Manage updates with the Download App
May 14, 2007 3:55 PM PDT
Microsoft agitates for open-source patent pacts
- Related Stories
-
Report: Microsoft says open source violates 235 patents
May 13, 2007 -
Microsoft makes Linux pact with Novell
November 2, 2006 -
HP memo: Microsoft planned open-source patent fight
July 20, 2004
In an interview with Fortune magazine published this week, Microsoft's top lawyer, Brad Smith, provided a stark tally of 235 Microsoft patents the company believes are violated by free and open-source software, though he stopped short of detailing any. Specifically, he alleged that the Linux kernel violates 42 Microsoft patents; its user interface and other design elements infringe 65; OpenOffice.org infringes 45; and other packages infringe another 83 Microsoft patents.
Microsoft could have several motives for rattling its patent saber: slowing down open-source rivals, raising fears of open-source legal risks among customers, and winning payment for technology the company believes it deserves from a group that's generally been unwilling to pony up.
But according to Horacio Gutierrez, vice president of intellectual property and licensing at Microsoft, the company's move is designed to bring parties to the negotiating table that currently aren't there. "There is nothing specific about open-source software that warrants an exception of the intellectual property laws that apply to everyone else," Gutierrez said. He called the purported patent infringements "not accidental."
Microsoft is a major player in the existing legal and business establishment for handling intellectual property, which includes assets such as patents, trademarks and copyrights. That framework gives considerable power to incumbent companies with large patent portfolios and sufficient resources to pursue more.
"It's a game in which those who have a lot of resources to throw around have a lot of advantage," said Tom Carey, a partner in the Boston-based intellectual property law firm Bromberg & Sunstein.
As an example of what it would like to see, Microsoft points primarily to the Novell patent deal struck in November, in which Microsoft is selling coupons that permit use of Novell's Suse Linux Enterprise Server along with the assurance that Microsoft won't assert its patents against customers. It's unclear how high open-source patent protection is on most companies' priority list, but Microsoft has made a big deal out of the fact that Linux protections are included in two patent-swap deals this year made with Samsung and Fuji Xerox.
Raising the prospect of open-source patent risks might not be likely to make Red Hat, the top Linux seller, overcome its current unwillingness to pay Microsoft for patent rights. But it could pressure Red Hat and others indirectly, either through jittery customers or through big-business partners such as IBM. That's Microsoft's hope.
"We don't think that customers will want to continue on without a solution to the problem," Gutierrez said. Microsoft also pointed to the fact that AIG, Credit Suisse, HSBC, Nationwide and Wal-Mart all have bought the Linux Suse Linux coupons from Microsoft.
But does open-source infringe?
The only problem with Microsoft's plan: so far its actions have only rallied the open-source troops, and not everyone believes the open-source gang egregiously violates the intellectual property regime.
"I don't think open-source is not playing by existing intellectual property rules," said Mark Radcliffe, an intellectual property attorney with DLA Piper. "Currently, open-source (participants) use copyright for everything they do. A lot of open-source companies have patents."
Radcliffe also derided Microsoft's reasoning that the purported open-source patent violations aren't accentual because the company thinks hundreds of cases exist. "It's an illusion or deceptive to say merely because there apparently are potentially a lot of patents infringed, it's intentional. That's certainly not the legal standard," he said. "I would also be willing to bet, given the number of patent suits against Microsoft that they've lost, under their own theory, Microsoft itself is intentionally infringing."
The fact remains, though, that patents and open-source software can be anathema. Patents give exclusive, proprietary rights to those who hold them, but open-source software is built on a philosophy of free technology sharing. Many in the open-source realm deride software patents and have been lobbying to curtail their influence.
When Novell and Microsoft announced their patent deal, the Free Software Foundation was quick to say it would move to prohibit such arrangements in a future version of the General Public License (GPL), the most widely used open-source license. The most recent draft seeks to prohibit all future deals of that nature and potentially past ones, too.
