Read more on Cloud Computing
Editors' Picks
Is Linux at risk from a Microsoft patent blitz?
Editors' picks
Open-source advocates have long warned that lax patent oversight could eventually pose a major problem for the technology.
Now some believe that their fears are about to become reality. Is the threat genuine or merely hyped? Tell us what you think.
August 4, 2004
The evidence
Bill Gates
- eWeek Linux Companies Address IP Concerns
- InfoWorld Munich's Linux roll-out halted
- CNET News.com Group: Linux potentially infringes 283 patents
- NewsForge HP memo forecasts MS patent attacks on free software
- The Public Patent Foundation PUBPAT Announces Microsoft Patent Watch
- Open Source Risk Management Mitigating Linux Patent Risk (PDF file)
- CNET News.com Gates wants patent power
- Microsoft Intellectual Property Licensing
Rise of Linux
Linus Torvalds
- CNET News.com HP offers Linux-based laptop
- CNET News.com Linux fervor on display at trade show
- TechTarget Linux jobs on the rise, so do your homework
- Sun Microsystems' Jonathan Schwartz IBM is in a Pickle (Again)
- Internetnews.com Hidden Costs Said to Stymie Linux Growth
- InfoWorld Gartner: Rapid Linux growth boosts server market
- TechWeb Ballmer: Linux Is Top Threat To Windows
Other threats
Darl McBride
- InfoWorld SCO CEO: No need to sue more customers
- CNET News.com Linux, digital rights on collision course
- Ecommerce Times Red Hat Refocuses Sales Model
- Microsoft Watch Microsoft Hints of Future Programs to Stave Off Linux Overseas
Open source and patents
Beyond Microsoft and Linux, open-source programmers everywhere face complications from patents, both valid and invalid. Flaws in the patent system in the United States and elsewhere are blamed for inflating the value of worthless patents, undermining open-source efforts across the board.- The Register Patents and the threat to open source
- CNET News.com Will patents pillage open source?
- NewsForge Patents in an open source world
- The Inquirer IBM patents method for paying open source volunteers
- CNET News.com IBM pledges no patent attacks against Linux
- Salon Patents are your friends
- Bruce Perens An open-source call to arms
Audio and Video
LinuxWorld 2004 conference attendees sound off
As Linux makes its move in the big-business arena, the open-source community faces growing pains. Correspondent James Hilliard asks conference-goers at LinuxWorld 2004 in San Francisco for their thoughts on the transition and how it is affecting the development of the open-source landscape.
Preview: LinuxWorld 2004
News.com's Stephen Shankland sits down with correspondent James Hilliard to look at some of the issues and news expected at this year's LinuxWorld gathering in San Francisco.
Global open-source community continues to thrive
At LinuxWorld 2004 in San Francisco, Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik looks at the challenges Linux has faced over the last 10 years and the progress it's made, announces new Red Hat application server software for running Java programs, and calls for reform of intellectual-property law in the United States.
Solaris better than Linux?
Sun Microsystems' new executive vice president of software, John Loiacono, embraces Linux but has more love for Solaris. Hear what he has to say about both operating systems and how they are living together at Sun.
Szulik says Red Hat won't abuse its clout
As developers gather for LinuxWorld, Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik sits down for a Face to Face interview with ZDNet Editor in Chief Dan Farber and CNET News.com reporter Stephen Shankland. Szulik denies that Red Hat's aim is to be the Microsoft of open source--whose community, he says, is alive and well.
Time to think differently about open source?
During his keynote address to the O'Reilly Open Source Convention 2004, media maven Tim O'Reilly discussed some of the top issues shaping open-source development. He noted a paradigm shift taking place and said the community needs to shift its approach and thoughts about what open source truly is.
Ballmer questions open-source code security
At Gartner's Symposium/ITxpo in Orlando, Fla., Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer disputes the idea that open-source code is easier to secure than that of Windows.
SuSE's Seibt: "It's getting hot now"
In an exclusive Face to Face interview with ZDNet Editor in Chief Dan Farber, SuSE Linux chief Richard Seibt talks about the impact of SCO's legal maneuvering, competition with Microsoft and the two-horse race with Red Hat to blaze the open-source trail from servers to desktops.
I also think that if Microsoft made a list, it'd be a lot bigger than just 27.
IBM makes money by selling hardware and services. So, that's good for IBM shareholders..
