Microsoft EU Decision Protects OSS Projects From Suits

rfc1394 writes "An article in Australia's IT News mentions that under its antitrust agreement with the European Union, 'Microsoft will publish an irrevocable pledge not to assert any patents it may have over the interoperability information against non-commercial open source software development projects.' Essentially, in addition to getting them to comply with the anti-trust decision, the EU has forced Microsoft to back off of its saber-rattling when it comes to EU open source projects. That protection in no way extends to US projects, of course."

Comments

you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[unity100]

only eu bureaucrats could pull such 2 stunts in just one gig. when a bureaucracy works, it really shines.

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[CodeBuster]

Unfortunately, the bureaucracy has a way of expanding in order to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[Dogtanian]

only eu bureaucrats could pull such 2 stunts in just one gig. when a bureaucracy works, it really shines. Well, perhaps. But also remember that it was the faceless, unelected, bureaucratic EU Commission that tried to use its power to force software patents (in their original form) through the European Parliament a couple of years back.

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[Daimanta]

And failed. If all goes well, the system apparently works.

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[falconwolf]

only eu bureaucrats could pull such 2 stunts in just one gig. when a bureaucracy works, it really shines.

While better than nothing, this settlement doesn't go far enough as open source projects that are profitable still has to pay MS royalties, only .4 percent but they still have to pay them.

Falcon

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[cytg.net]

every once in a while they get something right. nice.

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[Dogtanian]

And failed. If all goes well, the system apparently works. That's naive; the system was still stacked in favour of the Commission's findings/wishes in that it effectively required an overwhelming rejection of them by the parliament itself for them not to go through. The fact that the Commission could re-present these after their initial rejection and (second time around) could effectively have won by default does not reflect well on this aspect of the EU, even though things worked out in this case.

In short, the right decision was made in spite of (and not because of) the European Commission.

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[SerpentMage]

That is actually pretty darn reasonable... You can develop open source software and IF you make a buck then you need to pay some minor royalities.

Think of it as follows. TrollTech charges something like 3900 USD, which translates into a Microsoft revenue stream (assuming 0.4%) of about a million dollars. Trolltech has a small business of up 200,000. After that you pay full dollar. So Trolltech is charging profitable open source companies more than Microsoft...

Don't know about you, but this does make Mono attractive on Linux. Mono on Linux is pretty good, and on Windows .NET is the way to go. So once your company makes a million bucks you need to start forking 3900 total (not per developer) over some money to Microsoft. Fair deal actually...

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[Anonymous Coward]

But also remember that it was the faceless, unelected, bureaucratic EU Commission that tried to use its power to force software patents (in their original form) through the European Parliament

I wouldn't say faceless, it was Charlie McCreevy who was behind the patent 'reforms'. I won't dispute the rest of your assertions though. :)

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the EU even recognize software patents?

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[gomiam]

No. It still considers software unpatentable. Which makes me wonder how on Earth will Microsoft be able to collect that 0.4% in patent royalties from European software developers selling their software to European customers.

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[Fred_A]

I seem to remember that the size of the EU bureaucracy is roughly on par with that of the city of Paris...

So while it might be that Paris has way too many people, it doesn't seem to be too extreme to me.

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[Kristoph]

Yes, well, if you pay TrollTech for QT you have a world wide license. The 0.4% only covers the EU so there is a bit of a difference.

]{

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Yah, McCreepy is soulless not faceless.

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[rts008]

"In short, the right decision was made in spite of (and not because of) the European Commission."

As happens all too infrequently in the USA now days. *sigh* It used to be at least a LITTLE better here (USA), but , sadly not so much anymore.

Not trying to 'put words in your mouth' or imply this was your point; I own up to this one as my own thoughts. Your comment just triggered my thoughts and reply.

But I also agree with your point...as seen over the internet news and my rare foraging on network TV from my place. (Oklahoma, USA)

My only experience with what is now the EU was back in 1978 to 1980, mostly in Berlin. We had time to travel around- it was great! Hated both Paris and Rome, but about everywhere else I went was a great experience.
I really liked the U.K., the Prague, Switzerland, and Amsterdam. ( don't really remember GETTING to Amsterdam though!...)

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[rtb61]

It simply adds a layer of purposeful confusion when European companies trade with US companies. So at a base level no royalties are paid when trading in the Europe, but when trading in the US a micro royalty might have to be paid. In M$ accepting that rate in the EU it makes it very difficult for then to charge a higher rate in the US.

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[weber]

Simple: it's the same people that buy spam advertised products ;-)

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[Teun]

Well, perhaps. But also remember that it was the faceless, unelected, bureaucratic EU Commission Though I agree with the gist of you comment I have to point out the Commission is supposed to be bureaucratic precisely because they are unelected (at least not directly).
The commission members are appointed by the democratically elected governments of the individual EU member states and as such have to answer to the voters in their respective home countries.
Further I do not consider the commission member faceless, maybe because I actively follow European politics instead of only reading about it in nationalistic (British) trash publications.
It is well publicised this particular issue was dealt with between commissioner Neelie Kroes and a Mr. Balmer of Microsoft.

Just a pity some member states send guys like Charlie McCreevy and don't keep him in check.
On the other hand, Microsoft and other large IT companies have over the last ten or so years invested quite a bit in Ireland and were probably expecting a pay back.

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[dintech]

Wow, incredible troll. Way to put a negative spin on something positive for the OS community. Well done there...

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[jesterpilot]

And most of them are translators. Which is quite useful, if you want legal interoperability.

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

...and when it doesn't, people die en masse, worse than pigs in Hell, unable to legally escape.

Cool.

[dino2gnt]

So, can projects threatened by patent infringement suits now move development to the EU?

Re:Cool.

[Chemicalscum]

Jeremy Allison the Samba co-founder is an EU citizen resident in the US. Does this help ?

Re:Cool.

[Nazlfrag]

Sure, or anywhere else that recognises that you can't patent mathematics. Like most of the planet.

Re:Cool.

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

At this stage in the game, I don't think MS would dare even threaten anything Samba related... even supposing they ever would've done.

The *more interesting* question is probably, Does this agreement mean business will feel comfortable using open source projects?

proper attire is mandatory

[User 956]

Microsoft EU Decision Protects OSS Projects From Suits

Which is good, because the OSS crowd is more into t-shirts and jeans.

Re:proper attire is mandatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Grr...and I blew the last of my mod points earlier today...

Re:proper attire is mandatory

[rts008]

Jeans?

The last I heard ( when R. Stallman was attacked by Ninjas), he was only wearing a t-shirt and sandals- did not even have his katana. (probably because no pants=no need for belt, thus no suitable place to belt the scabbard)

Yes, I can see the media event of the OSS century:
RMS, Theo, and Linus in nothing but t-shirts and sandals Deathmatch in a Cage! Coming to a theater near you soon!

Hey, Jack Thompson, what would be the rating on this videogame?

Did I stray way offtopic here?....Heh! Heh! Shame on me!

in no way extends

[sgt scrub]

That protection in no way extends to US projects, of course.

This, of course, insures profitable OSS projects will not be based in the US. Damn shame. Some of us like Tech jobs.

Re:in no way extends

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the "non-commercial" bit. This isn't as great a result as it might have been - while I'm pretty sure kde would count as non-commercial since it's non profit making, what about mysql, which is made by a company that sells support?

Re:in no way extends

[Em Adespoton]

This, of course, insures profitable OSS projects will not be based in the US. Damn shame. Some of us like Tech jobs.

Actually, it ensures nothing of the sort... "profitable" (read, for-profit) OSS projects aren't protected; only non-profit ones. I'm sure MS will have a heyday with the definition of "non-profit".

Re:in no way extends

[Anonymous Coward]

...an irrevocable pledge not to assert any patents it may have over the interoperability information against non-commercial open source software development projects.

This doesn't appear to cover open source projects that aren't "non-commercial." One could argue that ANY project that has one employee and takes in ANY income is commercial. Thus is any project or any distro that takes in any money "commercial?" Who decides? MS wouldn't challenge anyone in court, however, as they so dislike lawyers. ;)

There appears to be a growing interest from MS in splitting the open source community, into volunteers and commercial interest parties. Unfortunately, it looks like they are succeeding.

Re:in no way extends

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you read the settlement? It is the typical MS scheme of pretending to cave in while still protecting their vital interest, even if the vital interest, in many cases, is against a truly competitive market place. The exact thing the lawsuit was supposed to prevent in the future and apply just remedies for past non-conformation.

They are promising to not sue "non-commercial" interests. If you look, they are orchestrating a proxy campaign against commercial open source, while senior executives such as Ballmer threaten exactly such activity - full bore FUD. Who is the latest victim of this proxy campaign? Redhat, with more to come unless they cave to MS threats to sue unless companies sign an "intellectual property agreement with them, ala Novel.

With commercial interests a very major component of open source development, it leaves MS with the freedom to do exactly what they are planning to do. Spread FUD by threatening commercial linux companies and their enterprise clients with lawsuits unless the respect MS intellectual property which they conveniently refuse to detail.

