Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Letting Patents Move To Linux Firms

Posted by kdawson on from the didn't-need-'em-anyway dept.

mnmlst notes a Wall Street Journal story (picked up at Total Telecom) on the move of some patents originally held by Microsoft to the Open Invention Network, where they will join a portfolio whose purpose is to inoculate open source companies against patent trolls. OIN is near a deal to buy 22 patents from another patent-protective group, Allied Security Trust, whose members include Verizon, Cisco, and HP. AST won the patents in a private auction Microsoft put on earlier. An AST executive says that "Microsoft presented the patents to potential bidders in its auction as relating to Linux." While OIN's acquisition of the patents will act to protect the Linux community, AST, by contrast, exists to protect only its corporate members, not the community as a whole. But by selling the patents to OIN, they are cooperating in the protection of Linux. And by allowing the patents to go to AST in the first place, Microsoft may (the article implies) be signaling at least their lack of active intent to disrupt the Linux marketplace.

24 of 228 comments (clear)

  1. Explain this to me by assemblerex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    why isn't microsoft doing everything possible to destroy linux? Is this a "saved apple" moment all over again??

    1. Re:Explain this to me by williamhb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why isn't microsoft doing everything possible to destroy linux? Is this a "saved apple" moment all over again??

      Not quite. Saving Apple was (presumably) to help stave off the anti-trust suits against Microsoft by preserving a weak but "potentially credible" competitor. Helping Linux seems much more straightforward: Linux's overlap with Windows is much smaller than its overlap with HP, IBP, and Sun/Oracle. So, Microsoft might well help Linux to weaken HP, IBM, and Sun/Oracle, reckoning that Linux is unlikely itself ever to be a credible threat to Microsoft's own sales. Which (Linux-cheerleading aside) is an understandable assessment as most commercial purchasers tend to run different software on Linux machines than on Windows machines, and it is more often the software decision that drives the hardware purchase (rather than the other way around). So, Microsoft doesn't primarily need to "compete Windows with Linux", they need to "compete SQL-Server with Oracle", "Exchange with Lotus Notes", "IIS with Apache and JBoss", etc.

    2. Re:Explain this to me by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Insightful
      why isn't microsoft doing everything possible to destroy linux?

      It is.

      Microsoft isn't a homogeneous organisation. Parts of it are still in the "Embrace" part of the plan while others are working on "Extinguish"

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    3. Re:Explain this to me by pclminion · · Score: 4, Interesting

      why isn't microsoft doing everything possible to destroy linux? Is this a "saved apple" moment all over again??

      You seem to be making a strange equation between "maximizing profits" and "destroying Linux." The goal of most corporations, Microsoft included, is to make money. Utterly destroying a competitor which, although vocal, represents only a single-digit threat to their market share, seems like a rather irrational expenditure of resources.

      You have an awfully pessimistic world view if you equate the maximization of your own success with the downfall of all others.

    4. Re:Explain this to me by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It may also be the first shot in an attempt to embrace and extend, too. After all, there's quite a lot of rather nice technology in Linux. Apt-get and the open source infrastructure is a heck of an improvement over Microsoft's "Add or remove programs" feature, in my opinion, to say nothing of the dog. Just one example.

      I wonder if future convergence will ever reach a point where I'll be writing this on my favorite (yet to be developed) operating system, an outgrowth of some mixture of a number of them.

      Or maybe I'll just chuck it all and go back to VMS.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    5. Re:Explain this to me by node+3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not quite. Saving Apple was (presumably) to help stave off the anti-trust suits against Microsoft by preserving a weak but "potentially credible" competitor.

      There was no "save Apple" moment.

      When MS invested millions of dollars in Apple, Apple had billions of dollars in the bank. The investment was merely a part of a settlement between Apple and MS that ended the lawsuits Apple had against MS, and for Microsoft's part, they had to buy some Apple stock and promise to keep selling Office for a number of years.

    6. Re:Explain this to me by PAjamian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Speculation is that Microsoft only invited non practicing entities (aka "patent trolls") to this auction. It is very possible that the intent was to sell the patents to a company that could wield them against Linux companies without fear of retribution, but AST managed to step in and get the highest bid on them, and then turned around and sold them to the OIN. This is a subversive plan by MS that backfired.

      --
      Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack perspective.
    7. Re:Explain this to me by Anachragnome · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Apt-get and the open source infrastructure is a heck of an improvement over Microsoft's "Add or remove programs" feature, in my opinion, to say nothing of the dog. Just one example."

      There are always alternatives, it's just that some don't "feel" like MS stuff enough, so they fall by the wayside. I think this is the biggest hurdle that Linux has to leap before it can gain any serious traction on MS. Until it "feels" more like Windows, etc. the vast majority of average users out there won't use it.

      Case in point, your example.

      I use a program called Revo Uninstaller instead of MS's "Add/Remove Application" software. It is far more useful, actually uninstalls things and is free. It runs an application's built in uninstaller, then goes back afterwards and searches for leftover registry entries and files. It then allows you to manually remove them.

