Microsoft Too Busy To Name Linux Patents?

bob_dinosaur writes "According to The Register, Microsoft's Patent Attorney Jim Markwith told the Open Source Business Conference that the reason they hadn't named the supposedly infringing patents was that it would be 'administratively impossible to keep up' with the list. 'According to Ramji, the executive tasked with the difficult job of straddling Microsoft's growing support for open source in server and tools, and aggressive and unpredictable statements from management on patents, made a jaw dropping attempt to explain away the Forbes article. "The reason we disclosed that, is because there was a request for transparency following the Novell deal Iast November. This was a response to that transparency," Ramji said. It was at that point the OSBC audience erupted.'" That transparency apparently extends to multiple levels. ZDNet is reporting that Novell will share the details of its agreement with Microsoft sometime in the near future.

Comments

Re:Administratively impossible?

[Frosty Piss]

Try physically impossible. You can't list what isn't there.

Linux and other Open Source software projects almost unquestionably transgress patents owned both by Microsoft and others. This is not the real issue. The real question is, are these patents defensible? Or would they fall due to "prior art" or other well known / common patent flaws? And, if Microsoft and other patent holders revealed OSS patent transgression, would there be practical work arounds? Probably many of the patents would fail if challenged.

One reason Microsoft and other patent holders might not want to reveal the specific patents is that the OSS movement will challenge them rather than licene them, while many commercial groups will be inclined to do the opposite, license them and pay the patent holders a fee.

Re:Hwhat?

[frodo from middle ea]

What's wrong here, is that Microsoft thinks that IT bosses, are all PHBs and it would be very easy to spread FUD amongst them.

When I started as a developer 10 years ago, may be this was the case, my bosses then had absolutely no clue what programming was all about (I am not talking about a specific programming language, or paradigm, just programming or software engineering in general)).

These were the type of people, who felt the sand under their feet, slipping away every time there were concerns regarding the technology they were managing. And the reason was obvious, they DIDN'T KNOW about the technology they were managing.

But now it's a very very different world, people who were senior programmers then, are now managers, and as such are in much better shape to judge the technologies they work with.

So in retrospect, Microsoft may have had luck in these kind of FUD tactics, 10 years ago, but that won't work now. Sure there will be some, who will fold and pay up, but then most of the competent people in the industry that I know, are saying...."Hang on a minute,, there is something very fishy about these claims"

Open Letter to Jim Markwirth and Brad Smith:

[morgan_greywolf]

This announcement seems almost like a tailor-made response to my . But I'm not presumptuous enough to believe that Smith even *read* my e-mail to him or the posting on Slashdot, since the coward hasn't bothered to reply. But I'm going to pretend and treat it like one with an open reply

"Most people who are familiar with patents know it's not standard operating procedure to list the patents," Markwith said. "The response of that would be administratively impossible to keep up with."

Dear Messrs. Smith and Markwirth,

Right. It's not standard operating procedure to list the patents when you are claiming patent infringement in order to use it as a weapon. You declared war on the Free and Open Source Software Movements, you're the ones pointing the gun, so c'mon. It's time to put up or shut up. Sue the community, sue Red Hat, sue Linus, sue the Mozilla Foundation, the Free Software Foundation, and sue Sun. Sue IBM. Sue me! Maybe my little project violates your patents! Let's have it! SUE US!

Stop this cowardly spreading of FUD. I declare that the Emperor has no clothes. Take us to court. You know we'd sue you if you violated the GPL, so let's have it.

Or do you, as I said before, are you afraid? What is it? Fear that you'd have all of your patents thrown out of court? Or maybe you fear that the industry would turn against you? No, I think it's all those things, but most of all it's that your bluff would be called and you'd have to stop spreading FUD. You know you can do more to damage Linux's reputation by sullying its good name with lies and innuendo about patents that are either obviously invalid or non-existant.

We have a saying where I come from: "Don't let your mouth write any checks that your ass can't cash!"

Put up or shut up. Sue us!

That's going to be my answer to the BSA

[WhiteWolf666]

We're an entirely Linux/OS X shop here, however.

If MS/BSA ever decides to try an audit us, my response isn't going to be, "We don't use MS products, period."

My response is going to be, "It would be administratively impossible for us to list the software packages in use throughout our company."

Then, when they kick the doors in, and find not a spec of MS software, our lawyers will have a nice round of settlement discussions with their lawyers.