Slashdot Mirror
Open Invention Network Calls Out Microsoft
Stony Stevenson writes with news that the head of the Open Invention Network has summarily dismissed Microsoft's claims that Linux violates a number of its patents. Calling the move 'clear FUD', Jerry Rosenthal calls them out by asking for Microsoft to disclose the patents they are worried about. His argument is that if the patents are something to be proud of, if the software giant feels they're sure to succeed in court, there's no need for behind-the-hand namecalling. "Rosenthal believes that, if there are grounds for patent infringement, there would either be easy workarounds or the open source community would find 'prior art' which would invalidate the patent. OIN buys patents on the open market and makes them available to companies royalty free, so long as those companies pledge never to use their own patents to attack open source code.The organisation was set up by IBM, NEC, Novell, Philips, Red Hat and Sony and has a war chest of millions of dollars."
from their site: In order to continue this rapid pace of innovation, a refined model of intellectual property management has been established. Open Invention NetworkSM is an intellectual property company that was formed to promote the Linux system by using patents to create a collaborative ecosystem. The more the Linux community stay away from OIN, the better. The word Open is abused day by day, it seems a complete rewrite of the dictionary is needed.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
You know what, I don't think Microsoft knows which patents Linux is violating. There was a study done a few years ago, which was reported here on Slashdot, that said Linux may be violating a number of patents, but it didn't disclose any of them. I'll bet you anything Ballmer read that and thought, "Sweet! We've won!" Then at a certain PR event, he felt so excited about it he couldn't hold it in. He had to tell the world about this awesome study he'd heard about. Just like a little kid.
And that study may or may not be accurate, but Microsoft has no idea. They haven't gone through the code, it's just a bunch of hot air. Hope this doesn't stir up the water and get them looking.
Qxe4
...it wants its stories back. :P
I thought Microsoft had already shut up about this for now?
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
This is like the crippled kid down the street calling out the New York Yankees. What's the deal? Does OIN need donations, so they decided to get themselves in the news?
Let's see, hundreds of visible industry columnists, analysts, and others call out Microsoft on their patent slander.
One more voice, this of an open (and therefore enemy) patent organization calls out the FUD.
Didn't matter then, doesn't matter now. Microsoft won't budge from their desire to continue to illegally dominate the marketplace, just as they have done for a dozen years.
I'd like to say it might make a difference, and it will to some-- but not Microsoft. People don't get that they believe that they're autonomous and above the law, fighting each thing until the very most bitter end. And what's going to change now?
Sadly, nothing. And they'll get worse after Craig Mundie becomes entrenched.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
"Intellectual property" is a misleading portmanteau of completely separate branches of law: trademarks, copyrights and patents. But the OIN despite the badly worded mission statement concentrates on patents. Specifically its a defensive patent pool (with contributions from Red Hat, Sun, Novell, IBM and others) which can be licensed by any company agreeing not to use its own patents in aggressive lawsuits against pool members.
Currently the three largest licensess are Google, Barracuda and Sun.
David Wheeler has a good overview here
Given the current lamentable state of the patent system the OIN is probably the only way in which some sanity can be established. It must be awkward to be Novell right now having endorsed the OIN on one hand, and also endorsed the existence of Microsoft's Snuffleupagus Patents.
If I'm Microsoft and I think I have patents that Linux infringes upon, why would I want to specify which ones? I would keep mentioning them to try and scare corporations away from using Linux. If that does not work to my satisfaction and Linux does someday become an actual threat, I can sue then and claim damages for all the time that Linux was being used and was infringing. If I tell now which patents I think are being infringed, then both of my options might be less effective.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I'm thinking about how to make a funny and clever comment about the two chicks in the picture in the article. They appear to stand on snow, which clearly is a reference to Tux, and this is especially true for the blond one in the black dress. What is this rope pulling anyway? What are they fighting over? If one wins, all they have is the rope to slap the other one. The rest is nothing but thin air.
If this picture is meant to illustrate the fight between Linux and Microsoft, I want to be in the middle! Yeah!
First of all IANAL.
What if someone using linux would sue back MS for disgrace?
