Submitted by “Jerry Rosenthal, chief executive officer of Open Invention Network, has just issued a statement about the Fortune article, which I take as a warning to any litigious folks out there who might be thinking about litigation against Linux that any such action will have consequences. ‘We stand ready to leverage our IP portfolio to maintain the open patent environment OIN has helped create,’ the statement concludes.” Sun’s Schwartz chimes in too.
Swords are drawn out, now let the battle begin! Put your money where your words are MS, or just shut up.
I’d like to hear from IBM next.
This is not a battle of patents to be fought in court, where we would be at a disadvantage, but a battle of PR to be fought in the public view. If there is one thing that the FOSS community knows how to do, it is how to live in a fish bowl, in full view of the world.
All of our nasty secrets are already public knowledge.
I’m sure that we will be much more forthright when it comes to describing exactly which of our patents Microsoft Windows(tm) and Microsoft Office(tm) violate.
Sure, 100 patents may not sound as impressive as 235. But I expect that the patents contributted to OIN were calculated to be effective against this particular threat.
And just one or two good ones would suffice.
Fortunately, it is unlikely that any of them will ever have to be used except for saber-rattling purposes.
Edited 2007-05-15 23:08
{Sure, 100 patents may not sound as impressive as 235. But I expect that the patents contributted to OIN were calculated to be effective against this particular threat.}
OIN is an organisation that buys patents in support of Linux.
The patent commons is the organisation where donated patents in support of Linux are collected.
IBM’s patents in support of Linux are here:
http://www.patentcommons.org/
There is a lot more than 100.
Thanks, Lemur2. I confess that I have not followed this stuff as closely as I should have.
{Thanks, Lemur2. I confess that I have not followed this stuff as closely as I should have.}
Here is a fair resource on the topic:
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20050402193202442
Some people are paying attention to this topic on behalf of Linux.
This is not a battle of patents to be fought in court, where we would be at a disadvantage, but a battle of PR to be fought in the public view.
I think Linux actually has the advantage here. Many companies have a vested interest in the success of Linux, including IBM, SUN, HP, RedHat, Novell, etc. If MS wants to litigate it’s going to open the flood gates and it isn’t going to be pretty. IBM alone could probably undo Microsoft and they have a bigger interest in Linux than most large IT companies.
Per this link:
http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/05/15/microsoft-will-…
It looks like they (Microsoft) have already cried wolf.
It looks like they (Microsoft) have already cried wolf.
Read the link again. It says that Microsoft isn’t going to litigate against Linux users — but it will almost certainly go after commercial offenders such as Red Hat, etc.
I don’t think so. I think people are calling Microsoft’s bluff, and the giant will blink.
Don’t overestimate MS’s strength. If it had a really strong hand, it wouldn’t use FUD. It would actually launch legal action.
I think this is in preparation for litigation. The news has been slowly growing, from rumors about Ballmer’s estimated amount to exact numbers.
As the news grows, many many people are saying “Yes, I know we’re violating [Microsoft Patent X], but [It won’t hold up in court / I don’t care that it is / Microsoft will never sue me].” Some of these people own or are in charge notable programs (Kelly of SkyOS, f’rex). Now all Microsoft has to do is record these people admitting their knowing and willful violations of their patents, or their unknowing but willful violations, and it’s a long series of open-and-shut cases.
“As the news grows, many many people are saying”
Really? Many, many people *are* saying his? Care to provide any actual evidence of this?
“and it’s a long series of open-and-shut cases.”
You’ve only given one concrete example, SkyOS, so that’s not a very long series.
Hardly, since MS won’t reveal what the allegedly infringed patents are…
I think you’re mistaking your anti-FOSS desires for reality.
Linus had a good point here:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/1…
“‘Basic operating system theory was pretty much done by the end of the 1960s. IBM probably owned thousand of really “fundamental” patents… The fundamental stuff… has long, long since lost any patent protection.'”
Also, all the patents that are older than 1987 are now expired and UNIX is far older than MS Windows.
