Earlier today, Microsoft announced it will begin actively seeking reparations for patent infringement by Linux and the Open Source Community in general. Larry Augustin posted his thoughts on the matter, expressing his opinion that it's fear of having these IP-infringement claims debunked or challenged that's keeping Microsoft from publishing these 235 alleged infringements to the public - and instead waiting until the OS community comes to the bargaining table. But let's be realistic, shall we?
If Microsoft Corporation doesn't have the biggest and baddest team of lawyers law firms, who does? It's probably safe to assume that more than half of these patent infringements really are just that. Put aside the legitimacy of software patents in the first place and just look at the facts as they stand. Open source software gets its code from millions of developers and no amount of auditing or quadruple-checking will ensure clean-code. Despite Microsoft's claims of "openly and knowingly" engaging in patent-violations, that's most probably not the case.
But the real reason Microsoft does fear revealing the actual numbers and patents behind the IP-violation claims is that they can be worked around. 235 patents. 235 different issues, components, technologies, programs, and ideas. Most likely somewhere between 30-50% are extremely vague and fringe-cases that can disputed either way from here to kingdom-come and as such aren't of any real significance.
But the remaining 150 or so issues - they're the real meat, and that's where Microsoft is afraid - most rightly so. US patent laws - despite all their ridiculous demands and restrictions - do provide for time to rectify errors/transgressions assuming they weren't knowingly committed. Now if you told every single open-source contributor, every avid Linux programmer, every commercial entity whose entire existence depends on the free availability of open source software exactly what was wrong, to what extent, and how it needed to be changed to no longer be an issue - how long do you think it would take for all these violations to vanish into thin air?
It is much more in Microsoft's benefit to have the open source community in "its debt," so to speak, paying "royalty fees" and constantly under fear of being shut-down than it is for Linux and other open source projects to be 100% clean and out of legal quagmires. It makes too, in a twisted sort of way. If you can't get everyone to buy your products, why not make money off of those that don't as well?
The fact of the matter is, no matter how serious these patent violations are, any patent clearly-worded and not vague in purpose is addressable. It may take some time, effort, and tons of money to make it work; but chances are, it's doable. So long as Microsoft hasn't patented the right-mouse context menus, the concept of a desktop, or the word "Office," the open source can - if the need arises - clear all these issues up and move on ahead.
Dude, Opensource is screwed. Microsoft is going to be the clear winner here.
I agree with that guy. ^
Opensource won't win, but it isn't screwed for sure. Not at all, i think it'll become more and more popular.
And it'll succeed, because there is more behind it then just money...
Tell me just how will Microsoft be the clear winner? How is it even possible? You're talking about Free Software or Open Source as if it was one company that is being threatened by lawsuits, while it is in fact a community spread all around the world including everyone from basement hackers to the biggest corporations in the world (IBM and Google for example). You think Microsoft can really face off with this so effectively and win?
I don't think so guys. MS is merely doing the only thing it can do at this point other than letting go and joining the Free Software revolution. It is spreading FUD hoping to slow down the progress of Free Software as they try to come up with a way to beat it, which they have been trying for years without much success. They may have made a deal with Novell and Dell, but they wont be able to make a deal with everyone, and certainly not the whole community.
It is Microsoft who is losing here, and what we are seeing them do these days just proves it.
"So long as Microsoft hasn’t patented the right-mouse context menus, the concept of a desktop, or the word “Office,” the open source can - if the need arises - clear all these issues up and move on ahead."
I suspect that's exactly what Microsoft has done. The ones that can be worked around aren't as much of a threat as the "prior art" ones that need to be litigated. And who has the throng of lawyers?
Problem is, it isn't that simple. Can you implement a non-infringing implementation of the FAT32 file system? No, because FAT32 (the specification) is patented. If you can read and write FAT32 file systems, it infringes. Period.
Can you implement a non-infringing technique of moving a cursor in a text input field in a GUI? Maybe, it is going to depend a lot on the patent and anyone trying to "work around" it is going to have to have a clear description of what is and what is not covered by the patent. This is not something that a basement dwelling 17-year-old is going to have available.
Can you implement a non-infringing technique for memory management? Of course. Probably with little or no guidance.
