Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Vows To Stand Up To Patent Intimidation
mrcgran writes "Eweek is reporting on Red Hat's assurances that can continue to deploy Linux without fear of legal retribution from Microsoft. This, despite the increasingly vocal threats emanating from Redmond. 'In a scathing response to Ballmer's remarks, Red Hat's IP team said the reality is that the community development approach of free and open-source code represents a healthy development paradigm, which, when viewed from the perspective of pending lawsuits related to intellectual property, is at least as safe as proprietary software. "We are also aware of no patent lawsuit against Linux. Ever. Anywhere," the team said in a blog posting.'"
Finaly, someone found their lost balls (the same wusses that would not fight the decss fight), and is willing to put their might in. Redhat + IBM should be enough to keep the redmond assholes quite at bay while Linux kicks their buts out of a sizeable chunk of the serverspace, at the very least.
NO SIG
Thank you. I look forward to purchasing more from you in the future, and less from MicroSoft.
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Actually SCO vs. IBM involves copyrights, not patents. SCO accused IBM of wholesale copying of code.
That wasn't about patents, it was about alleged copyright infringement and IBM's alleged breach of contract.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Running on Red Hat Enterprise 4, i was damn happy about it. Im now more happy with what i use because Red Hat is showing much integrity.
Read radical news here
And even if brought to court - the case may be dismissed if the claims aren't good or if the situation is caused by unwillingness to reveal what the infringements are.
So in all - just call back to Redmond and ask about the details about the alleged infringements. Or write a letter.
On the other hand if everybody reading this sends a postcard to M$ HQ asking for specifics regarding the infringements they may be at least annoyed, but as long as the writing is sensible it's still legal. Just try to get a postcard with a penguin on for this! :-)
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
They promised to remove any patent infected software. It's not like they promised to pay everybody's legal fees or anything like that.
"We are also aware of no patent lawsuit against Linux. Ever. Anywhere,..."
.. "Oh, except for that one company that tried to sue Linux and got totally pwned. Didn't they go bankrupt a couple of weeks ago? Yeah, keep that in mind, bitches."
Anyone complaining about infrigements better make sure their own company's website isn't hosted on a Redhat server cuz it probably is lol. Stupid people and their Linux ignorance lol.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
"...increasingly vocal..." really? The world moves on. Nobody really cares.
"...a scathing response..." not really. This exact phrase was used to describe another Linux vendors response...
"What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
"Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Of course if I could think of it, they surely could too, only they actually know what they're doing;-)
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Actually SCO vs. IBM involves copyrights, not patents. SCO accused IBM of wholesale copying of code.
And so the score is:
Patent lawsuits: 0
Copyright lawsuits: 1 (and the litigious bastard is getting his ass handed to him)
Not bad.
All the have to do is make the PHB's think it's a possibility.That alone will,when mixed with the CYA mentality at most businesses keep Linux usage down.Which is the whole point.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
So I read Red Hat's statement that they've never been heard of a lawsuit against Linux. Did that also include companies using open source software? The company I work for is being sued as we speak for using apache/tomcat for our company website. Apparently that 3-tier method of supplying a page is patented by some IP company. I forget their name. Either way, other major online companies like Amazon I think were hit with this same infringement and they've settled out of court. It's stuff like this that scares people away from using open source. No protection from IP violations.
Yes, you are. 'Nuff said.
I have read about this for a long time now and have been meaning to ask ...
Does this effect Europe? And more specifically the UK?
As far as I am aware Europe (and the UK) does not "do" software patents so even if MS is telling the truth about the Linux infringements are they even valid in Europe/UK?
So are they suing you for using Apache, saying that Apache violates their IP patent?
Or are they suing you for using Tomcat, saying that Tomcat violates their IP patent?
Or are they suing you for using Linux, saying that Linux violates their IP patent?
It doesn't sound like it from your summary. It sounds like they are suing you for using a 3-tier architecture, since they have a patent on the 3-tier architecture. Is that correct?