Even X Window System was created by MIT in 1984, X11 in 1987.
All of the core OS design of Linux likely does not infringe on anything from MS.
Companies like Sun and IBM who hold many patents stand behind Linux as well.
Once the SCO case has officially fallen through pretty much all of the important core components used in Linux are safe.
The only real chance MS has got is to attack some of the more modern UI changes in KDE/Gnome (things like image thumbnails when looking at a folder of pictures), many of which would likely not be show stoppers anyway.
As Linus said, MS is likely more interested in blowing smoke than an actual legal case.
Software is still pretty new, so right now patents are important because so many things are covered by them, but after 20 years they become public domain. We are moving into an era where many of the biggest ideas behind the software/GUI’s were patented at least 16 years ago.
If MS is planning to do something other than deliver empty threats, the time window to do any real damage is quickly running out.
Edited 2007-05-15 23:13
“Also, all the patents that are older than 1987 are now expired and UNIX is far older than MS Windows.”
UNIX is even older than MICROS~1 itself.
“The only real chance MS has got is to attack some of the more modern UI changes in KDE/Gnome (things like image thumbnails when looking at a folder of pictures), many of which would likely not be show stoppers anyway.”
I see this as a possible problem. Maybe it is because KDE and Gnome want to look appealing and familiar to users migrating from “Windows” to Linux? But I think these features have existed somewhere else before MICROS~1 “invented” them…
“Software is still pretty new, so right now patents are important because so many things are covered by them, but after 20 years they become public domain. We are moving into an era where many of the biggest ideas behind the software/GUI’s were patented at least 16 years ago.”
And finally, this case will first be important to the US. What about Europe? Does any free software user care? Some of them even don’t know “Windows”.
‘Microsoft’ is spelled with nine letters (only one of which is a capital), no tilde, and no numerals.
Not that I’m defending those lying bastards in Redmond, but I believe a patent holder is able to get a patent reissued when it’s in danger of expiring.
At least, that’s what I was told, since I was drunk and passed out the day they taught “law” at law school.
Actually, I believe this only applies to Trademarks.
IBM, Novell and others never ever found use for. Did IBM give out the patents for its VM technology used in the mainframes? That surely would be useful in Linux.
{IBM, Novell and others never ever found use for. Did IBM give out the patents for its VM technology used in the mainframes? That surely would be useful in Linux.}
There are about 530 patents (53 pages @ 10 per page) in the patent commons list, and a further 100 in OIN.
You can have a look yourself:
http://www.patentcommons.org/commons/patentsearch.php?searchSubmit=…
(I think the OIN list has been slashdotted right now).
There is also the IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Technical_Disclosure_Bulletin
Finally, there is the prior art in BSD, ancient Unix, many hundreds of Unix internals textbooks and in Minix. All of this prior art is published.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199…
These are all useful in defending Linux against patent claims by Microsoft, and the OIN list and the patent commons list of patents can be used to make patent counterclaims against Microsoft, should Microsoft sue.
Microsoft would be very, very hard pressed to make a case against Linux, and they know it. This is why they will not sue.
Microsoft’s problem is that since they will not sue, and everyone knows they are all words and no substance here, then why should anyone enter into any license deal with them?
Edited 2007-05-16 00:44
These are all useful in defending Linux against patent claims by Microsoft, and the OIN list and the patent commons list of patents can be used to make patent counterclaims against Microsoft, should Microsoft sue.
Microsoft would be very, very hard pressed to make a case against Linux, and they know it. This is why they will not sue.
Obviously, saber-rattling isn’t unique to Microsoft. You’re certainly free to make such blind assertions — but not with any credibility. It isn’t clear what value ANY of these patents have — on both sides. The whole thing could be humongous FUD to compel one side or the other to license, pay royalties, trade assets, etc. Or, there could be easily provable claims of infringement. Point is, without seeing the specifics, this is all just worthless speculation.
