- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Report: Microsoft says open source violates 235 patents
|
|
|
Comments (31)
11 earlier comments in the full thread.
>As the Internet becomes more a part of our lives, the general public will need to learn that they can't read the Internet like they do their morning newspaper.
Let's be honest: We can't read our morning newspaper the way we read our morning newspaper.
Think of how many people get their "history" by watching movies "inspired by true events".
Sigh.
Let's be honest: We can't read our morning newspaper the way we read our morning newspaper.
Think of how many people get their "history" by watching movies "inspired by true events".
Sigh.
"Would it be possible for the Linux community to get together the funds to put Microsoft in a court where someone can say "put up or shut up" - once and for all?"
I believe this is why Microsoft "arranged" for the SCOX law suits. They were test-runs of the legal system to see if such suits could work in their favor.
For four years people, including the judges, have been saying "put up or shut up" and SCO's lawyers have successfully avoided ever doing so. At the same time, they have kept IBM and Novell shelling out money for their own lawyers all the while.
For four years people, including the judges, have been saying "put up or shut up" and SCO's lawyers have successfully avoided ever doing so. At the same time, they have kept IBM and Novell shelling out money for their own lawyers all the while.
Imagine the possibility that MS actually wanted SCO to go bankrupt on this so that they could get their hands on the rights to UNIX, and what the implications of that would be for us. I'm really hoping that it holds true in the courts that SCO never purchased the IP and copyrights.
Just picture the world where MS owned all the UNIX IP.
Just picture the world where MS owned all the UNIX IP.
The community with their own money could with the help some companies and billionares like shuttleworth etc BUY UNIX opensource it all released under the gpl whatta ya think lets get the ball rolling lol
>The community with their own money could with the help some companies
Could but won't.
Could but won't.
> At the same time, they have kept IBM and Novell shelling out money for their own lawyers all the while.
Yes, but I believe that in IBM's case, those lawyers on on staff. Which means that IBM pays them whether they are working a case or not. So there's little extra cost to IBM.
Added: This would be similar to the company I work for claiming my time as a cost in a virus cleanup. That would be disingenuous, as they're paying my salary whether I'm cleaning up the virus or not.
Yes, but I believe that in IBM's case, those lawyers on on staff. Which means that IBM pays them whether they are working a case or not. So there's little extra cost to IBM.
Added: This would be similar to the company I work for claiming my time as a cost in a virus cleanup. That would be disingenuous, as they're paying my salary whether I'm cleaning up the virus or not.
>Yes, but I believe that in IBM's case, those lawyers on on staff. Which means that IBM pays them whether they are working a case or not. So there's little extra cost to IBM.
What about opportunity costs? Does IBM employ those lawyers because defending against SCO lawsuits is a normal and customary cost of doing business? I sure hope not... those lawyers should be defending IBM's trademarks, copyrights and patents, double-checking the contracts, etc. The fact that SCO got them to divert so much time to their baseless lawsuit really is like robbing IBM of these high-priced hours.
>Added: This would be similar to the company I work for claiming my time as a cost in a virus cleanup. That would be disingenuous, as they're paying my salary whether I'm cleaning up the virus or not.
Same here. Even moreso! Surely your company would surely prefer that you did something more productive than cleanup up after technological anarchists!? It would be entirely right for them to claim your time as damages against virus writers since the viri prevented you from doing what they would prefer you doing. Even if you were hired as a "Hear Virus Cleaneruper" they should be entitled to your wages as damages.
What about opportunity costs? Does IBM employ those lawyers because defending against SCO lawsuits is a normal and customary cost of doing business? I sure hope not... those lawyers should be defending IBM's trademarks, copyrights and patents, double-checking the contracts, etc. The fact that SCO got them to divert so much time to their baseless lawsuit really is like robbing IBM of these high-priced hours.
>Added: This would be similar to the company I work for claiming my time as a cost in a virus cleanup. That would be disingenuous, as they're paying my salary whether I'm cleaning up the virus or not.
Same here. Even moreso! Surely your company would surely prefer that you did something more productive than cleanup up after technological anarchists!? It would be entirely right for them to claim your time as damages against virus writers since the viri prevented you from doing what they would prefer you doing. Even if you were hired as a "Hear Virus Cleaneruper" they should be entitled to your wages as damages.
Ah, I see.
It's bluster from MS. To see how many companies get scared and run to MS for a "Linux license" as opposed to how many stand up and say "bring it on".
(Presumably the "pay us for Linux" thing they tried isn't working so well. The press hasn't exactly been flooded with reports of swathes of companies applying).