Same shit as the DOJ settlement, just a different pile. Until governing bodies play real hard ball with MS, they will continue to game the system with their ill gotten gains to the detriment of consumer.

Re:in no way extends

[wolff000]

"I'm sure MS will have a heyday with the definition of "non-profit"."

If they give away their software they are non-profit. If they have a different branch that sells support not software they should be safe. I can see no real way for MS to go after a company that only sells support.

Re:in no way extends

[BSAtHome]

That might actually be a hard thing to "heyday" with. A FLOSS project in itself, if it is a real FLOSS project, does not generate the revenue stream but only costs. The for-profit bit is for services. This could very well be the way out for all. Being compensated for the physical copy (as per GPL) cannot be construed as for-profit. The services rendered are arguably not for the software, but the application of the software. An example would be a consultant charging for performing install-services. The consultant service cannot be misunderstood as a "for-profit project" because that would render the whole consultancy business as we know it on its head (a consultant installing Windows is not liable for the software installed if it is supplied by the contractor). All will depend on the correct split between the "non-profit project" and the "for-profit service".

Re:in no way extends

[falconwolf]

All will depend on the correct split between the "non-profit project" and the "for-profit service".

There should be no need for any split, unfortunately this ruling almost makes it mandatory.

Falcon

Re:in no way extends

[BSAtHome]

I don't think so. I think it actually might strengthen projects and distributors. They do not charge for the FLOSS software, but for the act of copying and services rendered. So, in a sense, it is already narrowly defined and practiced. A developer who writes FLOSS code may be paid for his work. However, an employee is not in "business", but is making a living. There is a difference between a company making money and a person being paid wages.

The problem will be for companies that use dual licensing models. There you have a catch that the company might both sell the software and distribute it as a FLOSS project. The commercial path will make them liable to pay license fees for the copies to clients. But still, the receivers of the FLOSS copy are in the clear again and may redistribute under the same FLOSS terms.

Re:in no way extends

[mrbluze]

This, of course, insures profitable OSS projects will not be based in the US. Damn shame. Some of us like Tech jobs.

Nah, it just means that you guys in the US will have to keep living the American DRM.

Re:in no way extends

[Interl0per]

Exactly; how wide of the good ol' EU to prevent MS from suing people with no money.

Re:in no way extends

[Tony Hoyle]

For a lot of patents they can't anyway.. we have no software patents here so a lot of the MS patents are basically US only in the first place. It's an easy shoe-in for microsoft to say they won't assert them, since they don't (in a legal sense) exist... they've lost nothing.

Re:in no way extends

[burndive]

From the article:

"Microsoft will now do so, with licensing terms that allow every recipient of the resulting software to copy, modify and redistribute it in accordance with the open source business model," Kroes said in a statement.

All US projects will have to do will be to have someone in Europe touch the code, and license it back to them. They will have received it from the EU, and therefore will be under the same protections.

Re:in no way extends

[Anonymous Coward]

This, of course, insures profitable OSS projects will not be based in the US. Perhaps. I will certainly move myself and my family to somewhere in the EU if MS ever attempts to make good on what has to date been nothing but empty bluster. However, naive optimist that I am, I am eternally hopeful that the US federal government will understand that allowing MS (or any other IP happy trolls) to bully its competition may very well cause the US to bequeath it's tech vanguard to friendlier EU nations. Hell, it wouldn't take federal intervention - a smart state could do much to bolster its reputation as a tech friendly place to do business by becoming a safe haven against patent trolls and other IP bullshit.

Re:in no way extends

[falconwolf]

For a lot of patents they can't anyway.. we have no software patents here so a lot of the MS patents are basically US only in the first place. It's an easy shoe-in for microsoft to say they won't assert them, since they don't (in a legal sense) exist... they've lost nothing.

However by the fact that whoever accepted the terms on not suing for patent violations, I'd say they were looking at a tyme when software patents were valid in the EU.

Falcon

Re:in no way extends

[Anonymous Coward]

A FLOSS project in itself, if it is a real FLOSS project, does not generate the revenue stream but only costs.

Huh? Says who? There are any number of commercial open source projects. QT, for example, is released under multiple licenses. I don't think it's going to make the open source half of QT happy that only the commercially licensed branch of the business is getting sued. The same thing goes for any other F/OSS project that adopts this business model - which has been quite successful.

Once again, MS managed to pull a fast one. They are Lucy to regulatory agency's Charlie Brown. When will people learn? MS will do anything to destroy competition. They do not compete on the merits of their work, they compete by being dirty underhanded manipulators of the legal system. Their business model is predicated on wringing every penny they can out of IP law, not on producing better software than the competition. They have so far outlasted and outwitted every single government agency that has ever attempted to reign them in. They have made a mockery of government itself. Shame on them, and shame on the blind bureaucrats who are so easily duped.

Microsoft has just managed to snow the entire EU. When, dear god, will an official elected or appointed to high office, who works on behalf on the citizens of entire NATION STATE, have the temerity to give these unapologetically rapacious thugs the smack down they deserve?!

Re:in no way extends

[rjames13]

This, of course, insures profitable OSS projects will not be based in the US. Damn shame. Some of us like Tech jobs.

Actually, it ensures nothing of the sort... "profitable" (read, for-profit) OSS projects aren't protected; only non-profit ones. I'm sure MS will have a heyday with the definition of "non-profit".

Consider this case: As a computer technician I charge people for fixing their Microsoft Windows systems. Microsoft has no problem with this and I would mostly be out of business if it was not for their crappy products. This is referred to as a third party service and is the business model most companies look at when they get into OSS. Microsoft can do stuff all about this business model which is why they are so scared of GNU/Linux and OSS in general. Of course they could just get over themselves and move into the services model but they are like the old IBM they think the world should work their way.

Re:in no way extends

[Anonymous Coward]

You're free to move. You'll find that the food and the beer's better, too.

Re:in no way extends

[jvkjvk]

I can see no real way for MS to go after a company that only sells support Real software support is generally one of a few things - system integration, system configuration or code modifications. The other thing that is sometimes wrapped up in 'support' is new releases, but that would certainly be right out.

So, this would get very tricky if the support company does any internal code modifications for customer issues. It could get tricky even if any of the support issues involving code are taken care of by the "non-profit" side with the support company just supplying the details of the issue.

So, your for-profit support company may not be able to do any bug fixes to the software. It may have to rely on volunteers to actually fix the problems - that is people it does not pay in any way. It may not even be able to submit patches. I don't imagine that would fly very well, as most OSS support companies main strengths is the ability to get a fix to the customer or add a feature for a customer.

Huh. Where's that persinger helmet? I need a jolt in my optimism centers!

Re:in no way extends

[Em Adespoton]

If they give away their software they are non-profit. If they have a different branch that sells support not software they should be safe. I can see no real way for MS to go after a company that only sells support.

This is the sane definition, yes. However, look at the people being sued for commercial copyright infringement because they make free software and distribute it that happens to be able to be used to infringe on other people's copyrights -- often, they are hit with "commercial" damages because their website has banner ads which bring in revenue.

MS doesn't actually have to WIN any court cases to do with this issue of "non-profit" vs. "for-profit" -- all they have to do is embrace and extend the definition of "non-profit" so that anyone thinking of going this route has to take into consideration the cost of dealing with an MS lawsuit.

The EU could slap them down for this, but MS could easily say "hey, we thought we had a valid point, as these people were in it for the money. If you say otherwise, we'll stop our lawsuit against that individual company." Then they can carry on with the FUD and the suing other companies until the EU explicitly bans them from doing so -- which, at the rate the EU moves, will take 3-5 years by which point the issue will be academic.

Well at least...

[Corpuscavernosa]

... the sharp sword of unbridled capitalism won't be dulled here in the US! A wonderful victory for the go-getters at MS!

Re:Well at least...

[Corpuscavernosa]

I was most definitely being sarcastic!

Re:Well at least...

[Anspen]

While the computing work is indeed overwhelmingly done in the US, the EU (especially Germany) is actually better at keeping the (non defense) manufacturing side of things.

Re:Well at least...

[Anonymous Coward]

Prolly the same reason why all the flop'ed startups that imploded when the techno bubble burst were American ones.

Re:Well at least...

[megaditto]

Sarcasm about Microsoft trying to follow the law AND benefit their investors? What's sarcastic about a company trying to make money in a legal way?

Would you rather just take away all of their money and R&D, and give it to the "people"?

AUstralians for change

[adept256]

As an Australian, I think this whole argument goes beyond Microsoft or any other GloboCorp. We are facing a tumultuous election campaign over here. There's much venom between the parties vying for election. This issue highlights a much over-looked aspect of Australian politics; do we take our values and principles from the EU? or from south-east asia? Should Australia join the EU? or should we go down the ASEAN route?

Re:AUstralians for change

[CrackedButter]

Isn't Austria already in the EU? Oh wait you said Australia, what a stupid question! Turkey is having a hard time getting membership, what chance do you think you have? You're part of the Commonwealth, get your values and principles from there maybe?