The timing of Microsoft's pronouncement is telling, Radcliffe said, "particularly when you think that GPL version 3 is still in draft. I don't think that is a coincidence," he said.
See more CNET content tagged:
intellectual property, patent, open source, open-source company, open-source software
84 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
Now Novell is powerless to defend Open Source.
We still have IBM and others however.
IBM have more patents than Microsoft and Novell combined.
If just one corporation would be forced to use many patents against another, the world can see the stupidity behind the idea of thoughts and meta-ideas patenting.
They will never do it, because on the business, practival level they are one, patents-holding body. One strong spark can destroy everything, which is based on that homeostasis.
Why and what?
Now there is a cast of people (owners and lawyers) from corporations, that are rich enough to have ideas. Regular people without deep pockets are not allowed to have ideas. They must join them, sell them rights. This is gravity law of corrupted business economy. Why? The corporations are too big for quick reactons on the hi-tech field, but the individuals, they can and they are flexible. So the corporations, fat boys of market, had the idea to own the ideas, not products. It's easy, they do not have to be concurrent. Only they should take care about is to blackmale inventors to slurp their ideas and realize them in their snaily processes of creating products. It's not worthy to any corporation to start a war. It means the loose for the whole cast, and no profits from virtual products called patents.
If they are not willing to show their patents for all to see, then one can only assume they are a bunch of liars just trying to steal other peoples money any way they can.
If they are convinced their patents are being infringed, then they should show us why.
As it stands now, innocient until proven guilty fully applies which means the open source community did not "steal" anything.
The Open Source community is a good and fair community. It is not fueled by money hungry people who will do anything to increase value to shareholders.
It is a world community of great people who are willing to give their time and expertise.
In case you didn't know, Microsoft has been convicted countless times for stealing other people's stuff.
"You can't just "steal" what you want, and if the OpenSource movement wants to play in this field they have to abide by the law."
There is no evidence they've broken the law only an unsupported allegation from a company with a history of Linux FUD. SCO to claimed Linux was infringing on their IP, and despite suing IBM have yet to show one line of infringing code. It was later revealed that Microsoft invested in SCO after they filed their lawsuit, presumably to help SCO.
"So they either remove the infringing code/designs, pay the licensing fee or face the consequences."
I suspect removing the code is exactly why Microsoft won't support their allegations. They know the second they show their hand open source developers will start to remove and redo potentially infringing code and that would hurt Microsoft's attempt to get license revenue from Linux. We don't even know if these patents are even valid. Not to long ago Microsoft tried to patent an XML technology almost identical to RSS, but withdrew the application after being criticized for trying to steal RSS.
In short, if MSFT does anything more than mouth off about supposed violations (which may or may not exist - until MSFT names 'em specifically, it's nothing but hot air), all hell will break loose.
I already know [i]why[/i] MSFT is making noises - Vista sales are nowhere near as high as they expected, OEM's are in open revolt against it, and Office 2k7 ain't exactly bringing home the bacon either. MSFT sees a future where the only direction for them is down. Because of this, they can only talk the talk and hope that FUD will save 'em.
Legally, if MSFT names 'em, they have to sue over 'em, else they lose any hope of being able to successfully defend against any infringements later on.
So quite succinctly, I say bring it on... let's name names and not pussyfoot around. IMHO, one of two (among many) outcomes are certain:
1) MSFT gets buried under counter-suits by nearly every other big player in the software realm, enough to make it crawl home with tail betwixt legs in an orgy of sudden free and public "cross-licensing" agreements (See also BSD v. AT&T, c.1980's).
2) MSFT winds up getting software patents invalidated @ the Supreme Court just to clean the mess up.
Either way, MSFT loses. This is why they prolly won't do anything more than mouth a few grumbles and eventually not do anything about it until/unless it backs them up against a wall of bankruptcy.
/P
Open Source is just too open to interpretation and even now has trouble being able to define what it is. How can a product be open source when it's being sold for a profit and copyrighted? That's not open source, that's private. We've seen it time and time again in the industry and hopefully something like this will make them wake up and realize that unless they quit fighting amongst themselves and quit being the geek fodder that they are, they will never be taken seriously or be a viable product offering.