MS should either
1. tell what they think you are infringing (in this case find prior art)
2. declare that you are not infringing
Jerry Rosenthal requests that Microsoft name the patents that are being infringed by open source. Of course, to avoid charges of hypocracy, Rosenthal is going to point to the Microsoft applications which infringe specific OIN patents. . .
Shutting up means PHBs get to vaguely remember something about it, in an almost-subconscious way, that makes them feel that much more uncomfortable with the idea of Linux and open source.
We want them to admit that they were lying, publicly.
That, or if there really are patent claims, show us what they are.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
What's the deal? Does OIN need donations, so they decided to get themselves in the news?
I do not know. I have a major conflict about one aspect. It's like trying to create levitation by buttering the back of a cat and throwing it off the balcony. It can never land because cats always land feet first/buttered side down. With that in mind, the problem is SONY... Evil rootkit drm RIAA member/good supports open source anti-litigation.. I think my head is going to explode. I think I just figured it out.. SONY entered politics. That explains the two faces.
The truth shall set you free!
Because deep down everyone knows that linux distros (not linux itself, necessarily) violate patents en masse, just like most software does.
You see companies like Microsoft, Apple, Sony, IBM, getting sued all the time for patent infringement and/or making patent deals with each other and/or paying appropriate licensing fees to license other's patents. Are you really so naive as to believe that Red Hat violates NO patents? Come on now.
As an example, VideoLan admits that their VLC player runs afoul of mpegla patents, but says that since they are "free" and "open source" that it's up to the user to pay mpegla's patent fees, knowing full well that users aren't going to bother, and in fact, saying to MPEGLA, "You want your fees? Then sue our users, not us".
http://wiki.videolan.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_about_personal.2Fcommercial_usage.3F
It's a game that many OSS devs like to play: "I'm 'open source' so I can violate patents at will!!"
But big companies like Red Hat *can* pay the necessary patent fees, and they shouldn't be getting a free ride. They're one of the big boys, so let the act like it and license the patents in question by paying the fees or making licensing deals or whatever. Why should other companies like MS, Apple, Sony, Panasonic, Oracle, etc, have to pay patent fees and make licensing deals, but not Red Hat and other big-name linux distros?
To answer your question again, Red Hat and the like don't want to start a suit that could end up with an official declaration that they *are* violating lots of Microsoft patents, and would be liable to pay up for the entire time that they've been violating said patents. And that would open the flood gates, because while Red Hat might be violating 200 (or whatever) Microsoft patents, you can be sure they are violating hundreds more patents by others, and those others will come a-knocking.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)
".....The organisation was set up by IBM, NEC, Novell, Philips, Red Hat and Sony ...."
The list of organizations reminds me of this pic: http://www.siliconhell.com/Images/Mad%20Cat/images/humour/spy.jpg
[alk]
Care to elaborate? I've never had any real problems with it, and now prefer it to the old system.
I think I know why Microsoft can't show their hand even it the 200 patent violations are 100% true.
Often in a patent litigation case, there is an immediate countersuit by the opposing IP property owner as often there is many shared technologies in a complex project. The more complex a project is, the more likely someone else's patents have been inadvertently used in the project. In this case, MS code would be laid bare like Linux was in the SCO case. MS can't have the source code on the table for inspection. They know they are in possession of much prior art and many other patents, much of which they have no cross IP deals for. Closed source hides much of this behind the scenes. Because Microsoft has to keep it this way, they can't risk the counter suit. The SCO was a front for the attack Microsoft is unable to do in the open.
Microsoft would not survive the countersuit without severe damage.
This article is simply calling them on their veiled threats to put up or shut up. You may have the patents, but since you are not going to do anything about them, shut up already.
The only time to watch out for Microsoft is when Linux overtakes Windows and Open Office overtakes Microsoft Office. In other words, when they have nothing left and need a Hail-Mary play like SCO.
Remember the big deal with a trash can in Windows? MS knows it is not ready to scrap Windows and start from scratch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_v._Microsoft
Even tabbed browsing in IE7 is at risk if they move on this.
The truth shall set you free!
...but I do read Groklaw.
At what point does Microsoft's non-action on what they claim is an infrigement of their patents grounds for estoppel of a future suit?