So it is going to depend a lot on what level the patents are at. I suspect a bunch are at the FAT32 level. A lot more are going to be at the "memory management" level. The real trouble is going to come from the middle where it is going to require departing from an expected look-and-feel to avoid infinging on a patent. That has the potential to turn GNC/Linux/X/GTK/KDE into something that no user would find comprehensible, even though it could be "worked around".
using a website that has a Linux server? At least 60% of the servers on the net are Linux.
Guess what Microsoft users... this is gonna hurt you in the pocketbook too!
If you ISP's email server is Linux, guess what.... pony up! They aren't going to just ABSORB
Mr. Ballmer's tax on Linux --- it's going right back to the end user. You.
IBM.
Perhaps the real reason MS doesn't want to list the claimed infringments is that they can be traced back to MS agents putting such code into linux. This would expose personel that would then have a ruined career in the computer industry. And the question of whether or not such intentional injection of such code would be seen as a participation in the GPL licensing terms. Making the code not infringing.
MS has proven its felony status with the endless anti-trust suits around the world against it,
At any rate there needs to be laws that prevent such eventual libel, as there is in florida laws against eventual left turns (people driving with their left turn signal going but to prevent others from passing).
Eveyone know its wrong to do this sort of intentional harm to others. MS is going to only hurt their reputation more. Linux doesn't have to beat MS, as MS is beating itself.
Long live open source!! I have only been an open source convert for a little over a year and I have even managed to learn to code. Mr Ballmer will have to pry this from my cold dead hands. Come get some!!!!
Microsoft did not get the "Evil Empire" name by accident. They have not entered into dozen of business partnerships, then "totally by mistake" rape, pillage, and bankrupt those companies. Most recent example, Microsoft "Play For Sure" integration of Windows with music players, so they could forceably extract from those "partners" their proprietary pricing, channels, manufacturing expertise, and all the other business info necessary to create that brown Zune monstrosity.
Heck, I'm surprised they have patented their "embrace, extend, extinguish" business model.
If someone did not know of their previous attempts at software creation (miracles such as Windows 95, Win/ME, and "Bob") you might think the company exists for the sole purpose of licensing and litigation. Sure "one computer per desktop", but only if accompanied by "one lawsuit per license". There is no question that Microsoft is single-handedly responsible for a dramatic increase in the quantity and scope of lawsuits. Oh, they lead the way in "serious flaws allowing any user to take control of the system" errors, too; but I don't think that's part of their core metrics.
But what will be the impact on Linux? Until now, Steve Ballmer has been kept on a leash by the influence of Bill Gates and (occasionally) reality. Without Gates "good bully, bad bully" teamwork, Ballmer can run roughshod over his own executives and legal council to pursue a will'o the wisp like "Linux".
I mean really -- like there is one Linux to chase? Pardon me, Mr. Ballmer -- just who are you attempting to threaten?!? You can't threaten to darken the sky with lawyers because there's no corporation to sue. With IBM, Oracle, Dell, and every major computer company supporting Linux, and no "big pile of cash" (or revenue) to jeopardize, it is as stupid as attempting to threaten the American flag (or apple pie, or any other popular non-profit concept).
This actually sounds more like the end of Microsoft. We've gotten hints of their demise before, but with Vista's and Zune's incredibly loud sucking sound, drownding out all their market-speak, I'm thinking that Microsoft has finally jumped the shark.
Wow, that ^ is awesome!
Why does this who scenario remind me of the "War on Terror"?
i have one word for Microsofton...
LOSTFU - Litigate Or Shut The Fork Up!
^^^ That's more than one word dude. And "Period." is not a sentence!
Hey, does MS even know that software patents are not legal worldwilde ?
Even if they really can prove that patents are actually violated regarding US (stupid) patents law AND the community fails to provide workarounds, then they just have to host their project in Europa or Asia.
Will there be a debian/non-US again ? Only US users will be harmed thanks to MS and US patents laws...
I'm not afraid of Ballmer's gang. The open-source community is so huge and tremendous that successfully suing the community would take longer than Microsoft's bankruptcy process that is just underway. Their violation screams and behaviors just have proven that recently.