      It is so accurate and downright honest about it, I actually use it to test an application for "trustworthyness". I will install an app, then immediately uninstall it with Revo and take note of how much the applications uninstaller left behind. You'd be amazed at how much crap some apps leave behind, most intentionally. Adobe is the worst. I uninstalled one of their apps (reader, I think) and the entire program was still on my hard drive. The Adobe uninstaller straight up fucking lied to me.

      It must work because attempting to uninstall Adobe Flash Player gives you a message that says Adobe refuses to uninstall while Revo is running. Essentially, they want to leave shit on your HD and they KNOW Revo will subvert this.

      Sounds great, right? So why doesn't everyone use it?

      Simple. It doesn't "feel" like the "Add/Remove" app that people are used to. It is hard to convince people that the application they are using doesn't do what they want it to once they have been using it long enough, even if you have the evidence right on the screen in front of them. Some sort of mental block, I suppose. I don't understand it, but I certainly recognize it when I see it.
       

    8. Re:Explain this to me by nmb3000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When MS invested millions of dollars in Apple, Apple had billions of dollars in the bank. The investment was merely a part of a settlement between Apple and MS that ended the lawsuits Apple had against MS, and for Microsoft's part, they had to buy some Apple stock and promise to keep selling Office for a number of years.

      You're mostly correct. When MS invested in Apple, they had a little over a billion dollars in cash available. The bigger problem was that their market share and stock price had been tumbling for years (1997-1998 was a huge low point, the lowest in some 10 years). Apple wasn't in tremendous financial trouble just yet, but they were worried about the direction things were going, and (as Apple should know better than anyone) public perception of a company's performance is just as important as the real numbers.

      The $150 million was really a drop in the bucket. What was more important was that they paid Apple that via purchasing stock which they weren't allowed to sell for 3 years. As you said, they also agreed to continue writing and selling Office for the Mac. They agreed to collaborate on Java to ensure interoperability. Best of all was the agreement to make IE the default browser on the Mac! ;)

      Basically, it was Microsoft showing faith in the Apple platform that "saved Apple". Yes, they are competitors, but as Steve Jobs said, "We have to let go of the notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose, and for Microsoft to win, Apple has to lose." Considering Microsoft is a publicly-owned company, their motives were obviously more than just being buddy-buddy with Apple. That's not really the point, however.

      This video is pretty neat to watch now (some 12 years later). It's Jobs announcing the new partnership with Microsoft and the reation of the audience (imagine what it would be like now).

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    9. Re:Explain this to me by node+3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Eh, Apple's "billions of dollars in the bank" was basically Enron accounting, and that was reflected in the stock price.

      Um, no. It was actual cash on hand.

      The Microsoft "investment" provided a serious boost for Apple in their times of dire need, and there is no need to pathetically try to rewrite history.

      The boost wasn't the cash. It wasn't even, directly, the deal with Microsoft.

      The deal with Microsoft was the result of a change in direction for Apple. At most, it was a "vote of confidence" from MS, especially the commitment to continue to provide MS Office.

      No, the boost was Jobs' redirection of Apple which appeared to be increasingly rudderless at the 90s wore on.

      Unless you are one of those late 90s-era melon-headed downsies mac zealots who actually believed Apple was not in serious financial conditions. In that case a shithouse OS like MacOS 8 is exactly what you deserved.

      Apple wasn't hurting for cash, they were hurting for direction. MS's $150 million had essentially zero direct effect for Apple financially.

    10. Re:Explain this to me by symbolset · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are always alternatives, it's just that some don't "feel" like MS stuff enough, so they fall by the wayside.

      I'm not a patent lawyer but I should think an "Add/remove" programs feature that actually adds programs is sufficiently innovative in the Windows world to merit patent protection.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    11. Re:Explain this to me by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I remember those days - Mac users would brag about "Think Different" due to not running Windows, and then run a whole suite of Microsoft products such as Office, Internet Explorer etc...

      (Although I see that now, "Think Different" is replaced with "Get an iSomething to be like everyone else"...)

  2. This isn't what's called winning by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a really expensive way to dodge a tiny part of the software patent problem, and it involves paying Microsoft millions. And for every such trick we win, how many did we lose?

    The upcoming Bilski review is the first time in 28 years that the Supreme Court in the USA will review the patentability of software - that's were we can get a real victory. I'm working on an amicus brief which'll have to be submitted within about two weeks. If anyone wants to help, it would be very useful to expand the swpat.org wiki's information about studies which show the harm of software patents:

    And to add more info about arguments for abolishing software patents:

    This is our big chance and might be the last one for decades.

    --
    Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
  3. Patents Don't Protect the Community by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All this talk of "defensive patents" that supposedly "protect the community" is just a fraud. To protect the community, take all the documentation of the patent, and put it in the public domain. Then, anyone who wants can implement the tech, without restriction, forever. Keeping it patented retains the power of the patent holder to deny implementation to someone, sometime.

