoft is that they are no longer the big player they once were. They know this, and this is an ill judged attempt to say they are still in charge. It's only to be expected.

Unfortunately words don't mean much when money is at stake, even their most devout customers will start to become edgy if they see competition moving to open source solutions and saving money. There is no loyalty where money is concerned.

Re:Legality

[Bill Barth]

Is there perhaps a case (say brought by RedHat or another non-Novell Linux distributor) for tortious interference? I.e. if RedHat can show that one big deal fell through because of MS's psuedo-threat, haven't they had their business relationships interfered with in an illegitimate way?

Re:Legality

[mr_mischief]

IANAL, but I could've sworn that diligent defense was for trademarks. I don't believe you lose your exclusive rights for failing to defend either patents or copyrights vigilantly.

OTOH, you generally can't say you're aware of an infringement, wait years to do anything about it, and argue that those additional years while you failed to notify the alleged infringing party specifically what they are supposedly infringing upon count for additional damages. An attorney friend of mine tells me the damaged party must notify the infringing party of the infringement and order that they stop infringing. Any damages up to that point or after the infringing party is notified and continues to infringe can be considered. The damaged party does not have the right to purposefully prolong the infringement and ask for extra damages, as it is their responsibility to limit their own damages as much as possible. A vague, "You are infringing on my property in some unspecified way" is not notification enough.

Re:Legality

[Control Group]

If it's true.

Truth is the universal defense against slander and libel accusations.

Of course, in this case, you don't get to find out if it's true until the patents are tested in court. Even then, should the patents be found to be uninfringed by OSS, you would have to, in turn, sue MS and demonstrate in court that they knew ahead of time that the patents were not being infringed when they made their statements. And, as long as the patents themselves were not obviously on things that were not being infringed, MS can easily argue that they made a good-faith effort to defend their patents, since they also didn't know if it was true until it was determined in court.

And then, if you successfully demonstrate that MS knew its patent for "a device and method to rotate partially-cooked discs of batter to accomplish equal browning on both sides" was not being infringed by OSS prior to the courtroom test, you will only be awarded actual damages.

Re:Legality

[Chandon Seldon]

I've never really been behind the anti-Microsoft movement that has in the past insisted that they're abusing their monopoly.

They were found, in court, to have abused their monopoly pretty badly. If you ever have some free time, I suggest you sit down and read the judge's "Findings of Fact" in that case. It pretty readable in spite of being a formal legal document, and once you'll read it you'll have a much better understanding of why a judge thought they were abusing their monopoly.

You see I have this big bat?

[monkeyboythom]

I could have used it upside your head but I choose not to at this moment. But I could.

This is worse than FUD, it's an outright threat. By simply announcing you could sue, challenges large business into accepting risk. To the person in the trenches, they know Microsoft's got nothing. However to the CEO and the CIO, the same people who move a company forward, this is a challenge to their capital expense planning. They see the threat of lawsuit and immedietely classifiy that as risk.

How to mitigate it? Unfortunately you don't. Because it is the idea of lawsuit you cannot work around this risk unless you avoid it altogether. And this is what Microsoft is banking on. And by avoiding Linux for this year and next in capital planning, you avoid implementation of Linux in a corporate environment for at least three years. And by that time, Microsoft is betting that you will have spent so much T&E in their shop that it would be very expensive and time consuming to leave.

The intent was NEVER to sue...

[Churla]

The intent, as mentioned, was to get people to move to partners MS had licensing agreements with.

The goal is to make money. MS is not after glory , it's after the Benjamin's.

Lawsuits are like nuclear weapons, it's the option of last resort and pretty much assures either destruction of MASSIVE damage to all sides involved. When lawsuits fly the only winners will be the lawyers.

Can't be many possible explanations for this

[jimicus]

Possible explanations I can think of:

1. Microsoft was planning to sue everyone and his dog until someone pointed out the various Open Patent movements, and it might be a bad idea to wake up such a sleeping giant.
      I doubt it. I don't think it's a sleeping giant as much as a sleeping leprechaun, and Microsoft is pretty careful about what they publicly announce these days.

