Blogs
IT Blogwatch's picture
IT Blogwatch

A Daily Digest of IT Blogs from Richi Jennings

More posts |

May 14, 2007 - 1:07 A.M.

Microsoft's forceful FOSS fight (and electric Harleys)

Darn those meddling kids! It's IT Blogwatch, in which Microsoft fires another broadside against FOSS. Not to mention a smog-free hog ...

Microsoft executives toss another canister of gas on the open-source/cathedral fire, telling Fortune that free open-source software is ripping off Microsoft patents in a major way:

Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith and licensing chief Horacio Gutierrez sat down with Fortune recently to map out their strategy for getting FOSS users to pay royalties. Revealing the precise figure for the first time, they state that FOSS infringes on no fewer than 235 Microsoft patents.

It's a breathtaking number. (By comparison, for instance, Verizon's patent suit against Vonage, which now threatens to bankrupt the latter, was based on just seven patents, of which only three were found to be infringing.) "This is not a case of some accidental, unknowing infringement," Gutierrez asserts. "There is an overwhelming number of patents being infringed."

 

swillden is one of many to say: Pshaw!

Come on Microsoft, don't pull a SCO. If you think there's a problem, point it out so we can fix it. Tell us what patents, exactly, are infringed and what software, exactly, is infringing.

Sure, it's a bit risky. Any patents you point out are going to be put under a microscope and the collective knowledge of a very large and lore-rich community will be brought to bear in an exhaustive search for prior art, but if you really think the patents are truly valuable, novel inventions, and that you are really being damaged by their infringement, tell us so we can find a way to avoid infringing.

If we can't find prior art, and can't find a way to show that the software isn't actually infringing, and can't find a FOSS-friendly company to use its patent portfolio to negotiate a deal, then we'll get busy finding a way to change the software so it doesn't infringe. Actually, given the nature of the community, we'll probably change the software so it doesn't infringe even if we can address the issue another way. We don't like software patents, but we feel quite strongly about making sure that our software is free from any legal encumbrance. Tell us what the problem is and we'll try to fix it.

QuantumG picks apart Redmond's alleged business model:

Here's the skinny:

Microsoft has been approaching Fortune 500's for years now and offering to sell "patent licenses" on any of the software that the companies might be using without one. Basically, it's extortion. "We think you might be running software which utilizes our patented technology without a license, but don't worry, we're not going to sue you, so long as you buy this license from us."

That takes care of all the big fish. last year they went after the little fish too, by approaching Novell and making that patent deal you might have heard of. When Redhat crumbles (assuming they haven't already) we'll all be paying a Microsoft tax.

A Linux argument from the go-go '90s resurfaces:

If M$ released a product which was as interoperable as Linux, as customizable as Linux, as modular as Linux, and as user-supportive as Linux, there would be no pressing need for Linux. Imagine if M$ sold Windows in boxes at a retail store for one base price (for individuals and families,) where you could install updates/optimizations/customizations/etc without having to buy a new OS to get said features. M$ would indeed make more money selling a license in this manner due to sheer popularity.

Svartalf:

MS violates a goodly portion of the Open Innovation Network patent pool. Sue Linux or a batch of participating FOSS projects and get a goodly portion of their server and other products shut down but good. They flatly don't want to do this. In all honesty they really don't want to be doing this sabre rattling either, but they're being stupid because Vista's NOT doing well for them and costing them dearly.

Ritchie70: Don't forget Big Blue:

the more interesting question is, will IBM wade in? They are heavy supporters of FOSS.

I would guess that Microsoft probably infringes on some number of IBM patents - but then, pretty much everyone does. The thing I don't know is, does Microsoft already hve some patent license agreement (presumably some sort of blanket agreement) with IBM to cover them?

Wait a sec, says Jim, in the Patent Law blog thread. What about Apple?