It will most likely happen. But only after the SCO fiasco comes to an end and MS has a solid legal base before moving forward. Oh and did I forget to mention most likely alternate sites and alternate means to keep their sites up when the inevitable DDoS occurs from the latest and greatest worm because its almost a given at this point anyone who attacks Linux is going to get a snoot full of DDoSes. MS is probably taking this into consideration as well. They do have a ton of assets that could be vulnerable. msn.com, carpoint.com, hotmail.com, mappoint.com, Microsoft.com among others. A worm writer could have a hay day with their network. Consequently MS may be looking at what if scenarios.
I personally am sick of this kind of BS in the industry and if MS goes forward I hope there is an industry backlash from it. Here's a freaking original idea: <b>ACTUALLY FREAKING COMPETE INSTEAD OF THIS LEGALESE BS!!!</b>
Most companies cross license "sets" of patents, or portfolios - that cover a certain range of Intellectual Property. So cross-licensing does not always mean the entire IP portfolio. Think of it as buying a Music CD - there are a choice few gems you want, but you have to pay for the whole CD with a ton of other garbage (undoubtedly a negative side-influence from the Music world).
Personally, I think most patents are just stupid, common-sense patents that really should not have been granted in the first place. However, there are also important patents that actually represent revolutionary ideas - which the creator certainly should be entitled to protection.
I would hazard to say that a fair chunk of the patents in the computer industry are without merit. Just how many ways can people design a BINARY circuit to perform a task without accidentally infringing on a patent? Seriously, it's either ON or OFF - and that doesn't allow people much "wiggle" room to design chips differently enough NOT to infringe on a patent.
Software coding is probably easier to circumvent, but it is a very murkey area.
This leads me to my own opinion on MS suing Linux over its own patents. ALL companies are out there to make money - not develop products for others to copy and profit from.
If Linux makes serious headway into MS Windows sales, you can bet they will take some action to try and halt it. Anyone would.
Even IF the patents don't have a strong legal leg to stand on (they may, or may not), they will still sue - to delay Linux with FUD till they can come up with a counter-measure to preserve their market share.
Microsoft cannot sue to stop the distribution of Linux at this time because it would be counter-productive for them to do so.
MS already monopolizes 95% of the desktop market. And a fair chunk of the x86 server market. Any action to increase those figures will only serve as an open invitation for the Department of Justice to launch yet another anti-trust suit!
My guess is that MS will spend some time trying to figure out what those patents are, watch the situation, and sit on it. They will probably act on it if their market share starts to show some serious erosion.
For the MS bashers out there, please note, that ALL companies would act the exact same way - it's just human/corporate nature.
My two cents, anyway.
and it's blind ideology keeps it's head in the sand!
I hate Government intervention but I see no other way. Fair
competition (Linux for instance) cannot overcome the "barriers
of entry" that a software company has to overcome because of
Microsoft's stranglehold.
Is letting Microsoft "get it's way" worth it to _protect_ the USA's
lead in InfoTech? Maybe, but at what cost? We're stifling
ourselves!
When Gateway bought out the remains of Amiga I recall there was a list of patents which Amiga held published somewhere online. It included proportionally sized scrollbars (odds are 99% of the software running on your computer right now has these!)
The upshot is that patents are being handed out for trivial ideas which took only a momentary flash of inspiration, and have no monitary value. I happened upon a student thesis the other day about Instant Messaging, which covered the issue of patents. If what he wrote is true (and I've no way of being certain if it is or not) then there needs to be a shake up in the way patents are granted.
"...most are either not new innovations or so similar to existing ideas to not justify a patent. [http://...|http://...] The reason that these have been allowed is that the US Patent office seems to only search their own patent archives."
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.david-lane.co.uk/work/MSc/thesis.pdf" target="_newWindow">http://www.david-lane.co.uk/work/MSc/thesis.pdf</a>
First the RIAA, now Linux... what next? We need to stop limiting the rights to advancement, and who has the ownership to what, and continue on. If we cannot do this, this country, and our tech industry will fail miserably.
Maybe its time to change every elected official in this country.
The point I want to make here is that Linux is not the only software threatened by patents. ALL software is. This is because it is an impossible task for a software engineer to tailor a solution to a problem with full knowledge of all the patents that might potentially apply to the approach. Every company that makes software today is navigating the patent minefield blindly hoping that they won't hit the one that causes a USPTO licensed crook to come collect on his paper IP.