2. The whole "we've got patents" thing was intended to stir up some nice headlines in magazines like Forbes, with a view to getting some nice op-ed FUD. Basically, a means of encouraging Microsoft-friendly top level CTOs to kill any Linux projects they hear about. It's not like there's going to be anywhere near so many editorials printed next week saying "Further to Microsoft announcing their patents, they've now announced they don't intend to sue" as there were editorials announcing the patents in the first place.

Much more likely. Unlike Microsoft to admit to spreading FUD quite so flagrantly, though.

Actually..

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't it legally questionable to "not sue yet" if you have a patent on the technology and you know that the patented technology is widely used in the market? You're actively letting people use and enjoy your patented technologies so that there would be more users when you finally sue. Sounds a lot like "entrapment". I think they should at least forbid people from using them, preferably by telling what exactly they are using. Companies usually sit quietly on their technologies and come out with a bang when they suddenly surface their submarine patents. You don't see many of them brewing FUD on the news.

Re:Actually..

[Russ Nelson]

Laches

Microsoft will lose the right to sue ... ever

[Anonymous Coward]

If you find that your patent has been violated, you have to sue in a timely manner. You can't wait or the court will pitch out your case because of the doctrine of laches. I suppose someone should ask them how they intend to get around that problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)

"Laches is an equitable defense, or doctrine, in an action at law. The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has "slept on its rights", and that, as a result of this delay, that other party is no longer entitled to its original claim. Put another way, failure to assert one's rights in a timely manner can result in claims being barred by laches. Laches is a form of estoppel for delay. In Latin,

        Vigilantibus non dormientibus æquitas subvenit.
        Equity aids the vigilant, not the negligent (that is, those who sleep on their rights). "

Re:Microsoft will lose the right to sue ... ever

[Artifakt]

First, I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice, and should not be considered as the basis for any legal proceeding. This is abstract speculation on a point of law, and is offered only in the hope that it will inspire any persons who may face related litigation to study the relevant issues and seek professional legal advice as needed.

1. The Wiki you linked to does mention in how some cases, such as contesting an election, a very short period of time, mere days, is enough to invoke the doctrine, so I see where you get the idea timely means something less than a year, or even a quarter. The normal period is more like six years as doctrine. The big court cases specifically involving patents show up better if you search for 'submarine patents' instead of 'laches', and you may want to look at the time frames of the most significant cases there, as they are typically a lot more than the six year period, and many of them are more than the whole current 20 year life of a patent. Microsoft could probably wait 2 or 3 years and still be within the normal period that is considered timely. The could even justify this by claiming the allowed some time for lesser remedies such as negotiation to work if they could.

2. One principle behind laches is that the delay may be used to increase damages and make the resulting lawsuit more profitable, (usually because the defendant has presumably made more profit in the meantime). So what happens if a company waits a while to sue, but in its complaint sues only for an amount it claims reflects damages incurred before the date it first contacted the defendant, and waives additional damages subsequent to that date? You'll note my sig - I don't have a good answer to that question, but I think it may be a potential way to defuse a defense claim. Laches is an affirmative defense, requiring both assertion and proof by the defendant. A single affirmative defense doesn't usually lead to a whole case being thrown out with prejudice or anything on that order - more often it just limits the case's scope. (OTOH, if Microsoft doesn't have much of a complaint, it shouldn't take much to get the whole thing dismissed.)

Re:Microsoft will lose the right to sue ... ever

[debrain]

If you find that your patent has been violated, you have to sue in a timely manner. You can't wait or the court will pitch out your case because of the doctrine of laches. I suppose someone should ask them how they intend to get around that problem.

Laches need not apply, for the following reasons (off the top of my head).