If so, couldn't they just as easily sue someone for implementing a 3-tier architecture with MS SQLServer and IIS?
Or am I missing something?
'Nuff said?
Not wishing to generalize the whole of /. here, but there seems to often be a certain vocal contingent who really dislike RedHat.
...) some of which is a pain to configure and install. But I've got nothing against them.
Why?
They've made huge contributions to Linux, and all of their custom system tools were released as Free (both kinds) when very few other commercial distros were doing the same. Now they're standing up to all this patent nonsense.
What is there to dislike about RedHat?
Personally, I'm not a particular fan of the distribution any more since they stopped including the old skool unix/X stuff (fvwm2, gv, xfig,
SJW n. One who posts facts.
This kind of thing doesn't work. It's been shown time and again. Microsoft's Steve Ballmer is becoming the laughing stock of the tech industry.
SCO is an example. There was some uncertainty before everything fell out. I don't think there is any uncertainty about patents or copyrights regarding Linux anymore. There is a lot of confidence in Linux now.
Microsoft needs to get off the litigation and on to innovation. Ballmer seems to not understand what this company attitude does to Microsoft's customer base and its reputation.
When I see comments like this I see that Microsoft needs a new CEO with a vision and not a Steve Ballmer with a litigation team. Just my perception. I think there are many others who share this view.
Fresh horses and more whiskey for my men.
But maybe we should set the RIAA and Microsoft up on a blind date. It could start by convincing a mass of people to form an addiction to a product that they never can actually own... And end with suing the poorest of that mass out of enough money to buy a small island with. After all, infringing on patents that haven't been specified and copyrights for 99 cent songs should entitle the IP owners to at least 2 million dollars each infringement.
In the UK you can't make groundless patent threats like this, if Red Hat want they could take Microsoft to court and force them to identify the patents that they claim to be violated.
See section 70 of the 1977 patent act (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patentsact1977.pdf) if you want to know the details.
Microsoft is in a very curious position right now. The SCO assault (which was to their benefit, whether or not they were behind it) has sputtered below the point of PR credibility. Linux is gaining ground slowly but steadily, particularly on the server side. The server side represents most of the "movable" machines as far as OS is concerned. Windows already has most of the world's desktops and so many users and businesses hooked into Office that they are all but impregnable in the near term as far as serious market share loss is concerned. (As Linux has discovered, it turns out the biggest and hardest barriers to acceptance are the re-training of users and the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality.) Oddly enough, this also makes showing growth difficult (Vista).
To compete against free software on the server side, there are some unique problems. Much more savvy "users" in the form of sysadmins who can and will learn new systems, stable and trusted software bases which provide both freedom to tweak and freedom from vendor lock in, and a very long history of Unix style systems proving themselves equal to server tasks. (Indeed, Solaris itself is now freely available, for those who are gun shy of Linux.) Licensing costs and concerns are impossible - Linux is free in many forms.
Hence the temptation to use patents. Patents are one of the few weapons that cannot be easily countered by an open source software movement, particularly if the patents have the effect of shutting open source software out of certain markets altogether. The lack of revenue to pay lawyers looms large here - in the US legal system that's a very dangerous position to occupy. But there are still drawbacks for Microsoft:
Much major open source work is not done in the US, but in places like the EU. Microsoft's position in the EU is weaker, and opening an offensive there would be more difficult. Politically it would also have ramifications, possibly serious ones.
If Microsoft DOES open a patent offensive against major open source projects, they run the risk of triggering Armageddon - a broad scale patent war that could leave the entire US software industry in ruins. There are defensive alliances behind open source who's potential in a legal contest must be weighed.
If they go TOO gung-ho, it could have the effect of helping to convince Congress to remove the software patent go-ahead.
In the short term, lawsuits against the free software key players least able to defend themselves would have a major harmful effect on the community (to say nothing of the individuals caught up in it.) However, potential long term effects are another story - Microsoft doesn't hold large legal clubs everywhere.