Re:AUstralians for change

[adept256]

Exactly this. We are indeed in the Commonwealth of Her Majesty. And in our policies (especially immigration) we might just as well be in the EU. The right (bigots) down here seem to wish we were "EU south", when reality dictates that we must be "where to get coal and uranium" south-east asia. Australia needs to drop it's eurocentric philosophic and review it's asian relations. Especially China.

Re:AUstralians for change

[oatworm]

Neither - join NAFTA!

(Ducks)

Re:AUstralians for change

[johannesg]

I'm a citizen of the EU. Although Australia might challenge the geographical definition of "Europe" by a bit, I'd much rather see the EU extend its borders with countries that share a common culture (like Australia and Canada) then with countries that are nominally in or around Europe (like Turkey).

Re:AUstralians for change

[shutdown -p now]

Australia needs to drop it's eurocentric philosophic and review it's asian relations.

Why would you want to do that? You're still a country where descendants of European settlers make a majority; your history, culture and religion (the latter where it is still applicable) are European. Birds of a feather flock together.

Re:AUstralians for change

[Captain_Chaos]

There's much venom between the parties vying for election. This issue highlights a much over-looked aspect of Australian politics; do we take our values and principles from the EU? or from south-east asia? Should Australia join the EU? or should we go down the ASEAN route?

How about having your own values and principles?

Three... Two... One..

[handmedowns]

Whats the EU equivalent of Sourceforge? =D

Re:Three... Two... One..

[Zonk (troll)]

Whats the EU equivalent of Sourceforge? =D BerliOS.

Re:Three... Two... One..

[eulernet]

Complete list: http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Open_Source/Hosting//

Re:Three... Two... One..

[patate_fr]

There's Tuxfamily http://www.tuxfamily.org/en/main and GNA on http://gna.org/

Define "Non-commercial"

[penix1]

Microsoft will publish an irrevocable pledge not to assert any patents it may have over the interoperability information against non-commercial open source software development projects.'

Umm... Is it just me or is this just mealy mouthed enough to get projects into HUGE trouble down the road when they are distributed commercially? Just what is Microsoft's definition of "non-commercial"?

Re:Define "Non-commercial"

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is: what is EU's definition of commercial/non-commercial?

It's not for MS to decide whether a project is commercial or not.

Re:Define "Non-commercial"

[TechForensics]

Their promise also says nothing about not asserting patent rights against USERS of the software that comes out of such open-source projects.

Re:Define "Non-commercial"

[arkhan_jg]

Well, since all software patents are currently non-enforceable in the EU anyway, does it matter?

Re:Define "Non-commercial"

[Kristoph]

It's very simple. If you don't make money, you can do as you wish without fear of MSFT. If you make money you have to pay MSFT 0.4% of your EU revenue. It seems very reasonable to me.

In fact, it is so reasonable, that it makes me wonder if, should MSFT decide to take on OSS legally in the US, the software innovation pendulum would swing in-favor of the EU.

]{

Re:Define "Non-commercial"

[mdmkolbe]

Microsoft will publish an irrevocable pledge not to assert any patents it may have over the interoperability information against non-commercial open source software development projects.

Sounds like they can still go after Sambda, just not for parts that talk to Windows servers.

Re:Define "Non-commercial"

[Cato]

This idea that software patents are not allowed in the EU is a myth, at least in the UK - there are many software patents out there (I know people who've been granted on) and they typically do it by talking about a hardware device that has the software embedded. However, such patents can be used against pure softwre. Once the patents are granted they would be used in the normal way and tested in court, but if they are done properly there's no reason to think they are not enforceable.

Perhaps

[moogied]

Aren't they basically just correct a flaw in there patent system, outside of the patent system?

non-commercial only

[innocent_white_lamb]

non-commercial open source software only? So any commercial use of that software will still open you up to infringement claims? If so, what's the point. MS is not worried about little Joey using FOSS in his basement for "non-commerical purposes". The use of that same software in a data center is apparently not covered by this agreement, so again... what's the point?

Re:non-commercial only

[BiggerIsBetter]

Non-commercial development, not non-commercial use.

Re:non-commercial only

[tepples]

Non-commercial development, not non-commercial use. If I stick a PayPal or Amazon donation button on my project's web site, or my hosting company places ads on the project web site, is my project suddenly commercial?

Re:non-commercial only

[innocent_white_lamb]

The whole point of FOSS is that I can fix it myself if I want to.

Re:non-commercial only

[BiggerIsBetter]

Which gives you an "out" when MS comes hunting for end-users to extort. Contribute your fixes back to the community, and call yourself a developer.

Re:non-commercial only

[backbyter]

myFOSS software distributed by myFOSS.org = free

myFOSS support for myFOSS offered by myFOSS, Inc for a fee.

Kind of like Canonical, right?

Re:non-commercial only

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they meant non-corporately-funded projects.

Like Red Hat might still have to stand up to MS's slander. But it would have been better to offer this protection universally. And multiply the fine by 2^10...

Re:non-commercial only

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not matter.

You come onto MS's radar, you will be sued or paid to go away.

Since they have more money than most, they win the battle of attrition.

Remember the golden rule. Those who have the gold makes the rules.

MS has lots of gold. It will take a man of Teddie Roosevelt's constitution to tame the MS beast, just like he did with standard oil.

The problem is that we do not make such men today. Instead we have corporate hoares available to the highest bidder.

Re:non-commercial only

[JohnBailey]

It does not matter.

You come onto MS's radar, you will be sued or paid to go away.

Since they have more money than most, they win the battle of attrition.

Remember the golden rule. Those who have the gold makes the rules. So how did that work out with the EU? Or South Korea? Both cases where Microsoft lost. And don't forget about the time Sun stopped Microsoft from making Microsoft Java, or Microsoft coming to a settlement with Linspire over the Lindows name. There are plenty of other cases where Microsoft couldn't buy their way out of trouble if you spend a few minutes on Google you can find them easily enough.

Microsoft do not always win. They pick the battles they can win and go to court. Those they know they can't win will be settled out of court or some cross licensing arrangement will be arranged. Those they might win will go to court and if the opponent is small enough, they will appeal and stall until the other side runs out of money. No victory guaranteed.

The EU is UsEless

[Jherek Carnelian]

'Microsoft will publish an irrevocable pledge not to assert any patents it may have over the interoperability information against non-commercial open source software development projects.' The EU anti-trust people are freaking idiots.

Remember the last 'punishment' they gave MS for anti-trust violations? They forced MS to unbundle media player from XP. But the idiots didn't require MS to proportionally, or even at all, reduce the price of the stripped down XP. So MS sells two versions of XP in the EU - regular XP and stripped XP for the same price and no one buys the stripped-down XP. Doh! Big freaking homer doh!

Now they force MS not to sue any non-commercial open source project. Hello? McFly? That promise has got no teeth because most any serious project gets some form of commercial distribution and often commercial funding too. In the meantime they've implicitly endorsed software patents. Gee THANKS!

Yet again, the EU forces a meaningless concession from MS that actually strengthens the company instead of punishing it.

Re:The EU is UsEless

[Le T800]

Remeber that EU representants in the instutution are often changing and the political forces too, so the mileage may vary. From what you say I guess you're not a citizen of EU. If by chance you were American, maybe you could explain us restoftheworlders what the Microsoft's homeland government is actually doing about those matters ? Sorry about my poor English.

Re:The EU is UsEless

[I'm Don Giovanni]

"Remember the last 'punishment' they gave MS for anti-trust violations? They forced MS to unbundle media player from XP. But the idiots didn't require MS to proportionally, or even at all, reduce the price of the stripped down XP. So MS sells two versions of XP in the EU - regular XP and stripped XP for the same price and no one buys the stripped-down XP. Doh! Big freaking homer doh!"

Could you clarify what you mean by "reduce the price proportionally"? Do you mean that it should be reduced "proportionally" according to the size of WMP in bytes compared to the size of XP in bytes? If so, then the price of XP N would be reduced by something like 0.00001 cents. Also, WMP is free on Microsoft's web site, so reducing XP N's price by the price of WMP would reduce the price by zero. Hell, one could even argue that XP N should cost *more* than XP since it takes extra resources to create, maintain, and distribute it.

There was no way to determine a non-zero price for WMP which would be used to reduce the price of XP N; not a way that wouldn't have been very easily appealed anyway. The EC knew that.

"Yet again, the EU forces a meaningless concession from MS that actually strengthens the company instead of punishing it."

The "punishment" was the fine. The rest is supposed to be "remedy" not "punishment". As it is, the EU is forcing Microsoft to hand over Active Directory to its competitors for next-to-nothing. I don't see how patents involving technology that doesn't involve network protocols should be involved in this case at all. Anyway, Microsoft already pledged not to sue non-commercial software projects (be they OSS projects or not), months ago. This EU provision merely codifies what Microsoft already said regarding non-commercial software projects. Has Red Hat, IBM, or anyone in the OIN made a similar pledge regarding non-commercial software projects?

Re:The EU is UsEless

[Jherek Carnelian]

If by chance you were American, maybe you could explain us restoftheworlders what the Microsoft's homeland government is actually doing about those matters ? Never did I say that the US anti-trust enforcement was any better.
Just look at how the RIAA tricked the various US attorney generals into accepting all those CDs for schools and libraries as a 'penalty' when they were just unloading dead inventory.

