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

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.

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"?

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: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: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...

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