As I understand estoppel, if someone relies on someone else's behavior to their detriment, with the other party's knowledge, and the second party makes no effort to asset their rights, they can't claim those rights down the line as a "gotcha!".
In this case, Microsoft claims that they have knowledge that their patents are infringed. They can either take action or not take action. If they don't take action, and other entities (linux developers, linux users, resellers, etc.) rely on Microsoft's inaction to believe Microsoft will not assert it's patents, doesn't this at some point constitute Microsoft being estopped from pursuing patent infringement claims? They can hardly argue they don't know, given their public statements and the availability of Linux source code.
In other words, don't they have a duty to "put up or shut up" here, legally?
Microsoft recently patented the technology of sudo, which has been in *nix for over 30 years. Neglecting the issue of prior art (as did the USPTO in issuing the patent) isn't it reasonable to assume that sudo is one of the 200 patents M$ is claiming Linux violates?
The original developers of Unix should have anticipated that over a quarter century later M$ would have patented their technology and should have used a workaround instead to avoid infringing the future patent.
Shame! Shame!
That not unlike The SCO Group, we're going to need to ask this of Microsoft over and over and over before we might see an answer. But then again, SCO hasn't shown any code to support their allegations at any time in the last 4 years; what makes anyone think that MS will reveal their patents?
We're all fairly certain which of the two is riding rectally impaled on the other's forearm.
Remember when Microsoft was the first word that came to peoples' minds when "tech innovation" was mentioned? (It was never true, but that was the perception.) Who would have believed that this once-revered company could slide down to the level of SCO with its own sleazy scam to intimidate by claiming mystery "patent infringement" that it refuses to name? The giant has declared itself just another desperate pipsqueak. The dustbin of history awaits them.
So, not having looked at these patents and not knowing which ones are easily invalidated by prior art, I should just blindly start throwing money at the problem to make it go away?
Great strategy.
deep down everyone knows that linux distros (not linux itself, necessarily) violate patents en masse
What a bogus, unsupported allegation. Either cite a violation or clam up. Oh! wait, here's one:
As an example, VideoLan admits that their VLC player runs afoul of mpegla patents
VLC is not packaged by either the Fedora Project, or by Red Hat, with the codecs which may/may not be infringing. Looks like your "deep down truths" are not so truthful.
But big companies like Red Hat *can* pay the necessary patent fees, and they shouldn't be getting a free ride.
Red Hat does not infringe any patents. So it's not getting any free ride. Furthermore it has to waste resources on legal counsel instead of coders in order to help in the creation, defense and maintenance of the Open Invention Network. (The legal counsel are excellent and do a good job. Mark Webbink especially seems like a top-notch guy).
Anyway, you're full of it. You can't even cite ONE, not ONE actual instance of patent infringement and neither can Microsoft because it doesn't exist.
To answer your question again, Red Hat and the like don't want to start a suit that could end up with an official declaration that they *are* violating lots of Microsoft patents, and would be liable to pay up for the entire time that they've been violating said patents. And that would open the flood gates, because while Red Hat might be violating 200 (or whatever) Microsoft patents, you can be sure they are violating hundreds more patents by others, and those others will come a-knocking.
:D
Then again, Neither does Microsoft. They are freaked by the idea that there isn't a company to purchase and finally kill the Penguin. They are freaked by the idea that their 2 billion patents might not be sufficiently strong enough to finally kill their competition.
If they thought they had a case it would be in court right now... And no, their lacky (SCO) doesn't count
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
Unfortunately, I think you have a point, though you might not have the details accurate.
/.'ers would say that Microsoft gives up the ability to sue: although patents are not trademarks, we reasonably expect the court to frown on Microsoft springing out from behind the bushes and saying, "Gimme all that money you owed me from violating these patents in the past 5 years!"
The prevailing wisdom on Slashdot has so far been: "Linux (software in Linux distros) doesn't violate any MS patents, because Ballmer doesn't know what he's talking about. If Microsoft knew of patents, why wouldn't they sue? If we ask Microsoft what patents, and they don't tell us, then even if they do hold violated patents, they can't sue us later on." There are a few flaws in this.
I agree with parent poster that if I were Microsoft, I would not name the patents. Some
However, here's the important thing: to take advantage of their patents, Microsoft does not need to sue.
