Comments on: 'Linux Defenders' aim at Microsoft patents
In the wake of Microsoft's settled suit against TomTom, open-source advocates are stepping up an attempt to invalidate some of Redmond's patents.
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About Beyond Binary
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft.
Beyond Binary is a look at how technology is changing our lives and the people behind all that life-changing stuff, with an extra emphasis on that which emanates from Redmond, Wash.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Beyond Binary topics
Binary Bits
Follow Ina on Twitter (Twitter name: InaFried)
Still it is good to make companies like Microsoft think twice before doing this. I just hope some action on this front can be brought against "pure IP" companies.
If you found a way to write a program that performed an obviously particular task that no one else had developed would you want to be compensated for your work?... Particularly if that program became a standard?
As the little guy trying to get my piece of the pie I'd definitely want to be compensated because I would certainly not think it was fair for some big multi-billion dollar corporation to profit from my work.
In present form, FOSS supporters have a somewhat cavalier "answerable to nobody" attitude. i.e. nobody is allowed to even question/hint/suggest that there might be open-source software that infringes on patents. It's considered absolutely taboo to even make the suggestion!
Now consider what a closed-source company has to use patents for (defensively) -- consider the Alcatel-Lucent patents against MS, the Broadcom-Qualcomm patent disputes, the cross-licensing agreements between Apple/MS/Sun/(everyone), the cross-licensing agreements between Inten/AMD/Nvidia/(everyone), and so on and so forth. The point of that being -- these guys have to play by certain rules. They aren't the ones that created them -- but they do have to play by them. FOSS advocates consider anyone playing by those rules to be automatically hostile.
So yes -- you're right that intellectual property/patent laws need an overhaul. But until that happens, MS is not doing anything different than what any other non-FOSS entity would do. And FOSS advocates are as usual going after MS like rabid dogs without concentrating on the big picture (patent reform) instead.
And again - they need to recognize that the rules apply to them as well. Until the law changes, patent infringement is patent infringement and they need to steer clear of it. If they are going to try to get obvious patents invalidated, they should do it for anyone in the OS space (or general software space that might overlap with FOSS products). Until then, they're lulling themselves into a false sense of security by thinking that just invalidating MS's patents is all that they need to become 'compliant' with the law.
The attitude you describe is mis-read, but the one that exists is a typical one for the industry: that a developer does not go looking for existing patents - the same attitude that Microsoft, IBM, Intel, and etc. have. This is for legal reasons (to avoid 'treble damages') as well as to save time that would otherwise be wasted. If made aware of any existing patents, the developer simply works around them (which is also perfectly legal).
As for what you think the FOSS community thinks about patents otherwise and how they work to avoid the entanglements of them? You have obviously never read the kernel.org mailing list and the legendary flamewars that have raged for years concerning patents (for and against) - otherwise you wouldn't run on such false assumptions.
The general hostility by most (but definitely not all) is towards software patents in general (which I agree with), as it stifles innovation and calicifies progress. The GPL version 3 specifically addresses an anti-patent bent - if any code is patented or patentable, it is not considered GPL material.
PS: in your zeal to denounce Open Source but praise Apple for cross-licensing its patent portfolio, you forget... Apple OSX' kernel (Darwin) is itself Open Source, as are a large percentage of OSX' ancillary functions. You may want to remove that shoe from your maw before replying ;)
That is what copyright is for.
Software is mathematical in nature. Patenting mathematical algorithms is pointless.
Software patents are bogus, even the supreme court said it but need a case to strike them down.
>> "You may want to remove that shoe from your maw before replying"
Let's not turn this into me vs. you. I assure you, any confrontational tone you might have read into my post was unintentional or absent altogether.
>> "PS: in your zeal to denounce Open Source but praise Apple for cross-licensing its patent portfolio, you forget... Apple OSX' kernel (Darwin) is itself Open Source"
I am not praising or denouncing anyone. I'm merely stating that everyone has to follow the same rules. FOSS advocates should not single out MS as a patent troll (it is not, it has real prodcuts). They should not concentrate solely on invalidating MS patents (because they are not the only ones with patents thay may or may not infringe with FOSS products). If they are really about 'patent reform' as opposed to being on an 'anti-MS crusade' then they would concentrate on patent reform, not on invalidating MS's patents.
>> "This is for legal reasons (to avoid 'treble damages') as well as to save time that would otherwise be wasted."
No -- it's only to avoid 'tainting' the developer(s) -- not for saving time. Working around them is legal, as you state. But only legal will do a search for existing patents, not the developer(s).
>> "As for what you think the FOSS community thinks about patents..... You have obviously never read the kernel.org mailing list..... otherwise you wouldn't run on such false assumptions."