1) Patent infringement is a problem with Linux, so the standard response is, "The patent system is broken, unfair, wrong, etc."
-Right. Except that patent law has been used, tested, and tried in court for years. Open-source lincenses are completely unproven in a court of law. Analysis: The patent system is currently stronger and more viable than open-source licensing.
2) Open-source is safe because as soon as patent infringement is found, the offending code will simply be rewritten.
- What are you, stupid? Even Linus T. said this! Unbelieveable. When you were a kid, you parents probably taught you to apologize for your mistakes. What they apparently neglected to teach you, was that apologizing does not mean you didn't make a mistake. Analysis: Returning stolen property does not eliminate the criminal activity of stealing it in the first place. You are still a criminal.
Lets just quit publishing these ridiculous arguments, people. They are lame and ignorant. If Linus tells developers NOT to check for I.P. infringement in the code they write, and he then incorporates patented concepts, then the Linux community is responsible for theft. Plain and simple.
I would say that Microsoft better do something about this. However, I believe this is not a Microsoft battle. Many companies will rise up and realize that that are the victim of theft, and that open-source is the criminal. There will probably be a united front against open source (linux in particular), and the end result will be heavy fines for all Linux users or Licensing fees for the Linux OS.
Patents on software and business methods (which were previously unpatentable) were recently added thanks to a court decision. Just because the patent system has been around by no means makes it immune from mistakes. It's no secret that the patent office is short on the resources it needs to subject these patents to the scrutiny they deserve. Because of this some companies have been patenting basic concepts (like the patent on hyperlinks). Yet more companies patent things they didn't invent. For example, Network Associates recent patented several methods of doing spam filtering (such as Bayesian filters) none of which did they develop or invent. Its a sad day when you have to a lawyer just to develop software.
"Lets just quit publishing these ridiculous arguments, people. They are lame and ignorant. If Linus tells developers NOT to check for I.P. infringement in the code they write, and he then incorporates patented concepts, then the Linux community is responsible for theft. Plain and simple."
Speaking of lame and ignorant, Linus never told anyone to steal I.P. Check for I.P infringment is no easy task and due to the number patents being filed it's pretty much impossible to do an extensive search and release software in reasonable amount of time.
"I would say that Microsoft better do something about this. However, I believe this is not a Microsoft battle. Many companies will rise up and realize that that are the victim of theft, and that open-source is the criminal. There will probably be a united front against open source (linux in particular), and the end result will be heavy fines for all Linux users or Licensing fees for the Linux OS."
What do work for Microsoft or something? I doubt there will be any united front against open-source .
Currently the patent system is "stronger and more viable". I for one am not going to cheer for that
As an aside, I would not call patent law tested in the software realm. Maybe it's just me, but all I can see at the end of that road is grotesque and ridicule. You might need a license whenever you are using grammar to speak your own language.
I think some modesty is in order. To obtain a patent is progressist - in the measure in which
it helps spreading the idea. To obtain a patent just because it is a way of preventing competition
from using an otherwise trivial idea is wrong beyond law. Nonetheless almost all software patents are in this second category - my $0.02. People that argue that they are the only ones who can possibly have an idea or other are just a plague on the face of the earth.
Maybe we need to recognize that there is something very wrong with software patents and work from there. The solutions are not even in sight yet - I would like to hear proposals. It will be painful and many honest souls will be dragged in dirt and humiliation. The Open Source people are in the first line.
That is why I have no sense of humor when people confuse things, as in "returning stolen property". We have yet to agree that algorithms are property. Mathematical theorems are not. These are issues that we can not afford to handle by fitting some pre-existing tools, such as patent law. The damage to the society as a whole can not be measured in dollars, because there is not enough of them anywhere.
Here is a question for you, David: do you consider yourself a good citizen?
The claimant'd have a hard time proving that.
i am a student programmer, and i've been in the field networking and running wires with windows, and it's the biggest headache in the world. the worst part is windows just does what it wants to and doesn't tell you what it's doing. linux does. it's a beautiful science of an architecture. the file system is ALL permission based. there's no C-drive or D-drive for you to click on, because you might not have permission to! it's like if you log in to a linux machine, you start out on the branch of a tree and you cannot go backwards to the root of the tree unless you know the password. on top of the superior design, i've heard numbers that indicate it's at least 4x faster/more efficient than windoze.
Linux is a real OS, windoze is a toy.
John Kerry is a real man, GW is a puppet.
