Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer Suggests Linux Distros Will Soon Have to Pay Up
An anonymous reader writes "Via Groklaw comes comments from Microsoft's Steve Ballmer at a UK event, in which the company once again threatens Linux distributions that haven't signed up with their program. '"People who use Red Hat, at least with respect to our intellectual property, in a sense have an obligation to compensate us," Ballmer said last week ... Ballmer praised Novell at the UK event for valuing intellectual property, and suggested that open source vendors will be forced to strike similar deals with other patent holders. He predicted that firms like Eolas will soon come after open source vendors or users. Microsoft paid $521m to settle a patent claim by Eolas in August.'"
It seems that Microsoft is becoming more and more like a little kid every day. I just don't understand how in any normal world they can stay in business. All they do is spit out the same FUD every chance they get. It's like the boy who called wolf.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
I couldn't tell from the article, but which intellectual property is MS saying open source solutions are infringing on?
Not just from the article. They refuse to say, have been asked to spell it out, and continue to threaten without making any specific claim. After a while you just learn to tune them out.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
They keep throwing Novell's name around. Novell has publicly denounced MS' claims about this. http://en.opensuse.org/FAQ:Novell-MS
They refuse to say, have been asked to spell it out, and continue to threaten without making any specific claim.
Which is exactly why they are, by now, UNENFORCEABLE.
The IP laws require that when an IP owner notices an infringement they have an obligation to notify the infringer of the exact nature of the infringement in order to allow them to mitigate the damages by removing the infringement. Failure to do that will render any subsequent claims for damage moot.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
As soon as Microsoft pay's up to Xerox for windows. BSD for the Tcp/IP stack. Berkley for nslookup.exe.
and so on and so on. MOST of microsofts products are based on others Intellectual property and violates at least 60-80 patents somewhere.
Hey microsoft. as soo as you are clean I'll come clean. No, I dont consider clean your legal wiggling bullcrap. 100% legit.
as soon as they pay up
Actually, that would be trademarks.
(I was only an egg, but then I cracked)
So why don`t they lobby the US government to get rid of software patents ? Why do they lobby in Europe and other places to try and get software patents accepted there ?
The obvious answer is that they benefit more from using their patents to shut down competition than they lose from paying the odd multimillion dollar fine.
Make it 9000,000,001.
The non-presumptive laches defense applies specifically to this circumstance.
Although a presumption of laches arises where the patentee brings suit more than six years after gaining actual or constructive knowledge of defendant's infringing activities, the defense of laches is not defined by any specific period of time. Any period of time may be found to amount to unreasonable delay, depending on the facts present, although shorter delays are less likely to trigger the defense. http://www.converium.com/2103.aspBecause the Open Invention Network and others have repeatedly requested that Microsoft identity the infringing code, the laches defence becomes non-presumptive much earlier.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
MOD PARENT UP! If you're not understanding what he's saying, due to all the legalese, it's this:
If Microsoft fails to sue a patent infringer, even though they have demonstrated that they know the infringement exists, then tries to file suit later, the doctrine of laches kicks in -- Microsoft failed to mitigate their own damages by bringing a suit as early as possible in order to get the infringer to stop. What this means is that, with the laches defense, Microsoft would lose standing to sue -- because if they were getting damaged by the 'patent infringers', they should have sued in a timely fashion.
The bottom line is this: Microsoft's claims of patent infringement are spurious, slanderous, and, since they invoked the name of Red Hat, a violation of the Lanham Act.
So here's what I say: after the SCO case gets dismissed, Red Hat, your next target should be Microsoft.
My blog
At the moment, the Linux camp is milling around saying, "Patents, what patents? Show us the patents!" and it can be pretty well "documented" with press releases and blogs. Seems to me that it would be pretty darned hard to show any sort of evil intent.
This just reminds me of the whole SCO case (which was meant to be a front for Microsoft anyhow). We will threaten you without any evidence and hope that you are too scared to stand on your own. Does this not sound like Mafia tactics? Shouldn't this be illegal, if it isn't already?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
However Linus has stated publicaly and in emails to developers that they should not seek out patent filings due to tripple damages of willful infringement. THis can be used to show Linus had willful intent to steal the ideas of Microsoft and of course their lawyers will say the fact that he said this after SCO sued for patent infringement showed foreseeable harm since they were all aware they could be sued again. sigh
It will not be good for Linus in court.
Also free developers can not afford attorneys and an injuction to halt linux development could also be a real possibility. THe good news is IBM and Redhat could file a friend of the court and let linus continue on the kernel tree on of their serves since they have the resources to fight MS.
However many corporations have anti gnu and linux policies in their IT deparments. Several banks already ban it thanks to SCO and something like this from MS will scare many CIO's to steer clear of it to avoid getting fired in case they open their employers to liability. "Just pick windows, its the safe bet!"
What shocks me is that this is legal.
http://saveie6.com/
For those who are wondering what the lanham act is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act gives some explanation without too much legalese.
The law of slander in the UK is such that you can sue someone who makes statements that cause harm to you or your company. While truth remains a defense against slander, in the UK the onus of proof is on the person who made the statements.
For example, if I said in a public forum in the UK "Your company conducts illegal acts" I could be sued for loss of reputation (which has a monetary value) unless I could prove what I said was true. The company suing me would not be required to prove that it did not conduct illegal acts - the fact that I couldn't prove it did would be considered damning enough.
Slander (and libel) have 'fair comment' clauses, but a particular allegation such as IP infringement would not exercise them.
(Nope, not a lawyer, but like the rest of the internet, I play one on Slashdot)
-- Sorry, I can't think of anything funny to say here.
Couldn't Linux companies sue MS claiming that Balmer's statements are harming their business, especially in light of the fact that MS refuses to identify these patents?
In a lot of jurisdictions there's a civil claim for "tortious interference with business relationships", which I think this may fall under.
Interestingly, and following SCO's proven tactics in the matter, he stubbornly refuses to say *what* patents are allegedly violated.
Of course Mr. Ballmer admits that he doesn't expect to see a huge revenue stream from licensing agreements (he named the Novell agreement), but that isn't the point you see.
The point is that "free as in speech" and "free as in beer" are threatening Microsoft's business model. If only he could somehow get rid of the "free as in beer", and with it the "free as in speech", he would turn Linux into just another commercial offering. And that's something he knows how to compete with. By fair means or foul (just see the recent EU verdict against Microsoft and judge Jackson's findings of fact in the DOJ-Microsoft case a few years ago for what those "foul means" amount to).
It's also important to realise that no solution that consists of Linux simply dropping any code (assuming any Linux code were to be found to infringe on Microsoft's patents) can be acceptable to Mr. Ballmer.
With that in mind it's easy to understand why Mr. Ballmer really *cannot* list the patents he wishes to receive "just compensation" for. It's because he does not want to give Linux any opportunity to remove any offending code (assuming there is any). He does not want any compensation either.
He just wants to make Linux non-free because that's how he can get rid of it.
Perhaps patents should have to be actively protected, like trademarks, and if a company lets another company use their patent for too long uncontested it becomes public domain.
Patents have to be protected as it is. If a patent isn't protected, via Laches, Doctrine Of or Doctrine of Latches a patent owner can loose their patent rights if they don't enforce those rights.
FalconShould there be a Law?