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.'"
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!
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
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.