What astounds me is that Microsoft can, with a straight face, suggest that 65 interface patents have been violated. Didn't they cop much of the interface design (in Window's initial and subsequent iterations) from Apple? But, of course, when Apple sued Microsoft for infringement, Microsoft won. The interface elements didn't hold up in court. Why on Earth would they think that they can sue someone else for stealing elements that they stole in the first place (and that Apple stole from Xerox PARC before that)? But keep it tied up in court long enough and it may just eat away at the competition, even if it eventually loses.

Sapna Kumar thinks Redmond is being coy:

It isn't surprising that there exist patents that cover parts of GPL-licensed software like Linux. But as soon as Microsoft reveals which patents are being infringed, the community will code around them. With regard to its current tactics, I would have though that Microsoft would have learned something from the SCO mess.

Mary Jo makes for the Mystery Van:

I can't help but wonder why Microsoft decided to go public with these claims and figures now. If the Novell-Microsoft technology partnership was really as solid as Microsoft keeps claiming, why does Microsoft need to raise questions about open-source software's legality? Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has been telling anyone who'd listen for several months now that Microsoft did the deal with Novell in order to provide customers worried about potential patent infringements by open-source software on Microsoft's products a way to assure that they wouldn't be sued by Microsoft.

So what gives? A number of us have been calling for several months for Microsoft to itemize which open-source patents the company believes Linux and other open-source software to infring upon. My guess? Microsoft must be putting pressure on other open-source software vendors to follow Novell's lead and sign covenants not to sue that Ballmer can point to when he wants to scare customers away from open source.

avdp sighs::

I am sure they are right that a Linux distribution violates at least that many patents from microsoft. The better question is how many of those patent are worth the paper they're printed on. With so many computer companies like Microsoft and IBM patenting every trivialities under the sun, it's near impossible to NOT violate one of their patents. The good news: the supreme just had a ruling that's gonna make it a lot harder for MS to win a patent fight. The bad news: it's gonna take a lot of time and money to go through that battle, and the open source community is going to have to endure a lot of FUD during that time. The one mitigating factor: linux is going through a similar situation right now thanks to SCO, and so open source is now somewhat familiar with the process.

Gerzel:

The big problem is not a legal fight between MS and any OSS or other parties over patents. At least if MS is smart.

The way I see them going it far more insidious. This is publicity. They are hinting that OSS is infringing on their patents and are openly saying that "free software" should pay for the privilege of using said patents. The idea is to get this out into the public sphere, and to make people start to get nervous thinking about "free software" as possible patent infringement or as they would likely put it if this works, pirating.

The idea is to make people worry about a legal technicality as if they are breaking the law by association. In order to do this MS has to put out several complaints over a period of time, and probably sponsor "education campaigns" to teach kids about copyright and patent infringement.

spykemail sees a lose-lose situation for Ballmer & Co.:

Absolutely, and ultimately Microsoft is screwed either way. Either they attack FOSS and lose, or they don't attack and FOSS they lose anyway. There's no way they can win this fight - no matter how many lawsuits they file and how many open source projects they try to attack.

If FOSS were somehow limited to the US, maybe they could hire enough lawyers to mount an offensive. But with the extremely strong chunks of the community around the world they literally have no chance. At best they can just f*** things up and make themselves look even more "evil" than they already do.

Buffer overflow:

Around the Net

Around Computerworld

Previously in IT Blogwatch

And finally... The Prius of Harleys?

Computerworld's Senior Online Projects Editor Ian Lamont compiled IT Blogwatch today. On Thursday, regular Blogwatcher Richi Jennings will return.

Related Posts

Google -- Microsoft sues over Android because Windows Phone 7 has failed
SyncDocs brings Google Docs to your PC
Microsoft comes out a winner in cloud deal with Chinese Linux provider
Will hostile patent suits force phone makers to pay more for "free" Android than Windows Phone 7?

Today's Top Stories

When IT gets to play: Skunk works projects
'Server huggers' present obstacle to cloud use
European regulators start investigating Carrier IQ
'Nothing but the facts' approach just won't work with business people
Mozilla declines to say if it's renewed lucrative Google deal
SAP faces cloud strategy questions with SuccessFactors buy