Any court action over specific patents would require the patent to be named and explained which would either lead to prior art being shown from elsewhere or the offending method rewritten by the OSS community. Either way it's a no win situation for MS.
They are truly cornered.
Any court action over specific patents would require the patent to be named and explained which would either lead to prior art being shown from elsewhere or the offending method rewritten by the OSS community. Either way it's a no win situation for MS.
They are truly cornered.
>Any court action over specific patents would require the patent to be named and explained which would either lead to prior art being shown from elsewhere or the offending method rewritten by the OSS community.
Named, not explained -- though with an asterisk.
We don't want to confuse the evidence necessary to win a case with the notice required to permit recovery. They are not the same thing.
The asterisk? I'm not a patent lawyer and I haven't had the time to satisfy myself that I understand the level and specificity of notice required in the case of claimed Linux infringement.
The normal requirement for patents on a thing is simply that you attach the patent number(s) to the the thing, or, where that is not practical, to a label, packaging, etc,, that is provided with the thing.
Named, not explained -- though with an asterisk.
We don't want to confuse the evidence necessary to win a case with the notice required to permit recovery. They are not the same thing.
The asterisk? I'm not a patent lawyer and I haven't had the time to satisfy myself that I understand the level and specificity of notice required in the case of claimed Linux infringement.
The normal requirement for patents on a thing is simply that you attach the patent number(s) to the the thing, or, where that is not practical, to a label, packaging, etc,, that is provided with the thing.
> What about opportunity costs? Does IBM employ those lawyers because defending against SCO lawsuits is a normal and customary cost of doing business?
Simply put, yes. Defending against SCO type lawsuits is a "normal and customary cost of doing business" for a company of IBM's size.
> It would be entirely right for them to claim your time as damages against virus writers since the viri prevented you from doing what they would prefer you doing.
If they don't want me cleaning up viruses, they shouldn't use Windows. As above, if you use Windows, then virus/spyware cleanup is a "normal and customary cost of doing business".
Simply put, yes. Defending against SCO type lawsuits is a "normal and customary cost of doing business" for a company of IBM's size.
> It would be entirely right for them to claim your time as damages against virus writers since the viri prevented you from doing what they would prefer you doing.
If they don't want me cleaning up viruses, they shouldn't use Windows. As above, if you use Windows, then virus/spyware cleanup is a "normal and customary cost of doing business".
>I Wonder Which Patents
Quoting:Gutierrez also said Microsoft is not likely to publicly list which specific patents it believes are infringed upon by open source software. "We're not going to have a discussion publicly with that level of detail," he said.http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articl...
Microsoft has made the patents in question known to corporate Linux users and distributors, Gutierrez said.
Ah, so why don't Novell, Dell, Samsung et. al. give us the list? If it's under NDA, at least they could say so instead of keeping silent.
> If it's under NDA, at least they could say so instead of keeping silent.
Hmm. I wonder how you make the claim that a list of patents can't be freely distributed, regardless of any NDA. Patents are in the public domain, and a list of infringed patents sounds like the kind of information that can't be copyrighted.
I suppose it could come under the category of company secrets -- ie, information about potential court cases.
Hmm. I wonder how you make the claim that a list of patents can't be freely distributed, regardless of any NDA. Patents are in the public domain, and a list of infringed patents sounds like the kind of information that can't be copyrighted.
I suppose it could come under the category of company secrets -- ie, information about potential court cases.
Yaknow, I can't help thinking that maybe MS is actually using the threat of "Patent Armageddon" to coerce people into their little cross licensing deals.
MS: "Hey Bob, we want a cross licensing deal with your linux using company." Bob: "Why? We don't use your stuff and you don't use ours." MS: "We KNOW you're infringing on our patents..you wouldn't want us to have to sue you would you?" Bob: "But then we'd have to sue you back for infringing on ours, and that would start Patent Armageddon, what with all those patents we both have but know should be invalid... You don't want that do you?" MS: "Exactly. So how bout I just get out the license paperwork and you sign the dotted line...."
MS: "Hey Bob, we want a cross licensing deal with your linux using company." Bob: "Why? We don't use your stuff and you don't use ours." MS: "We KNOW you're infringing on our patents..you wouldn't want us to have to sue you would you?" Bob: "But then we'd have to sue you back for infringing on ours, and that would start Patent Armageddon, what with all those patents we both have but know should be invalid... You don't want that do you?" MS: "Exactly. So how bout I just get out the license paperwork and you sign the dotted line...."
techiem -
Yes. I would bet most of their patent portfolio's value goes up in smoke once they use it in anger.