Re:The EU is UsEless

[Jherek Carnelian]

There was no way to determine a non-zero price for WMP which would be used to reduce the price of XP N; not a way that wouldn't have been very easily appealed anyway. The EC knew that. So, not only where they stupid, they knew they were being stupid. Willful stupidity is just so much better...

As it is, the EU is forcing Microsoft to hand over Active Directory to its competitors for next-to-nothing. Only its NON-COMMERCIAL competitors, which is pretty much meaningless since software Freedom is about liberty, not cost.

Has Red Hat, IBM, or anyone in the OIN made a similar pledge regarding non-commercial software projects? Red Hat has, and it is a whole lot broader because it includes commercial projects and is applicable world-wide: http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html

Re:The EU is UsEless

[pimpimpim]

Unfortunately, you are probably right. Given the history of EU politicians trying to get software patents through, they are probably in favor of those, too (last time they tried they combined with some rulings about agriculture, and hoped that no-one would look there).

The thing that helps (and at the same time limits) the EU is its amazing diverseness. There are so many parties involved with each their own agenda that the end result of any ruling is nearly impossible to predict. This gives a bit more chance for commercially unpopular measures compared to the US, where the result just depends on how much the lobby paid the election for either the democrats or the conservatives, if there is any difference between those two to begin with.

Re:The EU is UsEless

[m2943]

Why would they do anything about it? Microsoft is a big political force in the US, and it caters nicely to libertarian and free market mythology(*). The US government has little motivation to do anything "about" Microsoft other than protect and promote them. The fact that Microsoft is actually built on theft and deception, and that Microsoft is harmful to the US economy in the long term is not relevant.

Re:The EU is UsEless

[ClosedSource]

"Remember the last 'punishment' they gave MS for anti-trust violations? They forced MS to unbundle media player from XP. But the idiots didn't require MS to proportionally, or even at all, reduce the price of the stripped down XP. So MS sells two versions of XP in the EU - regular XP and stripped XP for the same price and no one buys the stripped-down XP. Doh! Big freaking homer doh!"

Well, you're half right. It was the unbundling idea itself that was stupid, not the price. This was a gift to Real and provided zero value to EU consumers and businesses.

In that way it was very much like the US antitrust effort - it was driven by and crafted to benefit specific MS competitors rather than consumers. The remedy was pretty much what the people behind the scenes wanted. Just because a company is anti-MS, doesn't mean it's pro-consumer or pro-FOSS. This is a lesson that many will learn when the real IBM rears its ugly head.

Re:The EU is UsEless

[Jherek Carnelian]

In that way it was very much like the US antitrust effort - it was driven by and crafted to benefit specific MS competitors rather than consumers. I don't see how it benefited Real in any way. After all no one bought the stripped down version of XP. It was as if the EU did nothing at all.

Re:The EU is UsEless

[edxwelch]

You're right about the unbundling of WMP. But the EU worked closly with the Samba team so that MS wouldn't try to put any trick loopholes in the agreement. Doesn't matter who funds Samba, they don't sell their software for profit.

Now THAT is a worthy fine

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, it'll save them a fortune in marketing, but having to back off from the primary argument in keeping people of Open Source will cost MS more than the record fine. The fine was only a record in punishment terms, but it paled in comparison with their income (although not quite at petty cash level anymore :-).

This may have been the real sting of the judgement, and it was timely.

Bill gets tired of EU, a conversation.

[Facetious]

Scene opens at Imperial Headquarters, Redmond. Imperial march plays and quiets as conversation begins.

Bill: Man, I am getting so tired of the EU. I am going to have to buy Europe. Bring me my checkbook.

Accountant: Sir, it's a little out of your price range.

Bill: (Staring blankly) Price range?

Accountant: Yes, sir. It costs more than you have, especially since most of your money is in dollar currency.

Bill: (Picks up phone.) Steve, get in here. And bring your chair.

Seems Muddled

[Bill Dimm]

Microsoft will publish an irrevocable pledge not to assert any patents it may have over the interoperability information against non-commercial open source software development projects.

What makes a project non-commercial? If one unemployed guy runs a project that 99 developers from Red Hat contribute to, is the project non-commercial?

"I told Microsoft that it should give legal security to programmers who help to develop open source software and confine its patent disputes to commercial software distributors and end users. Microsoft will now pledge to do so."

So, the programmers can't be sued but the users can. How much does that really help?

Re:Seems Muddled

[dhasenan]

What makes a project non-commercial? If one unemployed guy runs a project that 99 developers from Red Hat contribute to, is the project non-commercial? Conversely, if a Red Hat developer submits a ten-line patch to a project, is that then a commercial project?

With FLOSS, it's not useful to talk of a project as commercial or noncommercial in most cases. The distribution can be commercial or noncommercial, though. So if I create a project in the EU, never get any money for it, and it gets distributed with Suse (for instance), Suse's commercial and their distribution of my code is commercial.

What the courts decide is something else entirely, and I look forward to hearing from them.

Good news everyone!

[mebollocks]

ahh... That IS good news. I'd been basking in the comforting glow of the fact that we sort of maybe might not yet have software patents in Europe. Then I heard that MS had reached an agreement and they'd be looking for royalties. First I was nervous, then anxious, then wary, then apprehensive, then kinda sleepy, then worried, and then concerned. But now I realize that being a spaceman is something you have to do. Then I read this http://www.fsdaily.com/Legal/Do_software_patents_exist_in_the_EU-1/ on the FS-daily and realised that if the EPLA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPLA/ is ever passed then bingo, all the dominos would fall like a house of cards, checkmate.

Actually, it only protects developers

[Registered Coward v2]

of non-commercial OSS programs. Everyone who sells OSS will have to pay a fee; and it only applies to interoperability patents. Sure, MS only gets a fraction of the revenue cut they wanted; but it still means they get money from vendors.

I wonder if the EU defined what is "revenue from OSS projects that infringe on MS patents."

While the agrement will help protect developers it still leaves a lot of open questions concerning the sale and use of the resultant programs.

For example:

What is commercial use?
What limitations are placed on end users? If they modify an OSS product and use it in their business what fees must they pay to avoid a patent suit?
What constitute "interoperabilty?"

While we all may have ideas on what the agreement means I'd guess MS' lawyers have alread decided how to use it to their advantage.

Re:Actually, it only protects developers

[astralbat]

What constitute "interoperabilty?"

I think you're the first person to ask that question here as everyone seems to think every non-commercial OSS project within the EU would be protected. You don't have to interoperate with Microsoft's technology to tread on their patents do you?

Not that software patents currently have any worth in the EU at the moment.

What about open source distributors and users?

[Daniel Phillips]

What about open source distributors and users? Just asking. Fully expecting Microsoft to violate the spirit of this settlement as usual and land back in court in a year or so.

Apparently....

[zappepcs]

Several of the 'startups' on the MS buy list are currently known as governments or regulatory bodies across the globe. Who would have thought that? Each day that passes makes me more certain that nuclear war will not end the human race... we will starve to death when the food vending machines finally suffer that one last BSOD.

Non-commercial development, not non-commercial use

[falconwolf]

Open source can still be commercial. All open source is is a business model, there's closed source proprietary and open source business models, along with others.

Falcon

Re:Non-commercial development, not non-commercial

[BiggerIsBetter]

Right, but MS have only said they wouldn't hassle non-commercial OSS developers. That set doesn't contain OSS users, nor commercial OSS developers.

EU M$ Patent ruling valid in Canada??

[freeasinrealale]

In the C&D letter to IMSLP regarding copywrite violations http://imslpforums.org/Second%20U-E%20Cease%20and%20Desist%20Letter.pdf - that are approved in EU imply a similar ruling in Canada - as noted in the C&D letter; I wonder if a similar arrangement applies to patents?

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Software patents are not valid in the EU despite the EPO issuing them for a fee to the stupid, so why would F/OSS need protection from such patents? Is the commission misinterpreting the clear and specific EPC exclusion from patentability of "programs for computers"?

They can still go after end users and distributors

[jesterzog]

These were also my first thoughts in reading the summary. From the article, the European Commissioner for Competition Policy says (emphasis is mine):

"I told Microsoft that it should give legal security to programmers who help to develop open source software and confine its patent disputes to commercial software distributors and end users. Microsoft will now pledge to do so."

Presumably all this means is that Microsoft won't be going after developers, but it may still be going after anyone who makes use of those developers' efforts. It's some good news for developers, but it's not exactly a let off the hook if you can't tell your users with any confidence that they won't be sued by Microsoft for obscure patents that wouldn't hold up in the face of anyone who could afford to defend themselves. If anything, this might give Microsoft more power to spread FUD about OSS. They're just narrowing the target, basically saying that it's okay to develop OSS, but they might not let people use it without paying up.

Hopefully the linked article isn't representative of what the actual arrangement is. For the thing to be of any use, Microsoft really needs to be pledging that they won't enforce whatever patents they claim to have at all.