At least point out what you think the false assumption is?
>> "it stifles innovation and calicifies progress"
I agree. That wasn't my point at all (I was not defending existing patent law).
>> "The GPL version 3 specifically addresses an anti-patent bent - if any code is patented or patentable, it is not considered GPL material."
This is a bad thing.
Look, instead of letting this degenerate into a slugfest, let me just state my points here clearly:
1. Patent law isn't ideal. I don't agree that patents should be scrapped entirely, but I do agree that in their current form they are definitely not good. You do need to protect IP, but not at the cost of innovation and progress (as is currently the case).
2. MS is not the creator/defender of current patent law. MS is not the sole company with software patents.
3. The law is the law -- everyone *should* have to play by the same rules. Until we get real patent reform, that includes FOSS as well. If some FOSS s/w is infringing, *should be* fair game to go after them.
4. FOSS advocates do not *appear* to agree with point #3 above -- they are up in arms at the mere suggestion of anything FOSS infringing on anyone's IP.
5. FOSS advocates are misdirecting their efforts by trying to solely have MS's patents invalidated. If they truly disliked the patent system, they would not solely target MS's portfolio.
6. Not targetting say, IBM's portfolio is like saying "we are ok with patents as long as we are on the correct side of them".
"I'm merely stating that everyone has to follow the same rules."
No one that I know of in the FOSS community thinks otherwise.
Let me cut to the chase:
The whole reason that Microsoft is being aimed at here? It is not by some secret hatred for Microsoft, or a desire to steal their IP. It is a response to something started by Steve Ballmer himself - specifically, the unsubstantiated claim by Ballmer that somehow 232 of Microsoft's patents were somehow being violated in Linux.
The first reaction by the Linux community was a resounding: "Name them!" Ballmer never did, and simply threw out the words like so much baseless slander.
When SCO claimed that Linux (via IBM) violated its IP in 2003, the Linux community went out of its way to try and discover what it was that was allegedly being violated, but SCO refused to tell and their scant "evidence" was researched straight to public domain code (courtesy of the BSD codebase).
Because of these and more, your premise that FOSS developers have some sort of cavalier attitude towards patents has been proven false by the community's loud and public response to Ballmer (namely, demands for proof), as well as SCO and numerous other examples that show a very scrupulous attention to detail concerning patents and copyright.
The one and only bit that could possibly support your charge involves GPLv3 - but even there, the reason for the anti-patent clauses was to protect the code from being ensnared and closed by patents (see also TiVO as a pioneering example of this).
Regarding the community's public response -- if Ballmer lacks credibility in the community, well, the community lacks credibility with Ballmer as well -- their track record regarding him and MS is nothing if not hostile. If someone asks him in an interview, and he responds saying he does believe Linux infringes on certain patents, it doesn't mean he's interested in pursuing the matter at that point. He's not required to respond at the back and call of the foss community.
And lastly -- I think you're overstating the case for the community contribution in the SCO case. SCO sued IBM -- IBM has an army of lawyers that would put MS to shame. IBM responded and handed SCO it's ass. The community was extremely vocal in their support of IBM. The community (esp. Paula Jones and groklaw) did a phenomenal job of following the trial and explaining the legal nitty-gritty so mere coders like us could understand it. So the community was there every step of the way, and did support IBM -- but the actual work of winning the case, discovery, etc. was done by IBM and IBM's lawyers -- not the community.
Why don't you just give up and admit you don't know sod all about the F/OSS community. Then install Fedora, which has massive community support, and try to do anything that would knowingly violate a patent like access an NTFS partition or play an MP3. No, that you can't do these by default is not a coincidence.
As for the GPLv3. If you have a problem with it, then don't use it. If you want to make software someone else has written somehow unmodifiable in a manner which was somehow unanticipated at the time GPLv2 was written, why don't you pay them like everyone else. 99% of the problems people have with the GPL in any version are that they can't do as they please with someone else's hard work and basically be a bunch of freeloading gits. If Tivo want to have a functionality provided by GPLv3 licensed software they can:-
- Comply with the license.
- Seek legal access to the code under another (probably paid) license from the copyright holder(s).
- Write it themselves.
The GPL is specifically written so that code can be released without freeloaders making money off it without giving something back. If you don't like it?
Tough.
You're perfectly free to pretend GPL software doesn't exist and pay for the alternatives as you would in such a world. Just stop expecting to get free labour. GPLv3 is entirely optional, no-one's being forced to use it, so when someone releases their code under that license that is the author and copyright holder placing these restrictions on the code, not Richard Stallman from on high. If you don't like that someone's released their code under GPLv3, you're perfectly free to get your code elsewhere.