As software evolves, the patent system which bounds software will need to evolve also. It can't be held to the same rigid rule systems that dictate typical machine patents.
For example, it's not possible to patent the way you use the tools in your garage. However, you can take your tools and construct build wooden truck that DOES violate a patent: http://www.google.com/patents?id=Z-hzAAAAEBAJ
And that's the problem with software. Is software analogous to the tools? Or is it the truck?
You can't patent a simple "while...do" statement. But why not? Back in the 50's the "while... do" statement would have been a non-trivial collection of machine commands. Shouldn't that have been patentable? What happened of course is that programming language evolved into a higher-level form, and nowadays something that was once complicated is now considered trivial, and free from patent scrutiny.
It's logical to assume that in the future we'll have continued evolution. It's not so hard to imagine you will issue the command: "Create_GUI_Space". It will create an input area, define size, input methods, mouse control, etc etc, in the same manner you define the limits for your "while...do" statement. Similarly trivial, and similarly free from patent control.
It's my understanding that THIS is the basis behind the free-software movement. While you can patent a toy truck, you can't patent the knowledge for how to create that truck. Software code is not an "invention", it is pure knowledge. And knowledge should be shared, not hidden. (This allows future evolution and improvement) Otherwise instead of patenting your toy truck, why not patent cutting and shaping wood?
How would it have affected the software community if IBM would have moved to patent that once-complex "while... do" method? It's fortunate that in software's early days patents were for something seen as concrete, tangible. If patents weren't that way Microsoft never would have been able to launch their Windows product since they'd be paying hefty royalties to Xerox.
It's a gray area without a good answer yet. It's easy to see that "while...do" shouldn't be a valid patent. But at the same time it's hard to argue for a completely free world. Would Google have been able to rise to power, fame, and success if they would have been forced to release their search algorithm from day 1? Or if companies knew EXACTLY how the ranking system worked how much could you trust your search results?
So the real problem is how to protect the sharing of knowledge, without limiting companies from having the ability to actually be successful and turn a profit.
Either way, I'm of the opinion that MS is now committing the same mistake IBM made in the 80's. Instead of trying to PROGRESS, they're taking protectionary measures to prevent the future from eliminating their market. It didn't work very well for IBM, and I doubt it'll work for MS.
My years of experience dealing with people who lie is that they withhold evidence when they know they don't have a case.
Funny thing..
All I have seen from the open source side is defiance. No huddling in a corner muttering OMG lawsuits.. No rushing to search the patent lists for MS for patents they might infringe.. nothing. Even legal examinations of the matter has shown that there os nothing to fear from MS patents. They can't sue a tiny software project with no money, because they would get nothing back from them, they can't sue non American projects because the American patent laws don't extend outside America, and they can't wait too long, as they will come up against GPL3 and the changes to American patent laws that are due any day now as a result of some influential cases being overturned.
A few years ago British Telecom decided that they had a patent on hyperlinks. They lost. MS has been doing a patent drive the last few years to try and patent everything it can before someone else does, or before the patent requirements are tightened up to cut out the junk filings. How many of these patents are of this kind?
If MS, who has been gunning for Linux way before others realized it was a threat to them had these patents and they were good enough to cause anything other than mild inconvinence, they would have used them long ago. Not held on to them waiting for the day when Linux was strong enough and advanced enough to take business away from them.
The funny thing is, just last week Microsoft was up against AT&T in the Supreme Court over some ridiculous patents (AT&T suing MS) and celebrated when the Supreme Court found the US Patent Laws to be ridiculous and the AT&T patents vague.
Today they're doing the same thing that they were up against last week…
Great blog, most of the comments were very insightful, thank you. =)
>> Anonymous Coward May 15th, 2007 at 1:39 am
Plays for Sure doesn't play on Zune. Strike one conspiracy theory. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6120272.stm
Microsoft is furious and angry, and even afraid of the OSS community and it's heavy weight supporters (IBM, Google, etc.). So, in their great pain, they come up with stupid and unfunded ideas on how to stop or at least slow down this OSS movement in the world. They can play that game for a while, and maybe even have some successes too, but if they continue this way, things WILL change...