Programming is an art form, as many developers will agree. I'm not a programmer myself, but I do know small amounts of C++, Perl, Pascal and Basic.
If I were to use this analogy in the current climate where the threat of Open Source Software is being challenged, then we would have something like such.
If i were to paint a picture of a woman sitting on a chair smiling, have I not just infringed on Leonardo Da Vinci's IP for the Mona Lisa? What about if I honestly admit that the Mona Lisa was my inspiration for painting that painting?
I can argue for hours many other ways to look at it, but I think Linux end users need to now band together and start signing pertitions of some sort to protect the Open Source Industry from coming under attack from outdated laws and worried Multinationals. Hit up a site and start taking names and gathering it's troops.
In one corner, we have the best programmers in world banding together in creating an alternate to the monopoly we current have. In the other we have a corporate giant, trying to strong arm people into their lincensing conditions and ridiculous fees for software which doesn't work.
Microsoft has had ample time to concrete their market share. They were too busy maximising profits to put any effort into creating a good product, there was no competition.
Linux is about the people. It's a peoples Operating System and that is why Microsoft is scared, however any attack they make on the Linux community will be met with people turning away further from Microsoft. People want competition to MS, people want Linux.
no SGML, or HTML, or XML, or XLT, or WML -- jeez,
list is endless. Who knows? We may not have had
the web as it is today if some bloody patent had
disrupted the flow of innovations in software
technology. The C language is the "father" or C++, Java, Objective-C, Phyton, D and (*choke*)
C#. This is the natural way software technology
evolves -- through competition and innovation.
Now some of M$'s patents aims to corner XML
technology, thereby blocking innovation from other quarters. This is absolutely wrong.
Software patents stifle competition and, worse, innovation.
You can always claim that the technique used in different though the efefcts look similar.
The claimant would have to open the source and the fact that the end result is 'the same' one can always make the claim that the idea behind it predates the patent date.
When defending against a claim, the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the other way around.
I could patent linked lists of something and everybody who wants to have a linked list would pay me?
I don't think so.
The fact is that sofware are fundamentally unenforcible. The process of discovery lets the "cat out of the bag" as it were.
Once the infringement has been documented in a court of law, it becomes part of the public domain. It has to, otherwise how could you claim infringement.
I'm sure Gates thinks it is clever business to try and squash an OS with patents, but for those of us who are smarter than MS, we know exactly what they're doing. They're trying to secure their investments, because Linux IS stronger,faster,and more secure. Many many companies would have migrated already if it wasn't for the SCO lawsuit. Now with MS's patent claims that Linux infringes on 27 owned by MS, it's going to further delay many migrations. I wonder how long they'll publish these claims before they actually go to court.
As for Open Source, which is completely legal, the modular programming of Linux which has been seen by scientists all across the planet is far superior to the browser-centric approach of MS. Look at the Up-Time differences. MS has no game. Everytime you add something, you have to reboot. Not so with Linux, just restart the service itself, and no other service drops. The People aren't going to forget how big of a jerk MS has been. MS can have the entertainment industry for all we care, but hopefully SOON their place in IT will be another page in the history books.
for all I care, an entity with the behaviuor of Microsoft can have nothing. They will make as much of a mess wherever they set their foot
Someone needs to seriously inform these departments about the problem. Congress should be informed. Senators should be informed. These poor uninformed souls are being manipulated by tricky software companies. There should be a seperate patent department for software, and it should be comprised of well-recognized individuals with law and computer science degrees.
This stuff seriously needs an upgrade.
We need law to invalidate all software patents.
You can not patent the LOGIC!
Patents are applicable only to tangible items!
As far as what future will do?
Penguin will break all the windows and we all will help him to sucseed.
Enough of Microsoft MONOPOLY!
Selling computers with preloaded operating system is illegal, the US laws prohibits bundled transactions!
Microsoft back to closet LINUX is reigning!
I never hated Microsoft but more I read about more I am against their methods.
I don't want to buy PC and be told which OS I have to chose, how the hard disk is prepared at factory and how I have to use it!.
To tell one that you have to buy OS with PC shall be considered as an act of conspiracy with the intention of extortion.
Why Microsoft invented Windows XP Home, Windows XP PRO, where basicaly it was a sczm to separate the people from their money.
Remember Windows ME?
Any operating system for PC should be a public property!
PATENT on Intellectual Property?
Patent on LOGIC?
Joke of the century.
I say, bring it on!