GPLv3 also includes a clause that means if you contribute code that is covered by a patent:-
- if you do not own this patent or the authority to allow its use by others then the code cannot be accepted.
- if you do own this patent and do not grant its use in all GPLv3 software using this code, the code cannot be accepted.
- if any program using this code will by virtue of using this code be restricted in its distribution because of patent laws, we don't want your damn code.
I don't quite understand which part of that would give the impression anyone thinks they're "not answerable to anyone" in the community.
With regards to the 235 claimed patents: MS is not interested in helping anyone else not use any code which is covered by its patents, it wants companies to pay MS license fees while signing a NDA so they can't tell anyone else what those patents are.
The F/OSS community would kill to know what the patents are because we don't want to be in the position of violating any patents if that's at all avoidable and if that means removing offending code that's what we'll do, as has been stated many times and as evidenced by the policies of Red Hat (who refused to 'license' anything from MS).
The F/OSS community wants to remove offending code but MS won't help with that because it's clear they want it to stay in there so they can milk other companies for fees, even if they've only managed to get a couple of flagship companies they effectively had to pay to enter an agreement as the stick.
Compare this to the usual approach from the F/OSS community which is "you've used GPL code in you're closed product here, here and here, please take it out and we'll say nothing more". Opposite doesn't seem to quite cover it. Maybe diametrically opposed.
We're not going to be giving Ballmer a f***ing biscuit now, are we.
Trust is not built by allowing others to blatantly steal your inventions. So long as Microsoft has the patents, defending them is the appropriate thing to do for that firm. Red Hat and others need to prove the patents invalid or pay licensing fees. When Chinese companies violate a US company's IP, everbody is up in arms. When open source does the same, it is righteous?
---------------------------------------
Only when prior art has been proven.
Only when the patents are junk.
LOL
What MS produces comes straight from textbooks, some 40 years old.
they need their checks ! there's a ongoing recession after all
What a shmuck. License agreements do not validate patents, it usually means the company doesn't have the resources or doesn't want waste them fighting a patent battle. Especially if they're sued in east Texas, which is notoriously pro-patent holder and loved by trolls every where or have the issue take to the ITC which apparently doesn't follow the same rules of patent validity before banning products. Patent office examinations do not necessarily mean much wither. Some patents have been re-examined several times before eventually being invalidated.
That is MS.
Mind providing proof?
Well, Apple has a lot of ridiculus patents as well. Just google apple and patents and you will see. In fact, patents is a tool that creates a monopoly, and any company competing in the free markets, will always try and reduce the competition. Its not MS or Apple or TomTom or anyone thats at fault,its the system and its ease to grand a patent on just about anything. But I guess people have a tendency to make evil anything that is big and powerful, such as M$, thats why everyone in the rest of the world hates the U.S.
Your defense of a convicted monopolistic corporation, that has time and again proven that they are more interested in maintaining their cash cows, than team-working with the rest of the software-world, shows that you are not that well informed either.
Oh ... You are being paid by Micro$oft? That explains it.
I have yet to see a software patent that is novel and non-obvious, so that is another area to attack. The fact that so many independently come to the same solution shows how these patents are very obvious.
I am shocked, because as a person who has several patents I can tell you there are plenty of non-obvious software things that can be patented. One just has to use ones imagination to come up with unique and helpful things for others.
As far as nothing in software not being based heavily on prior art. That's malarky. In my line of work I invent new stuff that is not based on prior art. Absolute statements such as yours aren't worth the bits used to store the statement.
Gee, mapping a shorter name to the alias which is really the file name is so frikken ingenious. What kinds of mental midgets are running the patent office?
FAT is a dead simple file system with absolutely nothing innovative. Companies license it because they would rather pay extortion than stand on principles.
If FAT is such a stupid patent then why did TomTom need to use it if the file system used natively by Linux is so great?
I wish more companies would fight ridiculous patents but, they're in business to make money and if paying the patent extortion payment is cheaper than fighting the patent, that's what they'll do. Unfortunately, in the US, fighting a patent battle is SO expensive that unless the patent holder demands a ridiculously high fee (and sometimes, even then), it's always cheaper to pay "protection" money. So, that's what companies do.
- by monkeyfun14 April 28, 2009 10:13 PM PDT
- Linux is just bitter no one wants to use them.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by ralfthedog April 28, 2009 11:07 PM PDT
- Linux and other Unix derived OSS operating systems out number Windows on the server level. They dominate the market for embedded systems and also the cluster/supercomputer market. The only place Microsoft has a strong showing is the desktop.
- Like this
-
(54 Comments)Sounds close to opera doesn't it?
Note: Windows does host a large number of placeholder websites for the domain sellers.