{The whole thing could be humongous FUD to compel one side or the other to license, pay royalties, trade assets, etc.}
This is the interesting bit. Microsoft have stated, more than once, that they do not wish to sue over this.
That statement incredibly weakens their position. It sounds very much like Microsoft know that they would not come out as winners in any patent skirmish, and that they risk “Mutually Assured Destructuion”.
If Microsoft are not going to sue, and their claims are apparently weak and dubious, why should any party agree to “license, pay royalties, trade assets, etc” with them? What then is the purpose of the whole exercise, other than to make Microsoft’s image even worse than it already is? Why are they doing this?
Edited 2007-05-16 02:24
That statement incredibly weakens their position. It sounds very much like Microsoft know that they would not come out as winners in any patent skirmish, and that they risk “Mutually Assured Destructuion”.
Or, it could be like the Mafia hit man who says, “I really don’t want to do this. Nothing personal. It’s just business…” ;p
{Or, it could be like the Mafia hit man who says, “I really don’t want to do this. Nothing personal. It’s just business…” ;p}
The Mafia hit man doesn’t get paid until he roughs someone up. At least one person.
Microsoft are just saying this:
http://davedargo.blogspot.com/2007/05/chief-of-licensing.html
“Customer: I can’t run it?
Microsoft: Nope.
Customer: Why?
Microsoft: It violates at least 235 of our patents.
Customer: What patents.
Microsoft: That’s a secret.
Customer: But I can’t run it.
Microsoft: Well you can, if you pay us.
Customer: Oh, it’s Microsoft software?
Microsoft: Not exactly”
… at which point, I for one would say to Microsoft … “screw you”.
You forget one thing, MS has advertising power. They can claim Linux infringes on patents, and spread FUD regarding linux, so that corporate managers delay adoption of linux. First there was the SCO suit, which some speculate that MS had a hand in, now there is stuff coming out of their own mouths. It’s all just to give the impression that Linux and/or other opensource just isn’t safe.
But perhaps the world isn’t as a big a fool MS thinks it to be. I guess people can see them for what they are and also see the desperation in their attempts. Why bother about opensource if it is not making a difference in their sales?
Note: Linux may infringe on the patents that they have registered, the kernel and the OSS userspace. But they haven’t got a case. Much of it may be prior art and they themselves infringe on other’s patents with whom they have not cross licenced yet.
How can you put “Some say MS had a hand in” the SCO suit? One of SCO’s largest investors was Baystar. Guess who gave Baystar $50 million towards the start of the whole SCO saga? Thats right kids, Microsoft.
Google ‘microsoft investment baystar sco’. Here are some good links explaining what happened.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/10/09/HNmsscoinvestment_1.html
http://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/03/11/0819219&tid=147
These are public knowledge and facts, not mumblings in a dark corner of patents that Linux infringes upon.
Microsoft, show us the proof!
Here’s the problem I have regarding the “baystar” allegations (which are aimed, not at Microsoft itself, but at one or two execs acting on their own accord, according to your articles). According to the allegations, a Baystar exec says that a Microsoft exec (“Mr. Emerson”) told him that Microsoft would guarantee a 50 million dollar investment that Baystar would put into SCO. If the investment went bad, then Microsoft would cover it themselves so Baystar wouldn’t take the loss. Microsoft denies this. BayStar ultimately sold its investment back to SCO at a loss. Microsoft never did cover the loss.
Now, here’s the thing:
The Baystar guy admits that he has no written record of this so-called guarantee. He’s asking the public to believe that he made a 50 million dollar deal without getting the deal in writing! Sorry, nobody is stupid enough to put 50 million dollars into something without getting the deal in writing. And if he is stupid enough to do so, then he’s too stupid to be believed (except by those predisposed to believe that Microsoft is the devil).
Also, if there really was a deal, why hasn’t BayStar sued Micrsoft to get them to cover the loss?
This is a he said/she said, since the guy has no proof.
And you must have overlooked this part of the article you linked to:
“Given the enormous scrutiny that Microsoft is under, I think it’s extremely unlikely that they would have engaged in any kind of conspiracy because the potential upside simply isn’t great enough and the potential downside is great,” said Gary Barnett, an analyst with Ovum.