Open Source is just too open to interpretation and even now has trouble being able to define what it is. How can a product be open source when it's being sold for a profit and copyrighted? That's not open source, that's private. We've seen it time and time again in the industry and hopefully something like this will make them wake up and realize that unless they quit fighting amongst themselves and quit being the geek fodder that they are, they will never be taken seriously or be a viable product offering.
Just like everyone coming out the woods to jump on MS with a lawsuit, mostly rightfully so but lots of times just get a piece of the pie...which in turn hurts MS from a PR stand point.
Facts are facts....MS is making boat loads of cash whether you hate them of love them.
Compare MS at....
"For its fiscal third quarter ended March 31, the software giant reported net income of $4.9 billion, or 50 cents a share, on sales of $14.4 billion."
to Apple at....
"California?April 25, 2007?Apple® today announced financial results for its fiscal 2007 second quarter ended March 31, 2007. The Company posted revenue of $5.26 billion and net quarterly profit of $770 million, or $.87 per diluted share."
Both companies did well and grew but dam MS profit was almost as much as all of Apple sales...and MS does not sell hardware (for the most part compared to Apple).
Vista doing bad???????
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_100days.asp" target="_newWindow">http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_100days.asp</a>
Hardly at all. Vista will dominate....like it or not. These law suits will go no-where...but the will plant doubt.
c,companynews/article.html
Bad Times at Redmond High
If anybody from MS actually reads this think logically: look at how ineffective the US Justice Dept was in keeping Microsoft at bay, and that was the government targeting one company. You're NOT the government -- you're one company many common people are wary of, and few sympathetic to -- and you're attacking the life-blood of your industry: the engineers you need to keep going.
Ballmer's over his head trying to run MS: they haven't been doing well since Gates turned over the corner-office. Not that he was a saint, but he was (and is) a very bright devil. Maybe it's time for a "merger" (read: sell-out) to Google?
Microsofts "know-how"</i></b>.
<p>
That statement alone is <b><i>so incredulous that it implodes the
rational mind</i></b>. What they are doing in reality, is getting
people to pay Microsoft for methods (which shoud only be able to
be copyrighted in the first place), that Microsoft never developed in
the first place.</p>
<p>Talk about a large, fat, greedy, evil pig of a company.</p>
:)
It's not hard to see the future and it certainly isn't Microsoft.
There was a lot of Lotus 123 clones, and a lot of Wordperfect clones, and even some clones of Crosstalk a modem program. After years and a ton of money later, Lotus, Wordperfect, Crosstalk, etc lost their IP lawsuits. Then Microsoft saw that they could make Excel, a clone of Lotus 123, Word a clone of Wordperfect, and Windows a clone of the Macintosh System around 1983-1984 when Microsoft decided to start using ideas from other companies and apply for their own patents.
Even MS-DOS infringed on CP/M-86 and Unix in many ways, but Microsoft didn't care who owned the IP as long as IBM would buy the OS from them and they could license it to other companies.
Yeah man!
LIVE LONG AND PROSPER!
Commander_Spock
If MS claims there are patent infringement they should point to the infringing code and say exactly what it infringes upon. There are hundreds of thousands of patents and the only way to identify infringement is if someone points exactly at it. Otherwise all code looks the same. The fact is that right now MS pointed at zero patents infringed upon by open source software. What MS does right now has a name: it's called "blackmail".
The "level playing field" Balmer is talking about is not one where players are playing by the rules (removing infringement if discovered) but one were players are not playing by the rules and the bigger bullies make deals to protect each other and collect protection fees from the smaller players that are trying to play by the rules. Clearly everyone can see that MS deals are not about playing by the rules (not infringing or removing infringement) but about avoiding punishment for not playing by the rules (infringing and not being sued).