A lot of our manufacturing is now being done overseas, and many companies are outsourcing wherever they can. If all of a sudden the price of outsourcing was being compatible with non-Windows systems INSIDE the US (foreign governments may mandate avoiding dealing with someone like Microsoft, after all...), it would be very interesting indeed to see how that played out...
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
The fact that Microsoft have refused to say what the code is, shows intent to terrorize.
Someone call homeland security.
The open source principle and process is one of having the ability to fix and/or modify code.
Microsoft is not playing by those rules.
Open source doesn't play by Microsofts rules.
But it is Microsoft that is making a accusation against open source.
Open source is willing to fix the problem. Microsoft is not willing to allow that.
All in all, what would any reasonable court think of this?
Simply using the correct terms -- "software patents" and "extortion" -- is enough to repel these lame Microsoft threats.
By using the term "intellectual property", Steve Ballmer is saying Linux infringes Microsoft copyright, trademarks and trade secrets. Perhaps he should stick to throwing chairs instead of using big words he doesn't understand.
Exactly what IP/patents is Linux infringing on? They never have disclosed the details. I think this will only damage Microsoft's reputation in the eyes of the average PC user even more, besides Vista is doing a great job screwing Microshit!
I don't say "Intellectual Property", I specify what I mean (copyright, patent). I don't say "Open Source", I say "Free" or "Libre". I don't say "Linux", I say "GNU Linux".
Freedom is free.
No one is likely to sue "linux" since it has no deep pockets. Instead they can sue or threaten to sue companies that use linux or people who re-sell linux. So SCO suing IBM does not apply because they were suing IBM for contributing what they alledge was SCO owned code to Linux. Linux itself was not sued. But SCO also threatened major corporations that were using Linux without an SCO lic.
The latter is the one that matters. If companies can be sued for using linux then they are at risk.
The real question is does the same concept apply to Windows. Windows has be accused of and even lost lawsuits for infringing on other peoples code or patents (Stacker, Eolas, etc...) Indeed they are legendary for this. Now could someone sue a customer of MS or get an injunction against customers using MS software on the basis of the code contianing others IP. MS has said they will indemnify companies, but I doubt that covers lost revenues.
It is also true I beleive that Windows contains a fair amount of LGPL or BSD code inside it. That's legal under those lic. But what if someone, say SCO, were to say that the code in the LGLP lic was theirs? Then If it makes sense to sue users of Linux it would make sense to sue users of MS.
So if GNU is at risk of containing other people's IP then since MS uses GNU they are too.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Recently some software vendors told us that because recent changes in US legislation they must be very careful on what they promise about the upcoming software they showcase. To make it short they said that spreading unsubstantiated FUD or keeping customers from choosing competing products with blanket promises that later go unfulfilled has been made equivalent to market manipulation and is punished harshly.
Would this "beware! there be dragons..." attitude of Microsoft constitute a violation of said US law? Is cutting air supply with vague patent threats a punishable behaviour?
e
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Software patents have gone to far. I mean we should not even discuss it, it is absurd.
;).
Of course microsoft can't collect money for code they never wrote.
I don't believe that ideas should be patentable and if something is so obvious that you can infringe on it
unknowingly, that should automatically void the patent.
Besides I think software developers should have the final word when drafting laws about software patents.
No sane developer who actually writes code these days should see any benefit in the current american system
(not unless they actually DID code the very first fucking listbox or something
I am perfectly okay with normal copyright, some asshole shouldn't be able to rip my code, strip the copyright
and profit. But some vague idea I came up with, please help yourself.
Besides there is a reason why many devs like to hang out on IRC and in forums, we like to EXCHANGE ideas,
not guard them.
Like John Carmack once wrote on this site about sw patents:
"Yes, it is a legal tool that may help you against your competitors, but I'll have no part of it. Its basically mugging someone."
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=151312&cid=12701745
I'll have no part of it either and sincerely hope we won't get that shit here in Europe.