First and generally, statutes (legislation) trump common law (judge-made law). Laches is common law doctrine, patents are statutorily enacted. The period for execution of patent rights falls within a statutory declaration of, I believe, 20 years. The Court is not likely to have the power to supplant the statutory rights granted to the patent holder because of a delay. If patents were meant to have a timeliness to prosecution component, that ought to have been something considered by the legislature (Courts are inclined to presume competence of the legislature), and its absence may be deemed intentional.

Second but generally as well, equity trumps law only where the law is unduly harsh. Patents are a legal concept whose temporal restrictions have been well reasoned by the legislation and long considered by the judiciary. As commercial negotiations regularly involve sitting on ones' right to sue, it is nigh impossible that equitable doctrines would come into play. It does not squelch the right to assert the proprietary protections vested by statute.

The concept of estoppel may apply. Where one reasonably relies upon the statements of another to their own detriment, they may have an equitable remedy. Thus, if a commercial entity relies upon Microsoft's declaration not to sue in the immediate future, Microsoft may be barred from recovering at law because the commercial entity relied upon Microsoft's statements.

That being said, Microsoft has limited the scope of its statement to "immediate future", therefore any prolonged infringement would not be protected by such mechanisms. Microsoft need only bring a few demand letters to discontinue infringement, and the defense of estoppel is waylaid.

Thus, laches is unlikely to apply, however estoppel may, but only for the quasi-timeframe Microsoft cited of the immediate future. YMMV & HTH. :)

Re:Microsoft will lose the right to sue ... ever

[DragonWriter]

That being said, Microsoft has limited the scope of its statement to "immediate future", therefore any prolonged infringement would not be protected by such mechanisms. Microsoft need only bring a few demand letters to discontinue infringement, and the defense of estoppel is waylaid.

Right. Microsoft is threading the needle, doing everything possible to preserve their ability to sue, while at the same time weakening the grounds for asserting a reasonable apprehension of suit that would justify a declaratory judgement action.

Because the last thing they want is a definitive answer that would make the FUD useless. They just want a vague fear that they could sue someone, sometime out there to discourage Linux adoption.

Play the game our way...

[AVee]

They are trying to move OS companies into a direction where they have to play the whole IP game. They won't kill open-source, but they can try to make money out of it. And that just what they are doing right now.
What they are saying is that they really honestly don't mind when we are using Linux. And it's true, it even is smart.

Just look at it, Dell customers get to use Linux but still pay their share of MS tax, but now for an OS Microsoft doesn't need to develop or support.
You thought having 99.9% marketshare is the ultimate way to make money? Think again.

Incriminate thyselves

[Laxator2]

If the infringement is real, how comes they did not already "fu***'n kill Google" ? But if M$ manages to use the patent threat to fool people into signing licence agreements then those people will put the rope around their own neck. They will pay M$ for software M$ dos not own and did not even bohter to sell them, and by the time they wake up the agreement will still be in place. Yes, many people have said that the M$ coupons have no expiration date. And Eben Moglen has already debunked their "be very afraid" tour on Groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200705170 83516872

So MS wants to protect us by selling us insurance.

[Door in Cart]

"That sure is a nice operating system you've got there. Sure would be a shame if something bad happened to it."

Re:M$ doesn't *need* to sue...

[ch-chuck]

So it's the schoolyard bully trying to bolster his public image with, "I *could* beat you up but hey, I'm such a nice guy I'll let you go - this time. But you *better* have you lunch money tomorrow, punk!".

Racketeering?

[gabrieltss]

M$ pounds their chest saying Linux is infringing. Then they go after enterprise customers asking them to pay for protection against litigation. Then they say they won't sue (????).

I think this is called "Racketeering" isn't it. Like the mob asking businesses to pay for protection money so "nothing happens to them". I think this just crossed M$ over line in to illigal actions here.