And more on "playing on a level field" as per Balmer: the patent system is a system that grants a government franchise on thoughts. A patent means someone that has the money to spend can go register a thought with the US thought control office and then claim that anyone else is not allowed to think the same thought without first negotiating a license that allows this thinking by the "owner" of the thought. MS claims that OS developers has 235 thoughts that require a license from MS before thinking. The fact is that MS can buy from the US goverment much many franchises on thoughts and a volunteer open source developer cannot afford to pay the US government for such exclusive licenses on everything she thinks.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-0012.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-0012.html</a>
it will appear that it will be all up to the Microsoft Corporation to sue or not to sue for the infringement of its software patents according to U.S Laws. The thing is, in the U.S. people have freedom of choices and if the so-called Open Source model is not an option for some businesses around the world so be it. The big question is: Who likes to "work for free"! Also, if the Microsoft Corporation does not continue to produce "crapware" then perhaps the world could very see the workers of anti-virus companies like on the bread-lines. WOW!
Patents are not secrets, they are publicly available for all to see.
That MS has not published them speaks volumes about the validity of their patents and claims.
99% of all patents have their information classified as business secrets. SCO pulled this method out of its hat when it attacked RedHat/Linux but failed due to the inconsistency of its patents and patents it had no claim to.
Sounds like we got a repeat.
Because MS wasn't able to squash the Open Source movement when it first started, this is their way of scaring current users into using their products.
Wait a minute....doesn't this sound like MRT tactics as well?
Sounds like history is repeating, repeating, repeating,...
Innovation now clearly comes from the open source community and Linux, and the power behind that will overwhelm MS.
But for the sake of discussing who might litigate whom, let's look at a list of what Microsoft "stole" from others:
Wordperfect -> MS Word
Visicalc -> Excel
Xerox and Apple -> Windows
Unix -> multitasking and user magagement
..
etc., the list goes on and on.
But here are the real mistakes that Microsoft has just made:
- It has indirectly admitted that Linux is viable and powerful
- It has irreversibly destroyed the perception of being "cool".
Why does that matter? Well, when MS started, it was the little man's tool agains "big blue" (IBM) and people jumped on the bandwagon. This underdog role now falls to Linux, thanks to MS's posturing. Plus, the best software developers usually want to work on the "coolest stuff" (programmer's lingo for cutting edge, popular) and MS now definitely looks like the "pouting second."
Ubuntu with Firefox, Openoffice, and Evolution meets the needs of most people.
Dell created a web site to get find out what users wanted most, and what did it turn out to be? Linux on Dell computers!
MS can't suppress what people want forever, and this latest move shows just how desperate they have become. I'm not impressed.
posted with Ubuntu 7.04
The technological world needs to learn from history before undreamed destruction of data and processing is realized by those unwilling to acknowledge simple truths. Those who do not learn from history will end up repeating it. M$ has never relented in its unending quest to grasp and destroy its real or imagined "enemies". Beware, world; M$ will continue to plunder and threaten because they now know they are bigger than governments. Each day they grow more vile and ambitious, and each day users' ability to function without interruption or total attack is eroded.
My fir$t encounter with Vi$ta happened this Saturday in St. Joe, MO at an Office Max. The salesman started up a nice new notebook for me until I noticed the "Vista" label and informed him that I had no interest in that OS because of its radical, senseless attacks on those who try to buy and use it. He, sheepishly, agreed that he uses only XP at home, but that the store must sell (by force? - No doubt) Vi$ta.
Before our conversation got any further, Vi$ta had attacked the store demo and "offered" to reduce or shut down. I laughed, shook my head, waved my hands, ... and left.
M$ followers: you are being loyal to a tyrant who has no loyalty to you at all. They are out to buy or destroy everything in their sight - as before; except the new enemy is the users, or as M$ calls them: Pirates!
Thanks but no thanks. I'm bailing. I quit programming with the advent of DOS 6.x and am glad I did. Now I must seek something to do with my time and talents, but bowing to Gates/Balmer is not it.
They can't seem to get rid of it, and they are reluctant to "phone home" because if they sell it, the customer will be the "next pirate".
What a racket!
This was on December 15, 2007.