I only point this out because you claim “These are public knowledge and facts”, when the factual basis for the claims is shaky at best, and it’s not the case the the everyone accepts these claims as fact.
Edited 2007-05-16 17:12
Also, if there really was a deal, why hasn’t BayStar sued Micrsoft to get them to cover the loss?
Because it’s an outright fabrication invented by people who want to believe that MS is behind the SCO suit.
Didn’t it occur to you that the *precise* reason there is no written record (anymore?) is that Microsoft didn’t want to be caught in any kind of conspiracy?
50 million dollars is a large sum, but it still only represents 1/1000th of MS’ war chest. Still, with that kind of money I’m sure it’s quite easy to find people who will bend the rules a little.
It doesn’t really matter, anyway, since there is no controversy to the fact that Microsoft helped arrange the 50 million$ investment by Baystar into SCO. Even if it wasn’t their money, they were still instrumental in that deal – even Darl McBride acknowledged as much.
“Microsoft obviously has an interest in this, and their interest is obviously in keeping their operating system on top.”
–Larry Goldfarb
managing partner, BayStar
Back in late 2004, CommerceOne, a now defunct dot com that was in the death throes of bankruptcy, was forced to auction off it’s portfolio of patents and patent applications. These patents covered some of the key components used in web based services and transactions, and the EFF sounded an alarm about the risk of these patents falling into the wrong hand. The patents were broad, but if enforced, would have serious implications for a who’s who of IT companies including IBM, MS, Google, Oracle, Sun etc. Some of these companies even met to discuss the implications and pursue an initiative through a consortium to acquire the patents to assure they couldn’t be used against them.
Unfortunately there wasn’t much notice, the patents went to auction while everyone was trying to figure out the risk involved, and seven IP holding companies bid on them. The winning bid was $15M to an unknown holding company, and there was much consternation. Turns out the holding company acquired them on behalf of Novell, who promptly provided them to OIN, and they probably remain the most serious threat to MS within the OIN arsenal. Mission statements aside, the OIN’s function is to provide a defensive patent arsenal against attacks, so the relevance of the patents to linux itself are almost moot. What matters is their relevance to those that would seek patent attacks against it.
Given the nature of the “e-commerce” patents and their broad reach, there’s certainly a good chance that the MS army of lawyers could have the patents overturned if it ever came to a legal battle. But then again, RIM was forced to pay a settlement on pantent infringement even after the patents in question were invalidated by the USPTO, so it becomes a crapshoot.
But the real irony is that if MS had those patents overturned in a legal battle it would likely set precedents that would weaken the value and potency of their own software patent portfolio, and conversely any efforts MS makes to pursue legal remedies against users/distributors of infringing patents would effectively increase their liability and make them more susceptible to similar suits.
It’s a no win game for MS, when you get right down to the business aspect of it. That’s why MS seeks cross-licensing deals, they simply do not want to go down that road at any cost. It was emberrasing enough that they had the FSF writing briefs on their behalf during the AT&T case, claiming Microsoft’s defense was the invalidity of software patents. With nothing else left, MS can only rely on implied threats, but unfortunately those implied threats are often damaging enough without following through.
Leaverage is what a lever does.
Use is not only shorter, but is more likely to be understood.
If you really want a longer, more flashy sounding word, then utilize will do.
FTA:
What’s happening with these accusers is the equivalent of declaring four aces while being unwilling to show even a pair of deuces.
Wouldn’t it mostly prove you DON’T have four aces if you showed a pair of deuces?
“Wouldn’t it mostly prove you DON’T have four aces if you showed a pair of deuces?”
LOL. good call
The poker analogy itself is still good though. It’s not so much about actually having the best hand but making the other guy think you do.
Or, after this ridiculous “gossIP”, you credibility will go down not only between the IT folks but also with the legal ones.