EU membership

[falconwolf]

Turkey is having a hard time getting membership

That is where Europeans are messing up. Turkey has elected politicians who toned down the rhetoric in the hopes of joining the EU. However if Turkey isn't allowed to join hardliners could gain control of the government. Possibly it could form a Caliphate. Turkey is already about to enter northern Iraq to fight Kurds who they've repressed since WWI.

Falcon

Re:EU membership

[Master of Transhuman]

Turkey isn't going to form a "Caliphate" any time this century - unless the Turkish military gets taken out. The Islamic government in Turkey now is entirely different from the hardliners you see in Iran. Turkey has a history of being secular and the Turkish military intends to see that it stays that way. They nearly did a coup over the elections this time because of their concerns.

As for Iraq, they are going to in fight a terrorist group - listed as terrorists by the US and Iraq and Iran and Syria - that are killing their soldiers. Has nothing to do with anything else going on, although it will screw up Iraq more than it is already. This incursion has the possibility of becoming a full scale war between Turkey and the Kurds. And if the US doesn't go along with it, Turkey can cut off US access to the Incirlik US Air Force base which is vital to supply routes to Iraq. Relations between the US and Turkey are considerably strained at the moment. The US has no argument against Turkey's incursion because Turkey is under attack by a terrorist group harbored across the border in Iraq and supported - or at least not condemned - by the two major Kurdish parties, who happen to be the only two allies the US has in Iraq. So the US can either attack the terrorist group, which will alienate the Kurds from the US, or do nothing, which will irritate the Turks and force them to act. A no-win scenario for the US. Which is also complicated by the fact that a second Kurdish terrorist group which targets Iran is being directly supported by the US in order to destabilize Iran. Which is why Turkey and Iran are thinking of cooperating and both attacking the Kurds, according to the latest news.

The next problem for the US is that the two Kurdish parties intend to either establish a "federated" Kurdistan as part of Iraq with oil-rich Kirkuk as their center, or if Iraq is not partitioned, secede from Iraq and form an independent Kurdistan. That would be a disaster for Turkey, Iran and Syria as Kurdistan would then be in a position to fund and foment secessionist groups in all three countries. Turkey has said it will outright invade northern Iraq if that is allowed to occur, which would be a much wider war than the current incursion intention.

As for oppression of the Kurds, that is correct - but not much different than Turkish oppression of the Armenians, and who knows who else. In fact, the Turks used Kurds to murder the Armenians back around WWI.

Re:EU membership

[Anspen]

All good reasons not to let Turkey join. The EU isn't like NATO, where a new member hasn't got a lot of influence on what other members can do. A country, especially a large country which would have lot of voting power and economic influence (good and bad) can't be so unstable that it could change into a dictatorship.

Re:EU membership

[notamisfit]

It really puts the Democratic Congress's desire to push an Armenian Genocide resolution in perspective...

Re:EU membership

[Master of Transhuman]

It does. Right now it's not a good idea. The Turks are really, really sensitive about this stuff.

The US doesn't need any more enemies, and the Turkish population opinion of the US is at its lowest level it's been.

Personally, I don't see the point of "morally bearing witness" to some genocide that happened 80 years ago or whatever. If the US went around condemning every other government that has screwed somebody or other over, we'd have to condemn every country on the planet including ourselves.

I'm an anarchist, so I have no problem condemning any country or state. But it's really pointless to single any out since in my view they're all assholes. The only reason to single one out - such as Israel or the US - is what they're doing right now today to screw things up. What they did at the start of the last century isn't that relevant unless there are direct effects on us still in play today.

Re:EU membership

[falconwolf]

I thoght I answered but I don't see it now.

listed as terrorists by the US and Iraq and Iran and Syria - that are killing their soldiers. Has nothing to do with anything else going on, although it will screw up Iraq more than it is already. This incursion has the possibility of becoming a full scale war between Turkey and the Kurds

Yea, Iran Iraq, Syria, and Turkey all consider Kurd as terrorists because Kurds make up large populations in all these countries and they want what they were promised by the Allies during WWI, their own homeland. But instead of fulfilling a promise the Allies including the US allowed Kurds to be persecuted. If a people is persecuted long enough they will fight back, or do you think they should roll over and die? Maybe the world will do something when what happened in Rwanda happens to the Kurds.

Falcon

Re:EU membership

[VendettaMF]

And as long as that is true Turkey will not be welcome in the EU. The EU is not a cure for a messed up country. The EU is a self-serving alliance of countries, not a charity. Entry is (supposedly) only granted to countries that clearly show they're not going to screw things up for the existing members by being a messed up country in constant religio-political turmoil with no comprehension of protection of the citizenry and government of service.

I'm not entirely sure why Turkey was ever considered a potential entrant, but I suppose in this, as in everything, standards slip.

Re:EU membership

[falconwolf]

I'm not entirely sure why Turkey was ever considered a potential entrant, but I suppose in this, as in everything, standards slip.

Because Turkey is a European country! If not all of Europe is allowed to join I don't think it's appropriate the call it "Europe". Maybe "half of Europe" or "Only European nations we like".

The EU is a self-serving alliance of countries, not a charity

Do you know how many people from Turkey live in Germany? Fact is is many live there now.

Falcon

Re:EU membership

[VendettaMF]

On that line why are Canada, Mexico, Brazil, chile and Argentina not states? And why is Hawaii a state? It's supposed to be America isn't it?

European Union, not Europe. The fact that the name is different should hint that it is not all of Europe.

Re:EU membership

[falconwolf]

On that line why are Canada, Mexico, Brazil, chile and Argentina not states?

Duh, because they are independent nations.

And why is Hawaii a state?

Because it was invaded.

European Union, not Europe. The fact that the name is different should hint that it is not all of Europe.

Is or is not "Europe" in the name?

Falcon

Re:EU membership

[VendettaMF]

Duh, because they are independent nations.

As is Turkey.

Is or is not "Europe" in the name?

Is or is not "America" in the name of the United States of America?

I see your point, but it's kind of meaningless.

Re:EU membership

[Anonymous Coward]

European Union, not Europe. The fact that the name is different should hint that it is not all of Europe.

Is or is not "Europe" in the name?

duh! located in Europe != encompassing all of Europe

Homework assignment: list all European countries that are not members of the EU, starting with states not from the former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia. Hint: look north and center.

As for Turkey being an European country, it actually spans 2 continents with by far the largest percentage of it (as far as territory, economy, population goes) located in Asia. So this is a convenient argument - Turkey can be part of Europe or of Middle East depending on what suits it - but it otherwise has little substance.

Re:EU membership

[Carewolf]

As for Iraq, they are going to in fight a terrorist group - listed as terrorists by the US and Iraq and Iran and Syria - that are killing their soldiers

There is the flaw. People who kills soldiers are not terrorists, they are a military enemy. It is only terrorism if you attack civilians.

So Turkey attacking them is justified, because they are a military enemy, but calling them terrorists smells bad, "Russia in Chechnya" kind of bad.

Re:EU membership

[shutdown -p now]

There is the flaw. People who kills soldiers are not terrorists, they are a military enemy. It is only terrorism if you attack civilians. So Turkey attacking them is justified, because they are a military enemy, but calling them terrorists smells bad, "Russia in Chechnya" kind of bad.

Some people who kill soldiers are terrorists, some aren't. PKK are not terrorists just because they attacked Turkish soldiers. They're terrorists because they employ terror tactics and target civilians elsewhere.

Re:EU membership

[Master of Transhuman]

I don't care one way or the other about the Kurds. I'm merely stating the situation as it is.

Not to mention that the Allies were in no position to promise the Kurds anything anyway. And since the Kurds were used to kill the Armenians in the Armenian genocide, they're hardly innocents.

The point is that at this time, from a "foreign policy realist" position, the US can't afford to antagonize the Turks just to help the Kurds.

Of course, the proper position is for the US to take hands off on all this stuff, since it has no direct bearing on the US at all. I have no objection to the US supporting the Kurds from a "moral" standpoint, but if the US weren't in Iraq in the first place and didn't have military bases in Turkey, it wouldn't be our problem and wouldn't cost us anything to support them or not support them.

Unbelievable.

[ScrewMaster]

"Irrevocable pledge?" To translate, what they're really saying is this: "We're Microsoft and we won't sue you. We promise! And furthermore, we absotively posilutely guarantee that all future generations of management here at Microsoft won't sue you either." You'd have to have rocks in your head to believe that one.

I hope the EU's regulators have too much on the ball to swallow this malarkey. Microsoft couldn't keep a promise if their very existence depended upon it.

What's stopping them...

[digitig]

What's stopping MS just getting a puppet company asserting patents on their behalf? Not that they've ever [fnord SCO] do that, of course.

People, please....

[alexborges]

Go read groklaw. This was not a victory for us. It wasnt utter defeat either, but the court upheld microsoft's right to assert patents and charge for them, thus upholding the very beast that has the U.S. bound to the ground with respect to OSS.

We cant look at their docs, the samba people cant look at their docs (license is gpl incompatible), it is useless for us at all.