At some point people (I mean normal, everyday people, who don't even care which kind software is running on their computer as long as they can do what they want or need to) will REALLY understand that Microsoft IS an evil empire, and slowly will turn away from Microsoft just because in almost every person, burried deep inside there is a basic sense of, and need for justice. It will probably come a time when people will choose different paths to walk on, and leave the Microsoft's path just because it is an evil empire who's single interest is in making money by whichever means, and because there is an alternative path which every day becomes better and better - the OSS software solutions.
Soner or later Microsoft will play out all their cards, and the world will realise that they were bluffing in most of the times, and their real intentions will come to sunlight for everybody to see.
I know that people like you guys, who read and write blogs know what really Microsoft is like, but I'm speaking about ordinary people here: grandmas, grandpas, neighbours and so on.
SCO attacked the Open Source community in a similar way (claims of patent infringements, hiding evidence etc.) and they already practically lost at court.
M$ is doing the exact same thing and is going to lose just the same way. Their lawyers probably know this, which makes this whole fuss about the patents a FUD. If they don't know it, then they are plain stupid.
I wonder how long m$ can last with this kind of attitude, and with the sucky & insecure products they keep rolling out, and with the trend to shift from desktop apps to Internet-based apps and all...
For now, I think it's just a chair-throwing monkey ventillating his steaming rage about the feared Linux that they can't seem to overcome...
Microsoft is in trouble because people who use Windows don't care about their operating system, and people who care about their operating system don't use Windows. They do not have a passionate user base.
I am still hanging on to enough idealism to hope that passion will win out.
when the population of India and the population of China and the population of Africa start writing Open Source software en masse there will be so many developers working 24/7 that Microsoft can stuff Windows where the sun never shines. Remember, living in those places you still have to pay for Windows and even $3 for a poor chinese is a lot of money. Linux can be had for $0. I'm calmly waiting :o)
So, Microsoft has many lawyers. Oogitty Boogitty. Having watched the RIAA turn themselves into monsters, pusrusing this is largely impossible - as said above. Much better to have a culture 'in its debt', or easy to paint as thieves and liars. Provides them with some more leverage when its time to clean up their public failings.
How is free software screwed? Speaking for myself (IT admin for a large national research lab) Will MS force me to uninstall Linux on our local 3 (200, 120 and 80 CPU) Beowulf clusters? (not to mention the national ones at our other labs)
Is MS going to force us to: - install Vista on our ~4000 Linux and FreeBSD desktops? - uninstall Postfix and set up Exchange? - delete OpenOffice and install Office on the forementioned 4000 Vista installs?
Pffff.. smoke and mirrors. MS has no target to sue Linux and other FOSS out of existence. It's pure FUD.
Ahem... those who live long enough will see who gets screwed. It's MS against us other 6.5 billion people around here. Say a billion or so may have been sucessfully brainwashed by American culture, that leaves the rest of us with a choice. How many of us think American products are indispensable? How many may have second thoughts about USA due to any number of political issues. These things may influence a potential customer. remember 'us' are China, India, Africa, all islamic countries etc. Me, I've been brainwashed by the Penguin, I'm already lost in the *nix-land... haha.. they're coming to take me away, those nice young men in their clean white coats..
"Dude, Opensource is screwed. Microsoft is going to be the clear winner here."
Yeah, that's what you people said last year. And the year before that. And the year before that. And the year...
Paramount to open source is the idea of a community building it's tools. It is time for that community to defend itself. Time for the Programers to call on the assistance of the lawyers they know... and for that matter, the ones that use firefox everyday, to contribute to our project. While we're at it, I'd like the advertisers, business strategists, user interface designers, etc to join in. If the whole community decides it's not worth standing up for transparant programing... We sign ourselves to our own fate.
This is just the second to last phase in an overall victory by free software...That great sucking sound you hear is closed source software circling the drain.
First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you. (<---You are here)
Then you win.
-Mahatma Ghandhi
I am all for paying dues to someone who invented something which benefits me.