If you work for a company M$ has approached with one of these offers I -encourage you- to ask your company to call M$'s bluff - and tell them you consider this move an illigal one and that your company will be contacting the States Attorney Genral. If enough companies do this it might scare the living hell out of M$. But first and formost - actually contact the States Attorney General - don't threaten to do it - DO IT!
  Heck maybe not just companies should do this but individuals as well. I think there are enough links to statements by M$ that the States Attonrney General's could have something to go on - right?

Re:Racketeering?

[Control Group]

No, it isn't racketeering. This, though similar to, is not a protection scam.

"Boy, this sure is a nice store. Be a shame if something happened to it, wouldn't it?"

Is a protection scam. The threat is of performing an illegal act - breaking the windows, trashing the place, burning it down, or what have you. All of those things are themselves illegal.

While what MS is doing is similar in result (they hope), it is in content much the same as the DA offering a lighter sentence for witness cooperation. It's "we could prosecute, but we won't if you cooperate." This is - obviously - not illegal. It's the same thing as all the megacorp patent cross-licensing that goes on.

Which is itself indicative of how crap the system as a whole is, and this is perfect evidence of why we need patent reform yesterday. But waving the bloody shirt and calling it racketeering doesn't help anything.

Re:That, sir, we will fight against

[lilomar]

Any open source movement that falls in to the err of allying themselves with microsoft's such selfish moves should take notice and straighten up themselves in line with the open source philosophy accordingly.

Now, don't get me wrong, I love Linux and would never go back to that POS Windows even if Bill Gates were personally paying me.
But sometimes GNU/Free Software Enthusiasts scare me.
Does the above quote sound like a cult to anyone else? I mean, RMS has some great ideas, but he isn't a god or anything.

Yes, I know. The Penguin Ninjas will be visiting me shortly.

Re:M$ doesn't *need* to sue...

[LWATCDR]

The threat of a law suit from a convicted monopoly is enough for a new round of anti-trust investigation.
Let's see.
Microsoft says.
1. Open Source projects are violating our patents.
2. We will not sue over these patents.
3. We will not tell you what patents they are violating.
4. You should give us money so we will continue to not sue you.

Ever wonder where MS got the number.

[supersnail]

Here

What the researcher is saying is the with 235 potential patent violations
Linux scores lower then most proprietary software he has looked at.

Incidently nowhere does he say who owns the 235 patents so given the amount of
Operating System related patents filed they are more likly to belong to IBM or HP
(DEC VAX, Tandem Non Stop etc. etc. ) than microsoft.

Pure FUD!

Microsoft just lost shitoads of patents

[Khyber]

"We can sue you, could ave done so for three years now, but we won't, just to leave you scared" is what I get from reading that article. I say Microsoft needs to be sued under the RICO act, because that's almost exactly how the Mafia works.

No Presumption of Validity, per Microsoft?

[privaria]

Microsoft made a statement in its recent motion for a new trial in Lucent vs. Microsoft, a patent infringement case that it lost back in February to the tune of $1,500,000,000. It argued that a jury in a new trial should have the opportunity to "hear and weigh the evidence" that Microsoft claims makes the Alcatel-Lucent patents invalid, under a new standard of obviousness recently established by the Supreme Court in KSR vs. Teleflex. Microsoft said:

KSR calls into question the very presumption of validity, since it demonstrates that the PTO itself applied the wrong obviousness test to the patents-in-suit. Had the PTO applied the KSR test, the patents-in-suit may well not have issued. While 35 U.S.C. 282 does establish a presumption of validity, it does not mandate the "clear and convincing" burden of proof. This burden of proof could and should be altered by the courts because of KSR. See KSR, slip op. at 22-23 ("We need not reach the question whether the failure to disclose Asano during the prosecution of Engelgau voids the presumption of validity given to issued patents, for claim 4 is obvious despite the presumption. We nevertheless think it appropriate to note that the rationale underlying the presumption--that the PTO, in its expertise, has approved the claims--seems much diminished here."). [Note 2, p. 10, emphasis added.]