The only thing they made them promise is that they wont go after individual developers. Well bu-hu, why would they do that in the first place? Imagine them going after Linus, their theatre would die a short death.

Nay... they're going after redhat, suse and (if they find theyr gonads), perhaps IBM in the end. I think thats the way they think. Us thinking there is a vitctory where there is none, only plays in their favor.

EU and software patents?

[DragonWriter]

'Microsoft will publish an irrevocable pledge not to assert any patents it may have over the interoperability information against non-commercial open source software development projects.'

Aren't software patents banned in the EU anyway? So, aside from the fact that this was forced out of them, does it mean anything in the first place?

Re:EU and software patents?

[Iloinen Lohikrme]

Actually EU doesn't have anything to do with patents right now. A few years down ago EU Commission tried to bring legislation that would have introduced EU wide harmonization of patents and brought unified judicial system. As the European Parliament didn't accept the directive, the attempted legislation was withdrawn. More about the subject.

How ever there is European Patent Organization which works by the power of European Patent Convention. EPO is fully independent organization and isn't part of EU. EPO actually is the only organization in Europe causing real grief in regards of patents. They award software patents even if they don't have any power to do so. Many big corporations and also smaller companies have applied basically pure software patents from EPO. How ever as the EPO really doesn't have power to award these kind of patents, the situation is that those patents are more or less worthless. They also will stay worthless even if EU would make software patents legal as those patents were filed and awarded before they were legal.

In my company we have talked and researched the software patent issue some what. My own point of view is that software patents are worthless and as long as the member state we operate doesn't allow software patents, we don't have any reason to worry. I really do hope that this situation will stay the same as the business of software company is to make software and solve customers problems, not pay big fat checks to lawyers.

Interesting

[Master of Transhuman]

Does this mean that if Microsoft asserts patents against US OSS projects that they can relocate to Europe and be home free?

I hear a "giant sucking sound"...

How do you establish whether an OSS project is "here" or "there" anyway, when the developers are all over the place?

Re:Non-commercial development, not non-commercial

[falconwolf]

Right, but MS have only said they wouldn't hassle non-commercial OSS developers. That set doesn't contain OSS users, nor commercial OSS developers.

That's why it is bad, it doesn't shield OSS projects that are for profit, ie commercial.

Falcon

.net

[falconwolf]

Don't know about you, but this does make Mono attractive on Linux. Mono on Linux is pretty good, and on Windows .NET is the way to go. So once your company makes a million bucks you need to start forking 3900 total (not per developer) over some money to Microsoft. Fair deal actually...

I don't see or know what good .net is over other technologies such as Ruby on Rails, I'm not a developer now though I want to learn.

Falcon

Re:.net

[SerpentMage]

Fair enough, so how do I develop a desktop application?

Re:.net

[TrueKonrads]

Dear slashdotters, if You are going to compare apples to cowboy boots, please don't.

RoR and .NET don't have anything in common (not even a single letter!), pursue different goals and are used for different purposes. Compare .NET to Java or Parrot if You must.

Re:.net

[falconwolf]

RoR and .NET don't have anything in common (not even a single letter!), pursue different goals and are used for different purposes. Compare .NET to Java or Parrot if You must.

Perhaps you missed where I said I wasn't a developer, nor am I a programmer.

Falcon

Am I missreading or...

[abigsmurf]

Doesn't this only refer to the server connectivity side of things which was what the EU ruling dealt with? What they're saying is that the protocols they've been forced to licence by the EU will be licenced to OSS projects for free. I'm reading lots of messages here that seem to indicate people think this will give permission to use ALL patents relating to Windows.

OS employment

[falconwolf]

in a sense, it is already narrowly defined and practiced. A developer who writes FLOSS code may be paid for his work. However, an employee is not in "business", but is making a living. There is a difference between a company making money and a person being paid wages.

And who's going to pay the developer? A business? The business would still have to pay the royalties.

Falcon

Re:OS employment

[ozmanjusri]

The business would still have to pay the royalties.

Why?

Re:OS employment

[falconwolf]

The business would still have to pay the royalties.

Why?

Because it's not a nonprofit.

Fslcon

Re:OS employment

[ozmanjusri]

Because it's not a nonprofit.

That's not relevant.

The business isn't selling the software their employee is developing.

I'll suspend my disbelief until I see the pledge.

[HiThere]

The devil is in the details.

Re:I'll suspend my disbelief until I see the pledg

[ScrewMaster]

This is Microsoft. I wouldn't suspend your disbelief for a millisecond.

Between the US and the Japan/China eating Europe's

[falconwolf]

lunch

What exactly is it the US produces now, other than food? Knowledge? With both China and India graduating more and more engineers and scientists the US's lead may not last long. One thing they both need are accountants and US accountants can make a boat load of money showing Chinese and Indian companies how to setup an accounting system. Actually as my sister is a CPA, Certified Public Accountant, and runs her own business, I've thought of suggesting she learn Mandarin Chinese then go to China.

Falcon

Re:They can still go after end users and distribut

[zotz]

"Presumably all this means is that Microsoft won't be going after developers, but it may still be going after anyone who makes use of those developers' efforts."

Probably including those same developers but in their role as users and not as developers.

Itch scratching and all that.

all the best,

drew

http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=178
Underwater Fun and more...

Re:Non-commercial development, not non-commercial

[Kalriath]

Why should it? If you're making a profit based on a technology someone else poured millions on R&D into, why should you be able to use that technology without contributing back to the company that paid millions to invent it? Instead we have Open Source companies (not all of them, but a few of them) which deliberately attempt to undermine Microsoft, and using a licensing agreement that explicitly prevents Microsoft from using the improvements to their own work (GPL).

Now, this only applies to technologies Microsoft actually invented by the way. This is not an argument saying they should get free money.

No, this is a good thing. Though it would be better if it protected end users explicitly too.

Re:Whining crybaby-ism

[maxwell demon]

There isn't a single FOSS project in the world which was shut down by Microsoft bringing a lawsuit...

Indeed, Microsoft's strategy in this respect (->SCO) hasn't been very successful up to now. Which doesn't mean they didn't try.

and yet the Stallmanistas keep puling away and crying about how all the problems in the world are caused by Microsoft.

Not all problems: Nobody claims 9/11 was done by MS. :-)
But seriously, MS has a long history of applying unfair methods against their competition (see e.g. DR DOS, OS/2, Java). And they are seeing Linux/OSS as threat (see e.g. the Halloween documents), and already target them (SCO law suit payed by MS, dirty playing in the OOXML standardization process).

All good reasons not to let Turkey join.

[falconwolf]

I think you're mixed up. If Turkey is a member of the EU it will much easier for the rest of Europe to control Turkey. Otherwise the EU has no control over what Turkey does.

A country, especially a large country which would have lot of voting power and economic influence (good and bad) can't be so unstable that it could change into a dictatorship.

Check out Augusto Pinochet in Chile, the Shah or Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran, or Saddam excepting the Ayatollah all of whom the US supported.

Falcon

Re:Non-commercial development, not non-commercial

[falconwolf]

Why should it? If you're making a profit based on a technology someone else poured millions on R&D into, why should you be able to use that technology without contributing back to the company that paid millions to invent it?

Why should it? Because it creates it's own way to interoperate and tries to prevent vender lockin.

Falcon

That protection in no way extends to US projects

[r_jensen11]

So, um, if I have someone helping me out with my code (I live in the US, s/he lives in Germany,) is my project (and transitively, I) protected by said ruling? Or are my friend, my project, and I all screwed? Let's look at the three possibilities:

A) I am the primary coder
B) My friend and I contribute equally
C) My friend is the primary coder

Re:WTFians 4 branes?

[Max Littlemore]

When thinking about Microsoft and patents on algorithms, I cant't help remembering the way toast goes black when I burn it - or paint it black.

Maybe I'm off-topic, or maybe you just can't see the meta4.

One thing about elections is people vote. Then sometimes the votes are counted. That's what I like about toast... and GloboCorp. Got me?

Then again, maybe some Australians are just Turkeys - y'know, the ones who get their values from the US?

Useless

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Microsoft will publish an irrevocable pledge not to assert any patents it may have over the interoperability information against non-commercial open source software development projects

So how does this protect me as a business owner who wants the freedom to hire whomever I want to maintain my in-house software? Oh, it doesn't? Great!

Re:Between the US and the Japan/China eating Europ

[megaditto]

A few things we still kick ass in:

1) Music/movies (we outsell the rest of the World in these combined).
2) Advanced weapons sales
3) Software of any sort
4) Basic research and devt. (not readily marketable AND given for free to the rest of the world. We are the absolute leader in "pure" research investment, though starting to slow down for obvious reasons).
5) Applied research, design, and devt. (sattelites, pharmaceuticals, consumer electronics, you name it)
6) Agriculture (including the GM foods that EU farmers are scared of).
7) Exporting Democracy!

"non-commercial"?

[m2943]

"Non-commercial" is such a weasel word. Is gcc distributed by the FSF "non-commercial"? Is gcc on Ubuntu "non-commercial"? Is gcc on a purchased copy of SuSE "non-commercial"? Is Firefox "non-commercial"? Is OpenOffice "non-commercial"?