… with a global, distributed effort to redistribute some of that 60 billion dollars in cash that Microsoft sits on.
I guess a lot of people are looking for funding and lawyers now, as Ballmer has now turned Microsoft into the largest threat to businesses & governments alike. Microsoft has made clear that they don’t have the resources to actually litigate a distributed set of lawsuits, which paints a huge target on their backs.
It will be amusing to see how long they last, once the word goes around that downsizing Microsoft is a high risk, high profit business.
Edited 2007-05-16 00:03
perfect, first one side starts boasting WMDs, then another, and before we know it, we are looking at a digital dark age…
perfect, first one side starts boasting WMDs, then another, and before we know it, we are looking at a digital dark age…
More like a patent cold war. Mutual assured destruction. I think Linux will escaped unscathed. Software patents are expiring everyday and will at an increasing rate as time goes on. Not only that, I don’t think MS is suicidal enough to sue Linux.
Interesting, I love when I hear people claim ‘innovation’ – Linux/Opensource hasn’t innovative a damn thing; implementation of ideas before others, sure, but innovate, come up with a clean, break through, based on a whole new paradigm? no, doesn’t exist.
People aren’t interested in JavaFX? how the bloody hell can they be interested in something that isn’t even in out yet let alone in the form of development tools! I mean, for christ sake, if you’re going to attack Sun on something, please, make sure the evidence used are actually real and tangiable.
Oh, and not to get ‘fanboyish’ but Jonathon, unlike many CEO’s, admitted they ballsed up – the made a big mistake assuming that people were willing to swallow over priced SPARC machines which had little in the way of improved speed, stability or security over well built, and significantly lower priced x86 machines.
Now Sun is back on track – but its just like Apple, it takes time to win back customers who defected; compatibility coupled with the ‘devil we know rather than the devil we don’t’.
Yep. I’m so pro-Linux it’s not even funny. But I have to admit that Jonathan’s admission that they frecked up impresses me. Corps just don’t do that.
Schwartz is trying to inspire a renaissance at Sun, and he just might succeed. Sun did not conduct themselves very well in the last years of Scott’s tenure. But I’m willing to let bygones be bygones. Sun could become the ally that SGI might have been if they hadn’t tanked.
They are walking the walk now, even if a bit of icky goo still comes blurting out of their mouths from time to time.
I say give ’em a chance!
Hmm, some corps do it, but they tend to whitewash it, claiming, “we lost focus” and then try to find a sacrificial lamb to give to the market speculating gods.
The problem with Scott wasn’t necessarily what he said but more the lack of what he did – sure, mouth off and bash Microsoft *IF* you have a product superior to Microsoft.
There is no use being the yappy dog about Microsoft whilst forgetting major flaws in your own product line up – anyone remember the ‘spontaneously crashing’ issues which Sun had with their hardware resulting in the whole ebay fiasco?
Like I said, they’ve now actually got their act together, finally delivering and realising that you’ve got to spend money to make money and that you’ve gotta win new customers to expend your revenue rather than expecting the same old customers to keep coming back year after year (which is one of Sun’s really big flaws in the way they do business).
But the thing is – they’ve NEVER bashed opensource (as some people here claim)! we have bloody idiots here who equate Linux to opensource, Linux isn’t the pinnical of opensource, there are many opensource projects out, along with Sun’s, which have no relationship with Linux what so ever.
Sun competes against Red Hat and Novell – if people here are so precious to be concerned over the welfare of a large corporation, I think they need to purchase a clue. These are companies, stop thinking that you need to stand up for them at every possible opportunity; Red Hat slags off Sun, Sun mouth off about Red Hat – its a damn market place, of course, they want to put down the competition and promote their own products – that is what is supposed to happen!