So, given Microsoft's anti-patent assertion in this case where it found itself on the wrong side of someone's patents, it would seem hard for them to ask us to presume that these 200+ patents of their own, issued well before KSR vs. Teleflex, are valid over the prior art that the Linux world will undoubtedly find in abundance once Microsoft finally has to reveal their claims. That is, if it ever actually tries to enforce them rather than blabbing away at its current "my dad can beat up your dad" playground level of discourse.

Obligatory disclaimer: I am a registered patent agent and an independent inventor, but not a lawyer. I don't provide legal advice or services to anyone regarding issued patents. And this wouldn't be legal advice even if I did.

Re:M$ doesn't *need* to sue...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft isn't trying to scare open source developers. They're trying to scare potential customers.

Re:Somebody call down below

[dvice_null]

Perhaps Microsoft is just trying to get our attention away from the Vista sale numbers with these "news". If people would see how badly the Vista is really selling, they probably wouldn't buy it, and that would hurt Microsoft a lot more than this patent war hurts when Microsoft loses.

Similar to RIAA

[alucinor]

Doesn't Microsoft wanting to collect royalties from Linux vendors strangely mirror how the RIAA also wants royalties from all these other sources? Both are quite similar, strangleholds on the traditional distribution channels, aka robber barons, who strike out at any alternate form of distribution. Both groups are making gobs of cash, but they're also dependent on that ridiculously huge cash flow to prove sustainability of their models. MS makes insanely huge profits, but if they started to dip, investors would question whether their model was not just a flash in the pan, though a big one, nonetheless. MS's moolas don't neccessarily translate directly into success: it doesn't scale with man-hours cranking out great code, and it doesn't mean the price reflects their product's real value (how many times over have we payed for the same millions of the lines of Windows code?), just that they're really the only option to run Win32 applications.

Re:This is so infuriating.

[Aladrin]

That's okay, because we don't even have 'won't sue'. They've only ever said that their current plan is not to sue immediately. They've never said the plan isn't to sue later, and they've never said their plans will never change. They could decide right this instant to sue, and they haven't lied. (About this, at least.)

We all (slashdotters) know this is FUD. The problem is that not everyone is as sensible. Most of the world feels the need to be extremely cautious, and this FUD will work. Even if they are damned sure they can get through this without issue, if it's more certain they can do so by dropping FOSS from their systems, a lot will do it. Oh, it'll be a few at first, here and there... And then more follow until there's an avalanche. MS knows this. They're just waiting for that. If they have to start a lawsuit to do it, they will... But if they can do it for free, with a baseless threat, that's much cheaper and easier.

hmmm,

[MrCopilot]

immediate
1. occurring or accomplished without delay; instant: an immediate reply.
2. following or preceding without a lapse of time: the immediate future.
3. having no object or space intervening; nearest or next: in the immediate vicinity.
4. of or pertaining to the present time or moment: our immediate plans.
5. without intervening medium or agent; direct: an immediate cause.
6. having a direct bearing: immediate consideration.
7. very close in relationship: my immediate family.
8. Philosophy. directly intuited.

Couldn't they just used the words "Microsoft has said it has no plans to sue after alleging patent infringements by open-source vendors."

How about you guys just license these specific patents to OIN, http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051110-5553 .html , Oh I remember its that whole sharing thing Bill never understood. I personally lay the blame with his grandmother. http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2000/pulpit_200 01123_000672.html

See also Triumph of the Nerds:
Vern Raburn President, The Paul Allen Group I ended up spending Memorial Day Weekend with him out at his grandmother's house on Hood Canal. She turned everything in to a game. It was a very very very competitive environment, and if you spent the weekend there, you were part of the competition, and it didn't matter whether it was hearts or pickleball or swimming to the dock. And you know and there was always a reward for winning and there was always a penalty for losing.

Seriously, have your lawyer send M$ a letter....

[Anonymous Coward]

Send it certified mail, return receipt.

