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.'"
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.
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.
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?
The blog posting for the response is dated 14 May 2007. Red Hat didn't respond to last week's attack from Steve Ballmer, this response addresses Ballmer's Newsweek interview in which he claims that open source is infringing on 235 Microsoft patents.
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.
That lawsuit was never about patents. They claimed it did in the press but in the court it all boiled down to just copyright & contract claims. No patents were ever brought into play in the actual court case.
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?
It was during the Clinton years that the DoJ pursued Microsoft, and it was during the Bush years that they threw up their hands and said "Microsoft's doing just fine".
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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
But this all points to one thing. Software patents are bad. As a person using computers for a long time, I can easily say: Expect ANYTHING from Microsoft. They have no limit or ethics when it comes to their core business.
Check Amazon top selling software, OS X Leopard is currently number 4 without even being released yet, XP Home edition is somewhere at 50th or something, Vista DOES NOT EXIST on that list which has Ubuntu, the same Ubuntu which you can download for free is on list.
If it came to this point and they started to work with some struggling Linux vendors who would give up their real job to port some Flash wannabe technologies, it is the exact time to get afraid. That same vendor also speaks about patents, unpublished agreements with MSFT, their highest IT manager writes how "great" MS Office XML is...
I think it is really time to "fear".
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.
O_o
Since when is not the Bush administration known for being the 'big-corp-is-now-in-power' period? Through-and-through the bush administration and the upper parts of the republican party are supported by big corporations. The big republicans are playing in the game, too. Big business is in the white house more than it ever was -- why else would Blackwater stand untouched facing current criticism? Why else would we see an andministration that knowingly year after year plans for a budget deficit that is going to sink the country but make certain companies filthy rich?
Don't let the current Republican Administration make you think that it can't be any better any other way. Remember where this is coming from. Yes, this is power, power more corrupted than ever.
America is going to face a long and hard period after this where old debts will have to be repaid.
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
FUD unless you provide either patent numbers or at least the name of the company suing you.
Note that this does not involve Linux either, only Apache/Tomcat.
A good question to ask this company is what would happen if you switched to IBM's Websphere which is just apache and java.
The problem with Microsoft taking the SCO path, however, is that -- when it looks like the suit is about to tank, declaring bankruptcy to avoid the final trial would only result in a charge of mass-murder (when the entire federal bankruptcy court dies laughing).
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Because power corrupts. Big government is inherently in the pocket of corporations that can pay up.
I laugh every time I see a whiny liberal talk about how the Democrats are going to ride in on a white horse and come up with a thousand laws limiting the power of businesses. GUESS WHAT? It's the laws that give businesses the power.
Corporations cannot use force.
Governments can.
As soon as the democrats start fucking things up, the republican machine will get going and try to convince every undecided voter that the democrats are the problem.. wash, rinse, repeat.
Actually, I call bullshit. Take the most corporate-friendly Democratic administration of the last half-century and it doesn't come close to the sheer mendacity and highest-bidder whorishness of the Bush Administration.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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 seems to be that you're not looking at the big picture in the software business. MS Windows, at least for the past 10 years, has been mostly sold through computer purchases - preinstalled, that is. So why would someone go buy MS Windows when they get it with their computer? The rankings you're citing are not a true indicator of how MS Windows is doing in the OS market. Most of Mac people buy their OS X from Apple, I am noting for you again: OS does not EXIST yet, it is pre-order without any kind of "early pay" rebate. People say "We buy whatever ships in whatever time", it is degree of unbeliavable trust.
General PCs come with Windows Pre installed,true. The thing is, consumers demand the earlier version of Windows even ready to pay extra price. The "Vista" they don't want worth billions of dollars of development costs. Microsoft spent billions for nothing.
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.
But PACS dont generally get involved in presidential races (probably because they fear /. will find out). So lets look at the top ten contributers since 1989 when reporting laws took effect (in order spent):
Muncipal Employees Union 98% democrat
AT&T 56% republican
Nat Assn Realtors 53% republican
Teachers Union 93% democrat
Bar Association 90% democrat
IBEW (union) 98% democrat
Goldman Sachs 62% democrat
Laborers Union 92% democrat
Service Employees union 96% democrat
Carpenters union 90% democrat
So, we have the telco's and realtors with a slight bias towards the right, and we have labor, banks and lawyers solidly behind the dems. Personally Id rather be whored out to realtors and telcos than the theiving unions and lawyers.
Ronald Reagan brought about a decline of the middle class that continues to this day, thanks to his hostility towards working Americans and willingness to sell large parts of our society to the highest bidders.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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
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