At some point, they'll have to. You can't bluff forever and, besides, there are big hunks of the world where software patents have no value anyway.
But...any scratch they can scare up is to the good, especially if they don't need to spend a wad to get it.
Although...
They sure did spend a wad on the Novell deal. Hope they got their money's worth.
Yes. I would bet most of their patent portfolio's value goes up in smoke once they use it in anger.
At some point, they'll have to. You can't bluff forever and, besides, there are big hunks of the world where software patents have no value anyway.
But...any scratch they can scare up is to the good, especially if they don't need to spend a wad to get it.
Although...
They sure did spend a wad on the Novell deal. Hope they got their money's worth.
> They sure did spend a wad on the Novell deal. Hope they got their money's worth.
Well, if you can't kill Linux, just kill its users by getting them worked up. Ten years from now, most Linux users will be having heart problems.
Uncertainty about Linux is the best possible case for Microsoft. They don't lose any patents, they don't upset large customers (and don't think they don't care, they have no monopoly among Fortune 500 companies), and they don't trigger a massive reform of the patent system.
Executives of large companies don't want to think about Linux. They want to think about whatever it is that they get paid to do. If there is a court case to decide the issue, there is no longer any uncertainty, however things turn out. A patent lawsuit is not going to kill Linux, it will just get rid of the uncertainty. As for adding cost to Linux, they're already paying for it, so it doesn't make much difference.
Well, if you can't kill Linux, just kill its users by getting them worked up. Ten years from now, most Linux users will be having heart problems.
Uncertainty about Linux is the best possible case for Microsoft. They don't lose any patents, they don't upset large customers (and don't think they don't care, they have no monopoly among Fortune 500 companies), and they don't trigger a massive reform of the patent system.
Executives of large companies don't want to think about Linux. They want to think about whatever it is that they get paid to do. If there is a court case to decide the issue, there is no longer any uncertainty, however things turn out. A patent lawsuit is not going to kill Linux, it will just get rid of the uncertainty. As for adding cost to Linux, they're already paying for it, so it doesn't make much difference.
>Executives of large companies don't want to think about Linux.
You might be surprised by the extent to which that isn't true. Mind you, they don't want to think about Linux in the way that we do, but...
In a world looking for competitive advantages, free software is getting a lot of looks.
Imagine:
You want to roll out some new technology in support of your sales efforts -- Proprietary stuff is great, and free stuff needs considerable more custom work. However, you have some expertise in-house, and the price difference dwarfs the cost of a couple of new people.
So...you go the free way and end up with your solution, a couple of new people for other projects, AND money left over for extra marketing!
In that regard, thinking about Linux is really thinking about what you want to do.
You might be surprised by the extent to which that isn't true. Mind you, they don't want to think about Linux in the way that we do, but...
In a world looking for competitive advantages, free software is getting a lot of looks.
Imagine:
You want to roll out some new technology in support of your sales efforts -- Proprietary stuff is great, and free stuff needs considerable more custom work. However, you have some expertise in-house, and the price difference dwarfs the cost of a couple of new people.
So...you go the free way and end up with your solution, a couple of new people for other projects, AND money left over for extra marketing!
In that regard, thinking about Linux is really thinking about what you want to do.
Quoting:Hmm. I wonder how you make the claim that a list of patents can't be freely distributed, regardless of any NDA. Patents are in the public domain, and a list of infringed patents sounds like the kind of information that can't be copyrighted.
The agreement as a whole can be under NDA, with the list of patents supposedly infringed by Linux as part of the agreement. There was some discussion about that in a recent groklaw thread.
Which doesn't stop anyone from doing a patent search and listing all the patents that Microsoft has, but that wouldn't be the 235 that they think infringe.
How, I puzzle over, can they have patents infringed upon by _email_ clients, when email is specified by RFC? Maybe they patented having folders, message lists and message text in separate frames of a single application window?
Put me in the "eliminate patent" group. I'm sick enough of this abuse to want the whole system thrown out. Any problems with not having patents cannot add up to the mess we have _with_ patents. The experiment failed.
How, I puzzle over, can they have patents infringed upon by _email_ clients, when email is specified by RFC? Maybe they patented having folders, message lists and message text in separate frames of a single application window?
Put me in the "eliminate patent" group. I'm sick enough of this abuse to want the whole system thrown out. Any problems with not having patents cannot add up to the mess we have _with_ patents. The experiment failed.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
As the Internet becomes more a part of our lives, the general public will need to learn that they can't read the Internet like they do their morning newspaper.