Now, I don't think it matter much; Microsoft is slowly painting themselves into a corner, and it's implausible that they really can assert those patents at all in the future. Nevertheless, it would be better if the EU were alert to those kinds of weasel words and would say something clear like "Microsoft cannot assert these patents against software distributed under OSI-compliant licenses".

So hey

[tietokone-olmi]

What exactly is non-commercial these days? Depending on who you've been listening to, a mother breastfeeding her baby is commercial behaviour; clearly the infant is receiving a loan in the form of sustenance, in exchange for which the mother will in the future expect certain house chores to be performed.

Prosecutors in certain European countries have claimed that conveying non-Free music between friends is commercial behaviour even if no cash changes hands, because the recipient receives something that is worth money and the giver receives goodwill. Certainly it would seem that ms. Kroes has had one pulled over her this time.

Yeh, I saw "non-commercial" and thought "oops".

[argent]

That leaves them open to attack everything from Samba to Red Hat Package Manager.

And, yes, I think it DOES matter.

Microsoft has managed to pretty much completely win everything that people keep saying they'd lost. This kind of thing is why I was skeptical of the EU deal from the start.

Re:Yeh, I saw "non-commercial" and thought "oops".

[m2943]

Microsoft has managed to pretty much completely win everything that people keep saying they'd lost. This kind of thing is why I was skeptical of the EU deal from the start.

I agree that the EU deal doesn't deliver what it promises. But while these are not big victories, they slowly erode Microsoft's power: more information leaks out of Microsoft, Microsoft's ability to obtain judgments becomes more limited, etc.

That leaves them open to attack everything from Samba to Red Hat Package Manager.

Yes, but they can do that already. The EU deal makes that slightly harder, however, and that is progress.

Re:Yeh, I saw "non-commercial" and thought "oops".

[argent]

But while these are not big victories, they slowly erode Microsoft's power

Microsoft's power doesn't reside in hiding information or obtaining judgements, it resides in changing interfaces faster than people can keep up with them, and fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

Neither of these are eroded.

The EU deal makes that slightly harder, however,

Except that it gives them the ability to say "the EU court acknowledged the validity of our patents".

Remember, they don't HAVE software patents in Europe. Still don't, in statute law. But now they do in case law.

Oops.

And it gives them the ability to say "they're using XYZ patented technique, as documented in this published document".

And "Joe Smith worked for Noncommercial SA who bought our document back in 2008, and went to work for Red Hat in 2011..."

Oops.

Re:Yeh, I saw "non-commercial" and thought "oops".

[m2943]

Microsoft's power doesn't reside in hiding information or obtaining judgements, it resides in changing interfaces faster than people can keep up with them, and fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Neither of these are eroded.

Sure, they are. The more companies and organizations use Microsoft's published interfaces, the less freedom they have to change them.

Except that it gives them the ability to say "the EU court acknowledged the validity of our patents". Remember, they don't HAVE software patents in Europe. Still don't, in statute law. But now they do in case law.

The EU doesn't have case law the way the US does. Furthermore, the agreement doesn't presume the validity of patents, it merely says what happens if there are patents that are valid.

And it gives them the ability to say "they're using XYZ patented technique, as documented in this published document". And "Joe Smith worked for Noncommercial SA who bought our document back in 2008, and went to work for Red Hat in 2011..." Oops.

That issue only matters with trade secrets, not patents. And if Microsoft publishes something widely, it is not a trade secret anymore. That's another reason why this sort of dissemination is good: it erodes Microsoft's ability to claim trade secrets.

Re:Yeh, I saw "non-commercial" and thought "oops".

[argent]

The more companies and organizations use Microsoft's published interfaces, the less freedom they have to change them.

Only if they actually want them to use those interfaces. If they want to make people avoid the products that use these interfaces that aren't by Microsoft (and it's not like they've never deliberately broken applications) the opposite is true.

That issue only matters with trade secrets, not patents.

"It does not matter for liability purposes that a patented infringer was unaware of the patented technology when infringement occurred. However, willful or intentional infringement may carry a higher monetary penalty than innocent infringement." (Chilling Effects).

Re:Yeh, I saw "non-commercial" and thought "oops".

[m2943]

"It does not matter for liability purposes that a patented infringer was unaware of the patented technology when infringement occurred. However, willful or intentional infringement may carry a higher monetary penalty than innocent infringement."

Merely by reading something "documented in a published document" (your words), you are no more likely to be guilty of willful infringement than you would be if you obtained the information some other way.

But triple damages is a non-issue for open source projects; open source projects must avoid patent infringement altogether, and if Microsoft tells you which patents you might infringe, that's all the better. On the other hand, if Microsoft tries to hide the fact that they have patents on some technologies they are trying to get others to adopt, they have a much harder time claiming damages at all; courts just don't look kindly on that kind of bullshit. Either way, open source wins.

Re:Yeh, I saw "non-commercial" and thought "oops".

[argent]

Merely by reading something "documented in a published document" (your words), you are no more likely to be guilty of willful infringement than you would be if you obtained the information some other way.

Well, you know, I'd really like to believe that the race goes to the honest and the case goes to the preponderance of evidence, but the way to bet is that the race goes to the deep pockets and the case goes to the guy who can force you to defend the most points in court until you run out of money or lawyers (or if you're Eric Raymond, money, guns, or lawyers) and you settle.

if Microsoft tries to hide the fact that they have patents on some technologies they are trying to get others to adopt

Where do you get this "... they are trying to get others to adopt"? The whole lawsuit was about them hiding the details of implementing these technologies and being forced to document them. They're not trying to get anyone to adopt them, they're trying to discourage people from using any implementations of them that aren't coming from Redmond, Washington.

Re:Yeh, I saw "non-commercial" and thought "oops".

[m2943]

Well, you know, I'd really like to believe that the race goes to the honest and the case goes to the preponderance of evidence, but the way to bet is that the race goes to the deep pockets and the case goes to the guy who can force you to defend the most points in court until you run out of money or lawyers (or if you're Eric Raymond, money, guns, or lawyers) and you settle.

If you start with that assumption, then why worry about whether Microsoft does or does not publish anything? They can sue you anyway.

In any case, I can just repeat it: for open source projects to worry about willful infringement is pointless; the major risk to open source projects is that they get shut down or delayed due to infringement, and that happens regardless of whether the infringement is willful or not. If Microsoft publishes something that says "here is our technique and it's patented", that's a good thing for open source. And if Microsoft publishes something that says "here is our technique, you need it for interoperability" without telling you that it's patented, then their claims of damages are arguably weaker. Either way, open source wins.

Re:Yeh, I saw "non-commercial" and thought "oops".

[argent]

If you start with that assumption, then why worry about whether Microsoft does or does not publish anything? They can sue you anyway.

There's no damages without willful infringement.

And if Microsoft publishes something that says "here is our technique, you need it for interoperability" without telling you that it's patented, then their claims of damages are arguably weaker. Either way, open source wins.

Microsoft's not doing that. They're saying "This is an internal document that we are being forced to publish by the court. We don't want you to use anything in here, so to discourage you we're making you pay us $14k to see it. If you're a non-commercial open source developer we won't sue you if you use anything in it, but that's not going to stop us from using your package to beat up on any distros that use it, and you better not make any money from it yourself."

Re:Yeh, I saw "non-commercial" and thought "oops".

[m2943]

There's no damages without willful infringement.

That's wrong. If you commit patent infringement, of course, you have to pay damages; willful infringement just triples them.

If you're a non-commercial open source developer we won't sue you if you use anything in it, but that's not going to stop us from using your package to beat up on any distros that use it, and you better not make any money from it yourself."

If it's patented, distros won't incorporate it. And if you manage to sneak a patented algorithm into the distro without their knowledge, they won't be guilty of willful infringement (and may even hold you liable).

Re:Yeh, I saw "non-commercial" and thought "oops".

[argent]

If you commit patent infringement, of course, you have to pay damages; willful infringement just triples them.

Oops, my bad. The point is that willful infringement makes things worse.

If it's patented, distros won't incorporate it.

I think you're repeating my point there. If you use this documentation that Microsoft is reluctantly shipping, you're reducing the value of your software to the open source community. Thus what Microsoft's actually released has no value at all to open source. Which is my point.

A few things we still kick ass in:

[falconwolf]

1) Music/movies (we outsell the rest of the World in these combined).

Other places like Bollywood are coming on strong.

2) Advanced weapons sales

You've got me there. However more weapons aren't needed.

3) Software of any sort

Software could be, and is, done all over the world. Take Microsoft, MS has opened campuses in both China and India. "Business Week" has an article on where US companies are send jobs to including programming jobs, Major Players in Outsourcing . Ubuntu has African roots.

4) Basic research and devt. (not readily marketable AND given for free to the rest of the world. We are the absolute leader in "pure" research investment, though starting to slow down for obvious reasons).

5) Applied research, design, and devt. (sattelites, pharmaceuticals, consumer electronics, you name it)

This is true now, but with both China and India graduating millions of engineering and other high tech majors, for how long will it last?