Just as Ballmer mumbling about patents is entirely a PR stunt, any finding that Linux (distros) violates a MS patent will be used for a PR stunt. So MS does not need to sue. Rather, for the time being, MS continues to mumble about "Linux violates patents." Linux (composed of the aggregate consciousness of the Slashdot mass) says, "No I don't! No I don't! Nyaah nyaah, you can't name any patents! Ballmer is a poopiehead!" Microsoft ignores this as an adult would ignore a small child that keeps saying, "Show me the patent!" until finally, Microsoft says, "Alright, fine, here's a patent you violate."
They only have to show one. It would look pretty bad to corporates if Linux then says, "Okay, well, fine. But what about the other 199?" Maybe MS eventually shows another one, and then Linux says, "Oh yeah? What about the other 198?" This gets old pretty fast, and corporations are going to be scared away from using Linux.
One of the posters said that, if MS doesn't tell us which patents when we ask nicely, they can't sue for past damages, but they can sue for forward damages. Can you imagine the havoc this can still wreak despite no past damages? Some ingrained system is distributed with Linux, and then a few years after some major corporations have settled on using it, Microsoft jumps out and says, "Okay, fine, you don't have to pay retroactively since you didn't know. But from now on, pay us $10k per computer." Let's say this is some networking thing, like something in the Aegypten / Kerberos / OogaBoogaKrypto system, where you'd have to replace the entire infrastructure rather than just individual users' systems.
The companies either have to reestablish their infrastructure, or pay through the nose; if the latter case, MS might say, "Hey, we'll give you a discount if you switch over to Windows," or some such. In any case, Microsoft can tell the corporate world, "We told you so! See what happens when you play with IP thieves like Linux?"
The thing to remember is, Microsoft succeeds because they succeed in the public relations aspect, not because of a technological success. Microsoft is not a technology company; it is a marketing company. Once you grasp this, you will see that Microsoft's position is stronger than you (the generic Slashdotter) think, and Linux's position is weaker. Because this game is really being played in a different arena than what you think.
I'm still not giving up hope, but you need to see this from the PR standpoint.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Yep... I see no reason this organiZation could possibly have an axe to grind against MS, or wish to "summarily dismiss" their claim (BTW, when did they become a court of law?). It's not like these guys stand to benefit by weakening MS.
All they need to do is get Sun and Netscape to sign on, and it will sound just like the "browser wars" dream team! They're getting the band back together!
BTW, I completely agree with your comment on the term "Open" being used incorrectly. The other day some asshat was trying to claim Open Source meant something other than allowing people to view the source code... this deluded kid was stating Open Source implied some kind licensing agreement, or else it wasn't Open Source. Perhaps he needs to look up "Free and Open Source Software" (FOSS) in the dictionary. Free advice, kids: words have meaning, and are used for a reason... not just to make yourself sound cool. If you believe the latter, you grow up sounding like some ignorant loser, just like GWB.
Not only that, but the original study was a statistical analysis. :-)
Given the number of lines of code in the kernel and assuming the kernel has the same rate of patent infringement as other software, it was likely to infringe x patents.
Microsoft holds y% of software patents, so y% of x patents is how many Microsoft patents it is likely to infringe.
If the study was repeated now, the number of Microsoft patents would rise because Microsoft's proportion of software patents is growing.
Perhaps that's why Microsoft keeps increasing the number of their patents which Linux is infringing
I don't believe the analysis discriminated between operating systems and various types of application programs.
Most fundamental operating system research was conducted at universities (hence not patented), Unix specifications have been open for many years, and apparently there was only 1 patent in Unix in any case (suid), so the kernel has a much lower probablilty of infringing patents.
Some graphics and compression algorithms *were* patented, but many of those patents have expired (gif?), and much more commercial effort has gone into the application area, so applications have a higher probability of patent infringement.
> "Rosenthal believes that, if there are grounds for patent infringement, ...that the best (only?) way to invalidate those unidentified patents Linux is claimed to have violated is to find prior art in EVERY patent?
> there would either be easy workarounds or the open source community
> would find 'prior art' which would invalidate the patent.