In that letter, let M$ know that you are an Open Source developer, and need to know exactly what patents M$ thinks your code infringes, so you can fix any problems. Of course, you do need to specify what you work on, so you can be specific, and demonstrate an actual need to know that information.

Now, if M$ does not or will not tell you what specific patents you may be infringing, they can no longer sue you. Well, they can sue you. But you've got a perfect defense: you tried to work out the problem.

Oh, yeah, make it an open letter, with full-page ads in the WSJ and NY Times. It'll cost some money, but it will really gut this M$ FUD campaign like a dead mackerel.

One hopes Linus and the FSF plan on doing just that...

The threat is worse than the suit

[The Monster]

The threat of a suit at some unspecified time in the future is a classic FUD tactic, crafted to stimulate the Herd Mentality Nexus in a PHB's brain. (This is the source of the "Nobody ever got fired for buying MS." maxim.) They then contact the guys in Legal, who either don't know Jack Schidt about patent law, in which case they advise steering clear of the minefield, or know it well enough to realize that patents are a fustercluck, in which case they advise steering clear of the minefield.

An actual suit could result in MS having some or all those patents thrown out, at which point they are no longer able to affect a PHB-HMN.

Re:M$ doesn't *need* to sue...

[stigin]

You forgot:

5. Profit!

Glaring mistake!

[SQLz]

"Microsoft has spent time and money accumulating patents. Maybe it has started using that armory to move corporate customers to open-source software that Microsoft approves of."
Should read:
"Microsoft spent time and money accumulating Linux distributions, installing them, and stealing their ideas to accumulate patents. Now it wants to pick up where SCO left off and continue to spread FUD about linux."

Re:Somebody call down below

[RLiegh]

>N+5 - MS buys Hell from the the Devil and unleashes Microsoft® Hell on Earth® Ultimate Edition.
  They jumped the gun then. They released windows ME several years ago.

"No immediate plans to sue"

[DragonWriter]

Sounds like it may be an attempt to weaken the grounds (reasonable apprehension of suit) for supposed "violators" to file for a declaratory judgement, while keeping the "we could sue somebody someday" FUD alive to scare enterprises away from Linux.

Re:itsatrap!

[Lemmeoutada Collecti]

Bravely brave mr Balmer bravely ran away, away; bravely ran away. When OSS reared it's grinning head, he boldly turned his chair and fled.

Patents

[SnarfQuest]

Why can't someone scan through the MicroSoft patents, and look for obvious, prior art, etc. type of things. Then send a note to the patent office reporting their findings. Being helpful government officials, I'm sure they will handle things properly.

Once these patents are gone, we can then ask Microsoft to revise their count, so that we can see how much work is necessary for the next round of patent reversions.

I am not a patent lawyer, but shouldn't there be some simple way to tell the patent office that they aren't doing their job of vetting patents properly? Shouldn't MicroSoft be slapped properly for submitting so many invalid patents?

Re:Microsoft does not "approve" of Novell Suse Lin

[Locutus]

Don't know about NTerprise but Citrix didn't go out of business. The market thought they were dead(1996?) when Microsoft threatened to kill them by building their own thin client system into the next version of MS Windows( NT v4 ). I made a nice profit off that since it hammered Citrix stock and made it a cheap buy. For some reason, investors thought Microsoft could actually build a MetaFrame class software system in just a few months and pre-load it into Windows NT. I knew better and made a nice profit off that, but that's another story. Back to Citrix. Citrix MetaFrame thin client required access to the underlying OS and so Citrix needed to license parts Win32 from Microsoft. Remember that 1996 was around the time of the thin client hype so you can see that Microsoft would become quite 'aware' of something which might promote the use of thin clients and could be a threat to MS Windows. Also, WinFrame clients were multi-platform and Citrix was doing quite well with its MetaFrame product. Microsoft wanted to purchase MetaFrame but Citrix wouldn't cave to Microsofts lowball numbers and threatened publicly to build their own system and ship it with WindowsNT. I would imagine that the Windows source code licensing fees were also brought up and used to threaten Citrix. But, eventually, Microsoft and Citrix came an 'agreement'. Microsoft would get MetaFrame source code to include in Windows( renamed MS Windows Terminal Server ) under license for 3 or 5 years and after which time, Microsoft would own the product and source code. You know, the same kind of deal which Microsoft SQL Server from 'partner' Sybase( Sybase SQL Server ).