I can safely say that I owe my career in high tech to that 'obtained' copy of Turbo C running on a PC-AT with MS DOS4.0 ages ago in India. However, things have changed today. Microsoft is no longer focussed on creating tools which help me do just what I want to do. For example, Microsoft Visual C++ was a really cool tool for Windows apps. Now they have a smorgassboard of .NET .THIS .THAT and .GODKNOWSWHAT which serves nothing in particular. Microsoft has stopped being an innovative company and has become just a 'I will sue you or burn you to the ground if you dont follow my diktats'. Case in point - Netscape.
As for OSS free software, I would rather that Microsoft invested in creating a very secure and reliable Windows server which compares to Linux. They have the money to do this. Then why not? As a personal choice I would use Linux and all other OSS, but at my job, where a lot is at stake I would still use a product from a vendor who I can call for a quick fix if needed. Instead of improving their products, taking care of security holes, they are into this nonsense of suing the OSS community. I would say to MS, instead of burning bridges, why not come up with compelling tool kits and software development suites which bridge the gap between Linux and offer something more than what OSS can offer. I wont mind paying you to use these tools if I can develop a better product in the bargain.
Stop this nonsense MS and focus on better, secure and realiable products
As for patents, I would like software patents to be time limited or invention limited. What I mean is that once a thing, say the while ... do loop becomes common place for others to implement, then the original patent should not apply. I dont know if I am making myself clear, but its like riding a bicycle. You may ride your bike and choose to not teach others to how you learnt to ride. But if others find their own way to ride it, and if enough folks learn this, then your original patent on how to ride a bike should become obsolete. Sorry, I am not a patent expert but I feel that patents should be there to allow 'for profit' innovation but something needs to be chaned so that we dont have silly patents like the Amazon 1-Click patent.
In all fairness, echarcha, Windows Server 2003 is a very secure and reliable server… It has less vulnerabilities (taking into account components like IIS vs. Apache, Exchange vs. Hula, etc.) than the OSS versions - you're probably still thinking of Windows 2000. But other than that, spot on.
Computer Guru, You are right. I meant Windows 2000. I have spent many sleepless nights fixing some issues in our product which were actualy Win2K server issues. :)
I am always amazed when some folks are either complete Microsofties or OSS. I believe in no tech-religion. I use whatever is suitable for the task at hand and what the customer wants. Folks who make statements at tech fairs and exhibitions like '*nix rocks. Its the best' or 'MS .NET is the real next gen invention' etc. (these are actual comments I have heard in person) amuse me no end.
Currently I am using only OSS for developing a web front end to our product. The product uses some MS and some other technologies and platforms in the 'backend'. Yet, the market segement we serve is happy at what we have and so no complains. For example, we prefer to use Informix or Oracle as the database component as customers want to feel secure that their data can be recovered in case of a crash by calling Oracle. Also they have inhouse Oracle/Informix expertise. For web front end all they care is whether this works in IE and Firefox is a nice additional bonus. They dont care if we used .NET .ASP or Ajax or JSF for the web UI. In an earlier version of the product we had used everything MS - the browser, the programming language flavour and the database.
I believe in providing what my customer wants and feels comfortable with. :)
"Open source software gets its code from millions of developers and no amount of auditing or quadruple-checking will ensure clean-code"
Ehi, this is not copyright violation, is not code stolen! Someone (M$) patented lots of ideas implemented in software, something that should be forbidden, and is trying to stole FOSS work claiming "patent infringement". There is no "audit" you can do against the huge software/business method software patent base in US (> 300.000, almost very vague). You can write code on your own, in your garage with your pc and skill, and be infringing hundreds of software patents. That's why software patents are evil and stop innovation. You don't have to look at other people code, nor programs, just you have to implement the solution of a problem on your own, and sure someone else has already patented the "idea" behind the solution, and you are doomed!
The one thing that might be a PITA though is if they try to enforce patents through litigation with the end user like the RIAA is doing to college students who share music. If they somehow can track who is using linux and then for either a settlement or legal battle.
One of my buddies got slammed for USD $3000 in the RIAA settlement. Otherwise it was a legal battle with a possible $750 per song...
Not sure if M$ could do this, but it would affect a lot of people.