6) Agriculture (including the GM foods that EU farmers are scared of).

Go back to my post, where I said "other than food".

7) Exporting Democracy!

Yea, right. NOT!!! The US only ever exports democracy when it serves the administration's or businesses' objectives. The US has repeatedly supported coups against democratically elected governments, assassinations of leaders, and has even supported the invasion of one democratic nation by dictators of another, twice. In 1975 President Ford and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger supported Indonesia's Suharto's invasion of East Timor. After the invasion some 200,000 East Timorese were killed, that's 1/3 of the population of East Timor. In the 1980s President Reagan and his VP Bush Sr supported Saddam Hussein's attack and invasion of Iran. Even as Saddam was using all of those Weapons of Mass Destruction against Iran as well as people in Iraq. Targeted were the Kurds and Marsh Arabs among others. It was only when Saddam invaded Kuwait, an emirate not a democracy, when the US's support of Saddam came to an end.

Back to agriculture. I ask what need there is for GMO food? There is no need for it is the answer.

Falcon

The real threat does not comes directly from M$

[carlos92]

It comes from companies like Acacia, that could receive money like SCO did as payment for filing lawsuits against M$ enemies (Linux and the rest of FLOSS projects). And Acacia has a stronger business than SCO, can survive longer and has a large portfolio of patents to use instead of the ludicrous SCO claims.

The business isn't selling the software their

[falconwolf]

Because it's not a nonprofit.

That's not relevant.

employee is developing.

It is relevant. Not all Open Source is developed only for the company to use. A lot of OSS is developed by a community and some by those who intend to sale the software. Samba isn't developed by one company only for that company! Redhat sales Linux as well as provides services for it. The same applies to Suse/Novell and many other distros.

Falcon

HUH?

[someone1234]

What is an EU open source project? It means non-eu people couldn't submit a patch?
I thought open source projects are all international.

Re:They can still go after end users and distribut

[trifish]

I believe your analysis wrong, due to unfortunate wording. I think there's ellipsis in the sentence.

Therefore: "commercial software distributors and end users."

Might read: "commercial software distributors and [commercial software] end users."

Re:Between the US and the Japan/China eating Europ

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Sort of/Losing ground

2) And first on the list of killing spree in public places that has ever occur

3) Clueless?! That must be the reason why so many EU, India and China soft companies sells software for your critical systems (I can recall Critical Software selling for NASA, ChevronTexaco, Honeywell and many others... guess what? The company is portuguese, and Portugal not only is outside US, it's a member of EU, in case you're wondering).
Or why so many of those "big companies" contributors are from outside US, are invited to visit the facilities, take some "courses", and then return to their offices.

4) Again, clueless?! That must be the reason why you've went from recruiting people outside US policy to making agreements with non-US organizations, because you're sooo leading that field.

5) sattelites, got me there (but then again); pharma mainly right (non US researchers working in the US); consumer electronics, totaly clueless there... I could do a list of things I have in my house or work with that originaly were US (even if they are now made/assembled outside US), but I can only think of an handful (and all computer related).

6) Corn isn't the only food avail, and tobacco isn't food (being sarcastic here if you haven't notice).
And EU farmers aren't scared of GM food... there are plenty of GM farms here. The ones scared are the consumers (we are used to have some quality assurance over here you know? Tags on toys, cloths, consumables, electronics with a CE stamp that certifies that isn't harmful and it's completely safe.... but you wouldn't know anything about it, giving your overall comment).

7) I laugh'ed so hard on that one.... seriously. The only thing you've ever exported regarding democracy were either troops or consulting agents pushing the other side to make agreements with your goverment (and withdrawing help when they wouldn't budge). One very present date example? Timor: you veto'ed every proposal to send UN forces to stop the etnic killings lead by Indonesia (even after 30 years of illegal occupation), and only offered (useless and redundant) logistic support when the international community focused on it, and decided to take action.... why? Because Timor has oil in their seas, Indonesia sold it to Australia and the US. Shall I go on? The only "countries" that exported democracy was old Hellenic States and the Roman Empire... Stop being so narrow minded, take a look at the outside world. Oh, and don't even say "well, even if your right, we're still the largest economy in the world".... well.... guess again.

Not a myth ...

[Nicolas MONNET]

The treaty founding the OEB and basically most patent things between the signatory countries explictly excludes business methods, algorithms and computer programs.

Now, since the OEB makes more money the more it register patents, and as it has no oversight basically, it's been registering patents it shouldn't have, including software patents.

Re:Between the US and the Japan/China eating Europ

[pommiekiwifruit]

What exactly is it the US produces now, other than food? Knowledge?

Bombs of course. The US makes bombs, which it sells to dictators for dollars. The dictators get these dollars by selling oil to China. The Chinese get them from the US by making actual useful stuff. And so the triangle is complete.

Re:They can still go after end users and distribut

[Almahtar]

This is what I don't understand - since when were patents ever enforceable on the people using infringing devices? Until this whole Microsoft chest-beating, I had never heard of patents being used to prosecute anyone but the people manufacturing patented devices without license or employing patented technologies in their creations without license. The customers were never an issue at all until now. What changed?

read again

[unity100]

and read carefully this time

I see your point, but it's kind of meaningless.

[falconwolf]

It is meaningless for the most part however it's useful for those who want to separate "Us" from "Them" as a form of nationalism.

Falcon

Fair enough, so how do I develop a

[falconwolf]

desktop application?

There are a bunch of languages a person can use. Way back when, some 30 years ago, I started programming with BASIC. Since then I've used C/C++, FORTRAN, Java, and Pascal. I've been thinking I'd like to learn Smalltalk.

Falcon

Re:Between the US and the Japan/China eating Europ

[falconwolf]

What exactly is it the US produces now, other than food? Knowledge?

Bombs of course. The US makes bombs, which it sells to dictators for dollars. The dictators get these dollars by selling oil to China. The Chinese get them from the US by making actual useful stuff. And so the triangle is complete.

Unfortunately this is true. However even the government and defense contractors are outsourcing work. Boeing has outsourced work to India. Under Bush Blackwater does much of the security contracting in Iraq. And who is Blackwater? Ex Pentagon employees and those who actually provide security in Iraq, and Afghanistan, are military trained ex SEALs and Special Forces. The military trained them then they left the Army or Navy to work for Blackwater making a lot more, for the same work. What bugs me is that when I was in the Army the unit I was in trained Rangers and Officer cadets in Officer Cadet School, OCS, as well as trained with the Special Forces. While my pay was less than $800 a month in the army, as a contractor working for someone like Blackwater if it had existed then I could of made more than that a week. For doing the same work. Ah mercenaries get paid so much better. And where does the money come from? US taxpayers! Taxes go up so some private businesses can make money.

Falcon

if the US weren't in Iraq in the first place

[falconwolf]

I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq to begin with. I was also opposed to Reagan and Bush Sr's support of Saddam throughout the 1980s, when he was using WMDs.

and didn't have military bases in Turkey

The US should withdraw most of the military bases throughout the world period. Bring the military personnel home then institute a citizen's militia. Have a small professional core of military personnel then have citizens protect the country.

Falcon

Re:if the US weren't in Iraq in the first place

[Master of Transhuman]

Yup. Agree one hundred percent.

Re:They can still go after end users and distribut

[trifish]

This is what I don't understand - since when were patents ever enforceable on the people using infringing devices?

It's the same as with copyright. Even end users who use an illegal copy may be prosecuted. Only trademarks are an exception (e.g. if you purchase a counterfeit).

Re:They can still go after end users and distribut

[jesterzog]

Do you know of a more accurate source of the quote? The linked article definitely doesn't have an ellipsis. Copied and pasted from paragraph 9, the text is:

"I told Microsoft that it should give legal security to programmers who help to develop open source software and confine its patent disputes to commercial software distributors and end users. Microsoft will now pledge to do so."

Re:They can still go after end users and distribut

[trifish]

Um, if you read carefully, you'll see that it's exactly the quote I worked with (and it does appear to have the unfortunate ellipsis).

Re:Between the US and the Japan/China eating Europ

[pommiekiwifruit]

While my pay was less than $800 a month in the army,

Ouch, I think a London bus driver makes nearly that a week, including overtime, and that is considered low-paid. You probably got full board as well, but "key workers" often get subsidised housing here. Not that I am saying nurses and teachers need military training these days...

Re:Between the US and the Japan/China eating Europ

[falconwolf]

While my pay was less than $800 a month in the army,

Ouch, I think a London bus driver makes nearly that a week, including overtime, and that is considered low-paid. You probably got full board as well, but "key workers" often get subsidised housing here. Not that I am saying nurses and teachers need military training these days...

Well, it was more than 20 years ago. I have a nephew who's a Marine, stationed in Iraq, while I don't know how much he makes I bet it's a lot better than $800. I wouldn't be surprised if his pay were $2500 a month or more.

Falcon

South-East Asia????

[jotaeleemeese]

From such shining examples of democracy like Burma, Vietnam, Singapore or Malaysia.

You jest, surely, you jest.