But we probably will, since its good for parasitic business type leeches, who wanna profit from shit they didn't made.
There is a list of 1,573 people who have decided to call Microsoft's bluff by signing a list offering to be the first ones to be sued by Microsoft for supposedly "infringing" Microsoft's 235 patents. Although I am a lawyer, I don't practice Intellectual Property law, and so I am not rendering a legal opinion on this area. But as a practical matter, I can tell you that whenever I sue someone, I first send them a letter demanding payment, and then if they don't pay in short order, I do sue them. I am too busy on a day-to-day basis bluffing people, and those who think that real lawyers with real claims bluff people, they are dead wrong. Some day, someone is going to call your bluff, and maybe even sue you for falsely claiming that you have a right against them, so I advise my clients to think carefully about claiming in public that they can sue someone if, in fact, they have no true claims.
In this particular case, mere common sense would tell most practicing attorneys that if Microsoft had valid claims, it would simply start rolling out the lawsuits and collecting money. Think of all the copies of OpenOffice.org and GNU Linux that are drifting around the world!!! If Microsoft had valid claims against those the users or their distros, dontcha think that they would file suit against a really solid test case, and then trot out that case for everyone else in the world to see? Of course they would.
Here is a link to page 13 of the list:
http://digitaltippingpoint.com/wiki/index.php?title=SMFM_list_page_13
So I am not buying Microsoft's questionable claims, and I have signed up for the list. Let's put an end to this questionable puffery! Microsoft, if you have a claim against me, sue me now, or shut up! You can serve me with a lawsuit here:
Christian J. Einfeldt
Law Offices of Christian J. Einfeldt
580 California Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104
In your complaint, Microsoft, you will want to specify which programs I am using. I am using openSUSE GNU Linux 10.2; Edgy Kubuntu; OpenOffice.org is my only office productivity suite, and so when you file suite against me, you might really want to stick a finger in my asking for an order barring me from using OpenOffice.org to write my reply briefs, because that is the tool I use for all my court briefs. I am also using Firefox, which you have heavily borrowed from, so please be sure to throw that in.
Oh, and I have installed about 100 copies of GNU Linux, OpenOffice.org and Firefox on various different computers for a public middle school in San Francisco, and I have also given out about 16 computers with those programs installed on them. So be sure to add a couple of causes of action for that, Brad Smith.
Hey, don't forget the fact that I started the "Sue Me First, Microsoft" list, where I very publicly questioned the veracity of your claims, so you would do well to add a couple of counts of defamation, since I am publicly calling into question both the veracity of your claims and your motivation for merely making a public fuss, without proving your claims.
But of course, I have nothing to worry about, because your claims probably are defeated by 1) obviousness; 2) prior art; and 3) limitations on patenting math. After all, if Microsoft could have patented 1 + 1 = 2, you would have done so, wouldn't you?
It would be like Luke (all grown up) and obi wan (all young) against darth maul together. you know who darth maul is. i didnt even extend the courtesy of identifying them with vader or palpy.
Read radical news here
"Dream on. It's only going to get worse from here."
Worse in rhetoric only. Threatening is MUCH better than suing:
flash movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YExl9ojclo
text: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_%E2%80%9CBe_very_afraid%E2%80%9D_tour
The case was over and the DoJ won. The idea that the DoJ is going to investigate MS forever is just wishfull thinking.
Besides the primary outcome of the case was that AOL, Sun, Real etc got their payday. It just turned out that the fate of the Netscape browser and the Java language on Windows really had little to do with the consumer.
The only significant issue was the agreements with OEMs and the remedy came to late to make much difference.
I agree that Ballmer is the worst thing to happen to Microsoft.
:)
But look at it this way. It means he's one of Linux's greatest assests.
Microsoft marketing strikes again.
Possibly RICO violations.
Problem is: you take msft to court, and msft will bleed you dry with legal expenses. Legal expenses are nothing to msft. Settlements are nothing to msft either.
