Microsoft takes on the free world..May 13 2007

[IGBT]

Text


But now there's a shadow hanging over Linux and other free software, and it's being cast by Microsoft (Charts, Fortune 500). The Redmond behemoth asserts that one reason free software is of such high quality is that it violates more than 200 of Microsoft's patents. And as a mature company facing unfavorable market trends and fearsome competitors like Google (Charts, Fortune 500), Microsoft is pulling no punches: It wants royalties. If the company gets its way, free software won't be free anymore.

The conflict pits Microsoft and its dogged CEO, Steve Ballmer, against the "free world" - people who believe software is pure knowledge. The leader of that faction is Richard Matthew Stallman, a computer visionary with the look and the intransigence of an Old Testament prophet

 

[FallenHero]

something tells me the courts will shoot this down and MS will waste tons of money on legal services.

 

[enwar3]

I hope they shoot it down...

 

[blurredvision]

You might as well made the title "Bash Microsoft Here". So Microsoft owns patents and wants compensated for them, so what? If you owned a patent, and someone stole it from you, I'd bet you want compensated also.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Microsoft counters that it is a matter of principle. "We live in a world where we honor, and support the honoring of, intellectual property," says Ballmer in an interview.

that is just plain laughable coming from MS, but I am not surprised.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: FallenHero
something tells me the courts will shoot this down and MS will waste tons of money on legal services.

..I thought this was settled awhile back. How is it they can re-initiate litigation on a settled issue?? Clearly BG is quaking in his hemp sandals and feels he can't compete in the arena of software development and would rather pay a legal staff to develop litigation angles.

 

[ScottMac]

If there are in fact some of Microsoft's Intellectual Property included in the free software, it should be removed or licensed.

I imagine the core of the dispute is whether or not MS owns the rights.

Seems pretty simple.

FWIW

 

[dartworth]

Bush sucks...

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
If there are in fact some of Microsoft's Intellectual Property included in the free software, it should be removed or licensed.

I imagine the core of the dispute is whether or not MS owns the rights.

Seems pretty simple.

FWIW

And how much stolen code was found in XP? It might be a nice boost for GNU if MS wins this and sets a precedent. Especially if its based on how much profit the product made.

 

[Fritzo]

MS is angry and frustrated that they can't duplicate Google's success. This is the only way they can compete.

 

[Hyperblaze]

FOSS patrons are going to have to "play by the same rules as the rest of the business," he insists. "What's fair is fair."

Yeah....Microsoft really is the one to talk about "fair".

They got big by playing by their own rules, and ignoring the rest. Is this what constitutes as fair?

 

[Hyperblaze]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
MS is angry and frustrated that they can't duplicate Google's success. This is the only way they can compete.

Sadly, it just shows that they can't compete with quality code.

I knew this day was gonna happen eventually. What suprises me however is the comments about honor and being "fair".

Do as I say, not as I do?

 

[OulOat]

Originally posted by: blurredvision
You might as well made the title "Bash Microsoft Here". So Microsoft owns patents and wants compensated for them, so what? If you owned a patent, and someone stole it from you, I'd bet you want compensated also.

Read the article. MS might get countersued because they are using some of the patents of the FOSS.

 

[Barfo]

I don't see anywhere in that article that MS would be willing to pay royalties for all the features fount in their software that are stolen from free software, "What's fair is fair." huh?

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: blurredvision
You might as well made the title "Bash Microsoft Here". So Microsoft owns patents and wants compensated for them, so what? If you owned a patent, and someone stole it from you, I'd bet you want compensated also.

They did not list which patents. We do not know whether the patents are non-obvious and thus valid, per recent SCOTUS rulings, or are instead practically toilet paper, and it is very conceivable that companies heavily invested in some FOSS projects (IBM in particular) may begin the patent version of mutually-assured destruction.

This is why I and others think that this is FUD and attempted legal extortion. If somebody big sued MS back, given the number of cases that have gone against MS already, I figure that everybody with a beef against MS would sue them back too. It would be like sharks to blood in the water.

These words might very well be the put-up-or-shut-up point for MS. If so, it's been a long time in the making.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

I am very close to moving to linux with my next PC. Why? Because Vista sucks.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
I am very close to moving to linux with my next PC. Why? Because Vista sucks.

..same here. mabe ubuntu??(spelling)

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
MS is angry and frustrated that they can't duplicate Google's success. This is the only way they can compete.

Business is business - if this is what it takes for them to win, then Google or whoever they're having an issue with should have seen it coming and not violated their patents. This assumes a patent license was violated though.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
I am very close to moving to linux with my next PC. Why? Because Vista sucks.

Congratulations, join the "I hate microsoft" bandwagon.

If Vista sucks, what about the products before it? What functionality do you need, that XP/2000 Pro can't provide, but a Linux OS can?

Yes, there is a need for Linux and I'm not arguing that at all, however your post makes it sound like you're switching away from Microsoft products just because Vista isn't what you expected it to be. If you picked up a 2007 Honda Civic, and then in 2009, Honda released a Civic that had 50 million issues, transmission failures, etc., would you say you're leaving Honda altogether or just stick with your 07 Civic that is perfectly fine?

Also, if you were going to switch to Linux, you would have already done it. I don't think most people who are honestly going to use Linux wait for their next PC, they just make a switch over or dual boot.