Edited 2007-05-16 01:59
{Linux/Opensource hasn’t innovative a damn thing; implementation of ideas before others, sure, but innovate, come up with a clean, break through, based on a whole new paradigm? no, doesn’t exist.}
I don’t know where you got that idea from, but it is a doozy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_toolchain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Compiler_Collection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emacs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf_cluster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_HTTP_Server
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_%28programming_language~*~@…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_%28programming_language%2…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squid_cache
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bash
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_management_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Packaging_Tool
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygwin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_%28software%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dbus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedesktop.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_%28software%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_%28graphics%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Rendering_Infrastructure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vnc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ssh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iptables
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lvm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext2fs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sysfs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uclinux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Top500_OS.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRUB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireshark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Enhanced_Linux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Intrusion_Detection_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snort_%28software%29
Forget the patents and recent legal precedents. Forget the war chests and armies of lawyers; it is fud. As long as we tolerate ms’ behaviour, they will carry on doing business this way.
Edited 2007-05-16 02:00
Unless Linux really damages Microsoft’s marketshare far beyond what it has currently done, I simply don’t see Microsoft suing any Linux users. Unlike SCO, almost all Linux using companies also use Windows, so Microsoft would be suing current paying customers, which, needless to say, is bad for business. Furthermore, OIN would have no problem hitting Microsoft with a patent suit if Microsoft tries anything.
I don’t see some co-erced royalties as being worth an insane amount of bad publicity for Microsoft and a patent suit from OIN.
——
http://watching-eyes.blogspot.com/
{I don’t see some co-erced royalties}
You cannot charge royalties under the GPL license. If some piece of software has legitimate royalties due in some country, the GPL says you may not distribute that piece under the GPL license in that country.
This is sometimes referred to as the “freedom or death” clause of the GPL.
Umm…O.K. As if that has stopped Microsoft from doing so thus far. TFA notes that Microsoft has been co-ercing royalties from Linux users for some time. I simply don’t see Microsoft actually filing a lawsuit against Linux users, both for the reasons I said and your additional reason. However, they will likely continue to co-erce payments on the side.
Two things:
1. Microsoft-Novell will be fixed in GPLv3. That’s basically a royalty which the GPLv2 didn’t think of.
2. With MS going after their own customers’ for GNU/Linux royalties, that means those customers cannot distribute GPL’d software. Jeremy Allison also said this in his interview with Linux world in February this year.
the start of the software cold war.
…May all be over soon (from New Scientist magazine):
“The glut of seemingly obvious patents granted in the US in recent years could be invalidated by a Supreme Court decision last week.
In a ruling that shocked patent lawyers, the court said that a patent application should not be granted if it is “the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense”.
Although the decision merely reaffirms code 103 of the US Patent Act, which outlaws patents on obvious inventions, the Supreme Court says lower courts have let this principle drift. In 1999 Amazon was infamously granted a patent on a system to “buy online with one mouse click”.
The ruling was seized upon by internet phone firm Vonage, which was recently found to have infringed rival Verizon’s patents. While denying Vonage a retrial, a federal court said it could use the ruling in its upcoming appeal.”
The ridiculous number of patents granted to the self evident, obvious and elementary concepts has reached a point where the validity of patents is coming under serious scrutiny in many jurisdictions.
Here in Australia, someone recently tried to file a patent for the wheel, simply to show how the bleeding obvious often doesn’t get patented when it is “invented”, but rather becomes an acquisition in a patent shark’s portfolio later down the track, simply as means of making a quick buck for little effort or ingenuity. There are probably hundreds of ideas that have not been patented because most people correctly see them as quite self evident, and yet could easily be granted a patent by a lazy and inept patent office.
The idea that something like thumbnails of images in a file browser could be patented is utterly preposterous, and hopefully patent offices will see this nonsense for what it is.
Patents have really had their day in the sun, and are starting to become more of a hindrance to the progression of technology rather than a stimulus in many areas.
Edited 2007-05-16 04:10
MS have repeatedly said they’re not interested in litigation over these patents.
If OIN’s portfolio is so great as they claim, they could easily do a crosslicense agreement with MS that would fix the issues at hand, so why don’t they?
Only thing I can think of as for why not is that OIN actually WANTS MS to start litigating… They’re not interested in actually clearing up the issues.