Quoting PC:
M$ owns a patent on an implementation of FAT, not FAT itself. It is perfectly legal for Linux and other OS's to read and write FAT using a separate implementation. The act of moving a cursor into a text input field? Prior art (see Xerox PARC). Memory management? Prior art (see Multics, UNIX). GUI? Prior art (see Xerox PARC) and implementation-specific (precedence set by Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp). This assumes that software patents are even that enforcible--in reality, software is just an implementation of mathematical formulas and algorithms, both of which cannot be patented in the US already; the question as to whether or not software can or cannot be patented will almost certainly be reassessed if M$ makes this a big legal issue. It's already illegal in Europe and Asia, IIRC.
Besides, if M$ thinks they can nickel-and-dime the rest of the world over undisclosed patents and the mere threat of legal action which they publicly admitted is NOT going to happen, they've got another thing coming. Linux is too important to business today to be stopped with only 235 potential patent infringement cases. That's how M$ got away with taking Apple's GUI--it would have done more damage to force M$ to come clean and destroy the up-and-coming OS (if you can even call it that) that was becoming more and more important to businesses than to let M$ continue to develop Windoze.
Why do we even have these discussions? Open source isn't going anywhere, Microsoft isn't going anywhere. Who cares what operating system someone uses, just as long as the file formats are compatible and free of royalties. If you are smart, you will learn and use open-source, cross-platform programs. (Firefox. OpenOffice, Gaim, Gimp, etc...) That's the future. Linux is also the most cross-platform OS, so Linux would probably be a good choice also.
Enough said
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=4766
It's going to be patent vs. patent - in a fight between IBM & Microsoft, I'd bet on IBM :)
This was a long foreseen event - it's no surprise Microsoft moved in this direction.
============
In January, IBM opened 500 of its software patents to open-source developers. Two weeks later, Sun followed the lead by releasing 1,670 patents, many related to Solaris. In August, Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) launched its Patent Commons initiative that seeks to collect software licences and patents pledged to the open-source community in a central repository.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070515125107293
"Update:
Microsoft blinked, according to this report from Tech.Blorge:
Anonymous Coward forgot one important FLOSS program: Videolan/VLC to watch videos.
After spending decades playing the 'do I have the latest codec' and having to keep a few copies of different programs to make sure I can view all latest video files, I have totally forgotten about this annoying problem since I've installed VLC.
It just plays everything.
You all should realize that a company in Japan patented the "What's this?" button and functionality found in many products and even in some MS Office Versions... Yet the courts said that you can't patent a "concept" only the specific implementation... Still this delayed the release of a new version of a major software vendor's package in Japan a few years ago... at least until it was settled...
In order to patent something like a "window" concept or even the code to do it, you would have to show that you actually invented it. And since MS STOLE it from Apple, who STOLE it from Xerox they would have a hard time patenting the window interface... besides the GUI uses very different code...
MS will NOT succeed because they are trying something as stupid as me trying to patent some of the things I "invented" after they were made by other people... True, I invented, in concept, several things when I was younger, but lacking the funds to develop an actual device failed to do anything with them, only to see someone else, a few years later come up with the same thing...
The patents also have to be enforcible in more then just the USA for MS to get anything done, and since many OpenSource projects are NOT USA based, including the contributors, MS might as well sue the world all at once... but 40+ courts will NOT side with MS...
Bite me MicroSucks...
It's nice to see you saying something nice about FLOSS for once, Enderle :)
M$ is full of hot air -- think Steve -- Monkey Boy --- Bummer. M$ is going to try to scare people but just as soon as they smell the coffee they'll give M$ "THE FINGER" !!! Why?? BECAUSE JUST AS SOON AS M$ SUES, THEY WILL BE HIT WITH A MASSIVE PATENT LAWSUIT FROM IBM et al. for violating THEIR patents -- and you can bet that M$ is violating at least several IBM patents. Indeed once they sue even 1 entity, M$ will be FORCED to reveal EXACTLY WHAT PATENTS were violated, which is the LAST thing M$ wants to do.