    If they were really serious about merely protecting the community, they'd give up the patent control entirely. But it's clear that "the" community just means whoever the patent holder wants to defend from someone else who they exclude. That's entirely against what the Linux way of real open development means: anyone, anytime can join the community by coding and releasing.

    These "defensive" patent orgs will bite us in the ass. Otherwise they wouldn't be investing time and money in not just the patent portfolios and all the work to maintain them, but also in conning us into believing it's for our own good.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Patents Don't Protect the Community by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      take all the documentation of the patent, and put it in the public domain.

      That's what a patent does in the first place!

      It just provides monopoly protection for actually using said patent.

      In fact, this was the whole point of patents. Say I invented lemonade. Without a patent, I'd keep it my secret family recipe for generations, and anyone who wanted to make lemonade would have to reverse engineer it -- but if someone did, I wouldn't be able to say much.

      With a patent, I would publish the documentation ("It's just sugar, water, and lemon juice.") and then only I can make lemonade. Or I can license the recipe to others -- it's not like they don't know how to make it now, it's that they legally can't unless I let them.

      If they were really serious about merely protecting the community, they'd give up the patent control entirely.

      I'm not sure it's legally possible to do that, is the problem. Moreover, having a process patented provides clear documentation that you patented it first, thus putting the burden on anyone's infringing patent to prove that they invented it before you did.

      No, my big problems with this are not that I think the result is bad, but because I think it should be unnecessary -- I highly doubt Microsoft has any stunning invention that Linux "stole" for which prior art doesn't exist a thousandfold, and even if there were, I'm not sure software patents should exist at all.

      But if I'm going to accept that they exist, and that someone has to hold them, I'd much rather that someone not be Microsoft, no matter how legally binding their "covenant not to sue" is.

      Though it would be pretty slimy if this new organization doesn't have some sort of "covenant not to sue." Maybe that's the motive? Blech, now I have to go wash the evil from my brain...

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    2. Re:Patents Don't Protect the Community by Hurricane78 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He said it best:

      “Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.”
      — meringuoid (568297) @ 2005-11-24 16:40 (#14107454)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    3. Re:Patents Don't Protect the Community by DECS · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Rethink your position. The point of defensive patents is to leverage what you have to make up for what you don't have.

      If you sue me over patent A, I can countersue you over patent B, and force you to settle with me amicably in a sharing arrangement.

      If I give away by patent B so that unicorns dance among sunshine and rainbow farts, then I end up fucked when you sue me over patent A. I am also powerless to help anyone else in the open source community being attacked over patent A, because I gave away my leverage to the public domain.

      I'm all for beating swords into plowshares, but if you're likely to show up and stab me with your sword, I better keep my sword around, too.

      Inside Mac OS X Snow Leopard: 64-bits

  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. Patents are so 1999... by sitarlo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    UNIX is bigger than US patents. It is a culture that became an OS that became a culture. Linux gave the poor man a way to run a UNIX-like OS without having to shell out big bucks to Sun, HP, AT&T, SCO, or another UNIX vendor. Linux has become a culture in its own right. If MS were smart, they'd drop the "we hate all things UNIX" attitude and develop their own OSX-style distro that could be run on cheap PC hardware which would put them in position to actually take back some of the market Apple has claimed, and Google is about to claim. Besides, copying Apple is what they do best.

  6. Re:Of course it's a loss. by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hey everyone! Twitter's back!

  7. Not so fast. by miffo.swe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "And by allowing the patents to go to AST in the first place, Microsoft may (the article implies) be signaling at least their lack of active intent to disrupt the Linux marketplace."

    Im much more inclined to believe that the intent was some patent troll getting their hands on the patents. They want a new SCO, no doubt.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
  8. Linux is fine, US software industry in trouble by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Linux is fine becuase it is developed globally. It is the USA with these weird software and business method patents that has the problem which affects both open and closed software. There can always be US compliant distros with the patented portions removed just as Redhat already does with mp3 software. It's just like the stupid encyption export limitations which led to companies like RSA incorporating out of the USA and moving development out of the USA.

  9. misleading title .. by viralMeme · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You may notice that Microsoft never offered the patents to OIN or anyone directly involved in developing Linux, but instead sold them in a private auction. If one didn't suspect Microsoft of being evil, one would suspect them of releasing the patents to third parties, in the hope that they would engage in patent litigation. Is there a precedent for MS funneling finance to companies who go on to sue people for using Linux?

  10. This is why Mono is dangerous. by makomk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This possibility is why Mono is dangerous, and why Microsoft's promise not to sue is worthless. Since the promise not to sue is not a patent license, it doesn't bind any future purchasers of Microsoft's patents on .Net.

    All Microsoft has to do is sell a couple of their more critical patents to patent trolls, after first granting themselves and all the Microsoft .Net users a suitable non-revokable license to them. *BANG*! No more Mono, and all the apps written for it become illegal to run in the US - unless you run them on Microsoft .Net. This is perfectly safe for Microsoft since they and their customers are protected by the patent licenses.