{If OIN’s portfolio is so great as they claim, they could easily do a crosslicense agreement with MS that would fix the issues at hand, so why don’t they?}
Everyone on the planet already has a license to use Linux. It is called the GPL. Why would anyone need another license? That is the question, especially in the face of no proof whatsoever that Microsoft has any valid applicable patents, and no proof whatsoever that people’s existing license to run Linux, namely the GPL, is in any way deficient to cover them.
Ok so they do that. Now OIN has a deficit (suppose) so they start paying MS. What is the point here? OSS is against patents in software as they stifle innovation. People have patented the smallest and the most basic of ideas. Most companies own patents just to sue others anyway.
If MS wants to litigate, a ruling against them would close case for frivolous litigation using patents at least in the software business. And MS would have played it’s last card. So they are not exactly going to do that. They will just claim to be a victim (and oh yea try to extort big companies using OSS). Let em whine.
That is just another reason why patents are useless… They do not protect anything!
The reasoning according to which, “if Microsoft wanted to sue, why did they did not do it before?” which concludes “well, they thought it over and decided not to sue” has no logical value.
Going to war can happen any time, even after a long period of peace. The fact that this decision may previouly have been postponed suddenly becomes irrelevant when war begins.
I think Microsoft just try to find the most suitable angle of attack, and is just now collecting infos from reactions of any party that could be involved. Reacting openly to obvious Microsoft FUD now, only helps Microsoft prepare its future attack, while their sword remains wrapped.
FUD is part of a real strategy but, of course, only as a preliminary tool. We should be more careful about it and deal with it sparingly: only named people should react: among them, kernel and openoffice leaders just to ask specific information about alleged violated patents.
Others should keep mum because I think their silence would be the best way not to help Microsoft to prepare its future war.
Yeah!
Begun this patent war has…
Title says it all.
Why should Microsoft be scared of OIN patents?
Microsoft already does try to abide by patents (through payment of royalties or cross-licensing deals (which they have with Apple and Sun, for example)), and pays up if they get sued for not doing so. So they’ll just pay the royalties that these OIN patents require if it comes to that.
If Red Hat and its allies, are now implicitly conceding that both sides infringe on the other side’s patents, then why not make the cross-licensing deal and be done with it? Microsoft has proposed that, as it’s standard practice. Red Hat simply refuses to do so. Why?
Novell is already gaining at Red Hat’s expense because the former made a deal while the latter refuses.
Yawn…
It’s called the GPL section 7. Liberty or death.
Novell-MS deals have no future under the coming GPLv3, so no companies will make them, especially not Novell.
Also, many companies have cross-licensed patents for FOSS and GPL use*; Microsoft doesn’t but insteads tries to attack the GPL; why?
*See the SELinux company or Blackboard or VXWorks
Edited 2007-05-16 20:47
Google for the search term on the following line:
“liberty or death” GPL
The essential problem is that Red Hat (or Novell for that matter) did not write the code. The people who did write the code have released it so that everyone can use it under the condition that no-one else tries to put extra conditions on it. That is to say, the GPL clause known as the “liberty or death” clause prevents parties (other than those who originally contributed the code) from doing licensing deals.
Despite what Microsoft claims, Linux is not based on Windows code. Not in the slightest bit. Linux is based on ideas found in BSD, in ancient Unix, in the POSIX standard, in the IBM Technical Disclosure Document, and in literally hundreds of published books on the topic of “Unix internals”. You can google for all of that too, if you don’t believe me. These ideas are in the public domain.
Linux code is public. If Microsoft want to troll through it, and find where they think they are “infringed” … then point out exactly where it is to the Linux community and it will promptly be removed (42 pieces amongst millions of lines of code … shouldn’t take more than 20 minutes to fix) … oh, and the Linux community wouldn’t mind having the opportunity to audit Windows code as well, while we are at it, if Microsoft wouldn’t mind, so we can get reams and reams of that ripped out as well. Fair is fair. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Edited 2007-05-16 23:53