CONCLUSION: Monkey Boy will jump up and down, cry, throw chairs around -- just like a spoiled brat that does not get their way, but at the end of the day M$ can't AFFORD to carry through on their threat, because it would unleash a massive PATENT WAR from which M$ would not come away from unscathed. It is all bark with no bite. SCO was stupid; I'm sure M$ is at least smart enough not to make the same blunders as SCO. My advice: just give M$ THE FINGER and tell them to crawl back under the rock from which they came -- that or go annoy IBM.
Can you implement a non-infringing technique of moving a cursor in a text input field in a GUI? Maybe, it is going to depend a lot on the patent and anyone trying to "work around" it is going to have to have a clear description of what is and what is not covered by the patent. This is not something that a basement dwelling 17-year-old is going to have available. > > Hello? Have you heard of the Amiga or Atari ST computers, or the Graphical Interfaces for the 8-bit Atari and Commodore computers? Don't forget the GUI's for the Unix mainframes that were created during the 60's,70's and 80's. If anything Microsoft is infringing on those techniques within Windows.
Do you guys think that if Microsoft sues Linux distros they are going to submit immediately? First, it is not that easy to sue for patent infringement and win especially now after the Supreme Court made it much easier to invalidate patents based on prior art and obviousness. MS has been sued many times for patent infringement and in almost every instance they decided to settle because it wasd obvious they couldn't win. Now do you guys think that MS is not infringing patent held by Open Source projects like Linux and Open Office.
Have you heard about Open Invention Network? An organization that have collected many significant patents in all kinds of software issues and that will make available to any of their members to use against any company that initiates a patent lawsuit. Who has more to loose. MS or open source projects? it will only take a successful patent infringement loss for a court to order an injunction against MS (remember RIM and Vonage?) MS has not initiate a lawsuit because they are afraid of a countersuit that might end up shutting the company down until they find a work around.
Anyone think that IBM, Oracle, Sun and HP are going to sit on the sidelines and not defend Linux and other Open Source projects when they make billions of dollars out of it? (IBM and HP alone each make over $3 billion a year, Sun is the main contributor to OpenOffice and now Oracle have their own distro called Unbreakable Linux based on Red Hat). And if thet is not enough, MS deal with Novel will provide an exit. Why? MS is selling coupons to Novel SUSE as part of their agreement with Novell. what does that mean? ESTOPEL in legal terms. By distribting a product that contains their so called IP (patents), they have provided KNOWINGLY to everyone the technology they are complaining about. I think Novell, after being critisized by open source developers, at the end ambushed MS into that agreement. what MS is trying to collect some more money from distributors of Open Source before their door is closed once projects switch to GPL3. Both linus and Alan Cox have warmed up to GPL3 last revision and this incident might be the last push for them to accept it and move Linux to GPL3.
Basically Microsoft should put up or shut up. 235 patent violations? What are they?
If MS remains this vague about it then the OS community should just make counter claims.
Windows XP and Vista violates x number of open source patents (and there probably are hidden away in the mountains of MS code.)
Interesting..... What really surprises me is there isn't a single MS fanboy coming to their rescue - not here or elsewhere on the web.
BTW - congrats on your EasyBCD 1.6 release.
@MCS:
>and there probably are hidden away in the mountains of MS code
Patents aren't contained in code, but in ideas and features. It doesn't make a difference if it's closed or open source, whether you can see it or you can't.
If you see a tot-truck, know that it's in violation of that patent.
Ridiculous!
"It’s probably safe to assume that more than half of these patent infringements really are just that."
That's an incredibly ignorant statement. It's only an infringement if a court rules that it is, and the legitimacy of software patents has never been ruled on by the Supreme Court ... but it did recently rule that the patent office has of late been awarding a lot of patents that it shouldn't, because they fail the obviousness requirement. What is "probably safe to assume" is that far more than half of MS's alleged patents are either obvious or are prior art -- and that is why, as they said, they don't want to expose them to challenge by the FOSS community.
Anyone who accepts that MS has any legitimate patent complaints against Linux without first reading the actual patent claims is a moron.
Most likely somewhere between 30-50% are extremely vague and fringe-cases that can disputed either way from here to kingdom-come and as such aren’t of any real significance.
There's a great deal about this piece that is wrong-headed and illogical, but this is perhaps the worst. It is precisely disputes that people have to fear from huge corporations with massive legal staffs.