I don't know what makes MetaFrame better than Microsoft Terminal Server but something keeps businesses buying and using it. My guess is that the people at Citrix know what they are doing since they originally created the market back in the OS/2 days while Microsoft is primarily a marketing company directing developers based on threats and not "innovation". Ie, they're pretty bad at leading and improving software for customers and better at producing software which isolates technology to their Windows platform. IMO.

I found this article on the Microsoft vs Citrix history. It's pretty long and I've only started to read it so hopefully, my recollection is close to what the article says happened:
http://noncitrix.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/citrix-m icrosoft-crisis-1997-usa-today-article/

LoB

Related Link

[fatalfury]

Groklaw has an interesting writeup about this situation, with insightful quotations from Eben Moglen on the Microsoft/Novell agreement. Here's a brief excerpt:

The business model of threatening to sue people works if the people are 12-year-olds. It does not work real well if they are the pillars of finance capitalism. So as a party engaged in annual "be very afraid" tours, you're going to start to get pushback by enterprise customers who say, "That's *us* you're threatening."

Now what if you could reduce their sense of being the people who are made afraid? What if you could find a way to give them quiet and peace -- and make a little money on the side -- so that the only people who are left quaking when you did your annual "Be Very Afraid" tour were the developers themselves? Now you would have given yourself a major ecological boost in swinging your patents around and threatening to hurt people.

Deals for patent safety create the possibility of that risk to my clients, the development community. If enterprise thinks that it can go and buy the software my clients make from some party who gives them peace from the adversary in return for purchasing a license from them, then enterprises may think they have made a separate peace, and if they open the business section one morning and it says "Adversary Makes Trouble for Free Software", they can think, "Not my problem. I bought the such-and-such distribution, and I'm OK."

This process of attempting to segregate the enterprise customers, whose insistence on their rights will stop the threatening, from the developers, who are at the end the real object of the threat, is what is wrong with the deals.

sigh

[pak9rabid]

I'd like to see a provision added to patent law that would effectively make patents similar to trademarks in that if a company chooses not to defend thier patent in court, then they lose their rights to their patent. This would prevent companies like Microsoft from pulling shit like this.... Then again, a class action lawsuit brought forth by open source companies against Microsoft would also be a nice thing to see as well.

OSS, sue Microsoft for patent infringement

[0p7imu5_P2im3]

No, not for slander. We (OSS) should sue Microshaft for patent infringement.

There are plenty more OSS patents that undoubtedly are infringed by Microsoft. And if the entire OSS patent holding community (IBM, Sun, FSF, GNU, Redhat, etc.) sue Microsoft with all their patents, Microsoft can't hope to meet them on a cross-licensing deal, unless that deal includes a ceasing of patent hostilities against OSS users. Since they won't do that (and here's where most those companies would back out), it would go all the way to the Supreme Court, which would hopefully throw out software patents since algorithms (mathematical processing) cannot be patented according to US Patent Law.

See, Microshaft, and other software companies who support the existence of software patents, game the system by defining software as an end product that is patentable because it includes the hardware on which it runs (a system and method). This is, in fact, not acceptable, because, regardless of the fact that a computer is doing the processing at an accelerated rate, a human could do that same processing, thus it is a mathematical algorithm and not an end product.

This is why most companies dislike software patents, because software patents are a dishonest end run around patent law that was legislated specifically to prevent patents like this. Most only participate because the few that like software patents will take over the industry if they don't.