How hard would doing that be?
the only reason that they made a deal with Novell is to make money off the people who wanted an enterprise Linux solution, so that MS can make money from Open Source.
I don't think the MS deal with Novell had anything to do with trying to make a profit off of Linux. MS could have easily made money off of Linux by selling a version of MS Office for Linux. If MS had created such a version 7 years ago I doubt Open Office would have gained as big, and getting bigger, a share of office suites. There was some demand for Office for Linux otherwise CodeWeavers never would of thought they could make a profit from creating CrossOver to run MS Office on Linux. OO may not of been developed either. Even at this late date MS could probably make money releasing MS Office for Linux, the longer they wait the lower the chances are though.
Should there be a Law?
The question is how bad will be their fall? Will it be like IBM and Apple, who emerged with new life and remade themselves? Or will it be like SGI or Commodore?
Unlike Commodore which died SGI has changed their focus. SGI now builds High Performance and supercomputers. Here's an article on CNN Money about SGI, Marking First 25 Years, SGI Highlights How Its Customers Have Changed the World.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If I'm Microsoft and I think I have patents that Linux infringes upon, why would I want to specify which ones?
Because somebody with the resources can sue Microsoft. If I had the money I could start a business selling products, Linux and Open Office, that MS says violates MS patents. I could then sue MS requesting they show what patents I am violating or pay damages for the libel and slander MS spreads.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It's so obvious why they said Linux violates Microsoft's patents. Vista was just launching and soon companies would seriously think about switching to Linux instead of buying vista.
So Steve comes out with his patent FUD to make sure his customers don't think about switching operating systems.
However, here's the important thing: to take advantage of their patents, Microsoft does not need to sue.
According to Doctrine of Latches Microsoft eventually has to enforce it's patent rights or it loses them.
Can you imagine the havoc this can still wreak despite no past damages? Some ingrained system is distributed with Linux, and then a few years after some major corporations have settled on using it, Microsoft jumps out and says, "Okay, fine, you don't have to pay retroactively since you didn't know. But from now on, pay us $10k per computer."
Even if MS were able to enforce legal patents and do this, they first have to name the patents being violated. Within days of naming those patents the offending code will be removed and new code added. So there won't be much if any disruption in the market. But let's say there is a big disruption, then some big businesses would be hiring big lawyers and lobbyists to pressure congress to make software patents illegal. Either way MS would loose.
FalconShould there be a Law?
about the only reason I think they made office for Mac OS was to get some slack from the monopoly law suits
MS had software for Macs before they ever came out with Windows. Up until the 1990s Apple's share of the market was big, not as big as Windows' share is now but it was big. In education the market share Apple had was about 50%. Back then Apple was smart about the educational market, they offered an educational discount of about 50%. But they lowered the discount in the '90s. It's barely 10% now. MS now uses the Mac market for testing. They'll try something new in the Mac version of software first and if it works they'll add it to the Windows version. If it fails MS doesn't lose anything.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Yeah, and the Amiga is still alive too, holding the torch of the Commodore generation.
The Amiga was my fav computer/OS. Commodore did almost nothing to market it unfortunately. And the thing is is the Amiga not only ran Workbench, the Amiga OS, but also was able to run both MS DOS and Windows 3.x as well as MacOS. Watching a then current Amiga and Mac running side by side years ago the Amiga ran Mac OS faster than the Mac did. I bought my first new PC right after Gateway bought the Amiga resources from Escom. Because of this and that I had heard Gateways were good I ordered one of their laptops, and I had specifically asked that the store pass up my comment that reason I bought the Gateway because they did buy the Amiga and that I would buy a new one when Gateway released the new Amiga. I was disappointed in both cases. Gateway did nothing with the Amiga, and the laptop I got was bad. About 1/2 year after I got it Gateway had to replace the hdd because it died, then a few days short of having it a year the motherboard had to be replaced.
I don't strictly blame Gateway for this as the same thing happened to the HP PC I got the replace it.
if Microsoft falls to the level of SGI, faces delisting from NASDAQ, and files for chapter 11 bankruptcy like SGI did
Uhm, I don't recall hearing SGI declared bankruptcy. I guess that's why they're focusing on supercomputers.
FalconShould there be a Law?