 

[chusteczka]

This is a well written article. Thank you for posting it. Here is my favorite part.

At the same time, Smith was having Microsoft's lawyers figure out how many of its patents were being infringed by free and open-source software. Gutierrez refuses to identify specific patents or explain how they're being infringed, lest FOSS advocates start filing challenges to them.

But he does break down the total number allegedly violated - 235 - into categories. He says that the Linux kernel - the deepest layer of the free operating system, which interacts most directly with the computer hardware - violates 42 Microsoft patents. The Linux graphical user interfaces - essentially, the way design elements like menus and toolbars are set up - run afoul of another 65, he claims. The Open Office suite of programs, which is analogous to Microsoft Office, infringes 45 more. E-mail programs infringe 15, while other assorted FOSS programs allegedly transgress 68.

Microsoft knows their software patents have not been validated by challenges to its patents in the court system and MS is guarding their "paper" patents to prevent these challenges from happening. This shows that MS is unsure what the judicial outcome would decide. This uncertainty is refreshing to see in a time when it is often thought the court system is bought by the side with the most money.

The reason these issues between proprietary software and open source software still exist is due to the fact that these issues have not yet been challenged and decided by the court system.

The unspoken component of these issues is the part that BSD software plays. The BSD license was validated by a sealed agreement between AT&T and the University of California - Berkeley. I suspect that many of the unknown patents that Microsoft claims that software under the GNU license infringes upon, is similarly "infringed" upon by software under the BSD license. Specifically, the visual desktop components currently developed by PCBSD and Desktop BSD, possibly further including the KDE and Gnome projects.

However, Microsoft is not moving against the BSD license. This is probably because the BSD software has already been validated by an unknown agreement in the court system. It is interesting to note that the sealed agreement between Berkeley and AT&T in the early 1990's did not include many of the issues currently involved between Microsoft and the GNU license. The main point of contention with intellectual property between Berkeley and AT&T regarded copyright issues whereas the current point of contention between Microsoft and the GNU license regards patents. This is because the GNU camp learned from the AT&T / BSD dispute and supposedly rewrote all of its code to prevent any copyright issues with proprietary software.

An additional factor is that the Microsoft operating system comprises BSD licensed software. It may be that any BSD licensed software is protected from legal challenges by a company, such as Microsoft, that produces proprietary software comprising BSD licensed software.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
I am very close to moving to linux with my next PC. Why? Because Vista sucks.

Congratulations, join the "I hate microsoft" bandwagon.

If Vista sucks, what about the products before it? What functionality do you need, that XP/2000 Pro can't provide, but a Linux OS can?

Yes, there is a need for Linux and I'm not arguing that at all, however your post makes it sound like you're switching away from Microsoft products just because Vista isn't what you expected it to be. If you picked up a 2007 Honda Civic, and then in 2009, Honda released a Civic that had 50 million issues, transmission failures, etc., would you say you're leaving Honda altogether or just stick with your 07 Civic that is perfectly fine?

Also, if you were going to switch to Linux, you would have already done it. I don't think most people who are honestly going to use Linux wait for their next PC, they just make a switch over or dual boot.

..there may be a desire to move away from a company that would rather explore new and ruinous litigation against the Linux community rather then truely compete in the arena of software development.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo

Originally posted by: Fritzo
MS is angry and frustrated that they can't duplicate Google's success. This is the only way they can compete.

Business is business - if this is what it takes for them to win, then Google or whoever they're having an issue with should have seen it coming and not violated their patents. This assumes a patent license was violated though.

But they didn't name any party but the nebulous label of "Linux", with some quantities but no specific patent numbers. So these patents could be anything from "the greatest leap forward in technology evar!!!" to "the double-click".

This threat is so open-ended that I personally find it incredible. And even if it is true, and any of the patents end up being valid, then whom do they sue? And as a company with actual value, to use patents offensively is a dangerous proposition. How many patents is MS violating? Somebody's going to want to try it.

 

[DaveSimmons]

This is just the follow-up to arranging funding for SCO to attack linux earlier.

It's an attempt to create fear in CIO/CTOs at large corporations and use that fear to get them to buy MS products to play it safe.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: ScottMac
If there are in fact some of Microsoft's Intellectual Property included in the free software, it should be removed or licensed.

I imagine the core of the dispute is whether or not MS owns the rights.

Seems pretty simple.

FWIW

And how much stolen code was found in XP? It might be a nice boost for GNU if MS wins this and sets a precedent. Especially if its based on how much profit the product made.

It cuts both ways. IF Open Source / GPL code is found in MS products, it should be licensed or removed.

All they have to do is make their case.

 

[Cooler]

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: ScottMac
If there are in fact some of Microsoft's Intellectual Property included in the free software, it should be removed or licensed.

I imagine the core of the dispute is whether or not MS owns the rights.

Seems pretty simple.

FWIW

And how much stolen code was found in XP? It might be a nice boost for GNU if MS wins this and sets a precedent. Especially if its based on how much profit the product made.

It cuts both ways. IF Open Source / GPL code is found in MS products, it should be licensed or removed.

All they have to do is make their case.

Last time I checked if GPL is in the code then Microsoft must release it source code or discontinue using it.