Msft gets sued all of the time. Msft pays about $1 billion a year in settlements. But, when your taking in $40 billion a year, it's just a minor cost of doing business.
It is reasons like this that I dont regret learning about Linux. I say regret cause it felt like coolaid I was being asked to drink back then.
Long ago (win95ish) I had a college friend who hated MS and got me hooked on Slackware 3.x (which took us 3 attempts to install on my 200mHzish puter(both of us where mostly drunk)).
And now, I either use Linux and more recently Mac OS X.
So thank you Red Hat. I used you in 5.2-6.0.
My only fear really, is I will have to keep using my Wii gaming system or playing WoW on my mac. Damn I want games! Oh give me a Civ IV that isnt so ughish for macs!
Steve, fake or real, dont follow in MS's footsteps. Assholes arent loved. And I currently love my mac(s). For some reason, I dont need to say this about Linux as I should always, knock on wood, love it.
t appears that a company known as IP Innovation LLC is now filing suit against Red Hat and Novell, regarding a patent for "a User Interface with Multiple Workspaces for Sharing Display System Objects".
--10scjed IANAL,AFAIK
Acacia, a well-known patent troll, just filed suit against Novell and Red Hat claiming that Linux infringes their patents. See http://trolltracker.blogspot.com/2007/10/acacia-targets-linux-in-new-lawsuit.html.
We'll see how far Red Hat and Novell will go now that there is an actual patent suit in play, and more to come, probably.
I didn't know Sony opened their rootkit source. You'll have to forgive me for not reading on about the Open Invention Network, as their first entry in the member list left a bad taste in my mouth. Can't we trade them over to Microsoft's side? I'll even take Bill Hilf and Microsoft's Open Source division in place of Sony.If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
That's just the problem - the tech community. Those who understand it, don't manage it; those who manage it don't understand it. I wish there were some way around this, but I'm not going to manage it... I'd rather be writing code than anything managerial, how about you?
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071011205044141
"Acacia subsidiary IP Innovation LLC and fellow patent troll Technology Licensing Corp sued Red Hat and Novell in Marshall"
.. has named Brad Brunell as Senior Vice President .. Mr. Brunell joins Acacia from Microsoft
In July 2007, Acacia Research Corporation announced that Jonathan Taub joined its Acacia Technologies group as Vice President. Mr. Taub joins Acacia from Microsoft
Acacia Research Corporation
--
Is there any disinterested law official anywhere on the planet that is concerned with what is going on here. A seller of inferior software facilitates the formation of a patent troll and extortion racket. It then uses threats from said same company to intimidate people into using its own product and scare them away from using competitors product.
davecb5620@gmail.com
We don't have software patents though fortunately. You can't sue in the UK about comments/lies made wrt an American legal construct AFAIK.
Looks like Innovations, LLC is suing Redhat and Novell.
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=327147
Here comes SCO II. Hrm, let's see how microsoft plays with this and Novell.
"We are also aware of no patent lawsuit against Linux. Ever. Anywhere,"
I presume that was written a day or two ago, because Groklaw is currently reporting precisely such a suit. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071011205044141
It looks like IPInnovate is using a net block company that is USING Red Hat and Fedora to Run Apache 2.0 using mod_ssl and openssl. Hmm They are suing Red Hat but they use a company that uses a product from the company they are suing..... Sounds like a conflict of interest to me.
Netblock owner LNH INC.
The Truth is a Virus!!!
with Sony, IBM, NEC, Philips, RedHat, and Novell(?) as it's members,
That question mark after Novell made you a proven troll and a tard.
You wrote: IMHO, if Microsoft was sure it had valid patents, it would have sued by now. Even small patent trolls like Acacia, which filed the recent patent infringement suits this week against Novell and Red Hat, exercise their "rights" if they believe they have them. I am convinced that Microsoft has not filed its lawsuits because it is not sure that they have valid patent claims.
Again, I am an attorney, and if my clients have valid claims, I urge them to press their claims, and the sooner the better. Few lawsuits get better with time.