The fact of the matter is, no matter how serious these patent violations are, any patent clearly-worded and not vague in purpose is addressable.
This is so ignorant. Patents on, say, decompression or decoding processes can only be addressed by dropping the functionality of decoding that format from the system; it isn't sufficient to switch to another format (e.g., gzip or png) as long as files in the old format exist. And a basic technique like arithmetic coding, which is patented, is the best known method and is likely to be the best possible method; this can only be "addressed" by using inferior methods.
So long as Microsoft hasn’t patented the right-mouse context menus, the concept of a desktop, or the word “Office”
These aren't patentable! Sheesh, the whole point is about whether MS's patent claims are legitimate, and then you come up with this nonsense.
the open source can - if the need arises - clear all these issues up and move on ahead
Strawman from a bozo ... of course open source can "clear all these issues up and move on ahead", one way or another -- as soon as MS reveals what their 235 patent claims are!! <i>No, because FAT32 (the specification) is patented. ... The real trouble is going to come from the middle where it is going to require departing from an expected look-and-feel to avoid infinging on a patent. </i>
Get a clue, people. Specifications and look-and-feel aren't patentable; only processes are patentable. Any patentable aspect of FAT32 would have to be novel and non-obvious (to an expert practitioner of the art). As for look-and-feel, forget it -- that's a matter of copyright, not patent, and those cases haven't held up (Apple did extort a license fee out of Microsoft, but it was never settled in court).
Open source software gets its code from millions of developers and no amount of auditing or quadruple-checking will ensure clean-code.
Linux clean code auditing is about copyrights, oh clueless one. And do you think that MS audits or quadruple- or even single-checks their code for violations of others' rights? Since it's public knowledge that MS was built from the bottom up on theft of the work of others and Linux is scrupulous about avoiding such theft and the SCO affair has demonstrated that Linux has been successful in that enterprise while SCO was anything but, you've got this completely bassackwards.
But the remaining 150 or so issues - they’re the real meat, and that’s where Microsoft is afraid - most rightly so.
So MS has been furiously filing patents for stuff they didn't invent, and they are "rightly" afraid that they won't be able to extort money via that practice? Uh huh.
Well, we do not care here. Europeans do not have such nonsense as "software patents". The same goes for our brothers in Asia and Africa - they are free and do not care. I pity all Americans of course. Maybe it is time you do something with Microsoft and other marketeers. What they do to you (and tried to do to us many times) is an outrage. All that brainwashing they subjected you to and all those ludicrous claims... it is just preposterous. How can you live with that?!
But at the same time it’s hard to argue for a completely free world. Would Google have been able to rise to power, fame, and success if they would have been forced to release their search algorithm from day 1? Or if companies knew EXACTLY how the ranking system worked how much could you trust your search results?
People are so so so clueless ... patents require you to reveal your technique.
Well, we do not care here. Europeans do not have such nonsense as “software patents”.
Good grief, how can people be so ignorant? It's only because of people who care that Europe is currently free of software patents, but the threat continues to loom. Get you head out of the sand and google Europe software patents, or just read http://fsfeurope.org/projects/swpat/
>and there probably are hidden away in the mountains of MS code
Patents aren’t contained in code, but in ideas and features.
Patent violations are contained in code, you silly goose.
Patents aren’t contained in code, but in ideas and features.
One of the big problems with the world today is that a great number of people are appallingly ignorant and are too arrogant to recognize it or admit it -- they mistake their unsubstantiated beliefs for knowledge and present the former as the latter (this explains a great deal about George Bush, the invasion of Iraq, and American support ofr both, which is still around the 30% level). The person who wrote the above obviously knows nothing about patents, has never done even the most basic sort of research, the sort of thing that can be done with 5 minutes of googling, and yet makes an authoritative statement -- a statement that is wholely and completely wrong. "ideas" and "features" aren't patentable, only methods of implementation are patentable. So only by examining the code can it be determined whether a software patent has been violated.
As for patents, I would like software patents to be time limited
They are. Haven't you people heard of "know your enemy"? How can you sally forth and write on these matters when you are ignorant of even the most basic and fundamental facts? From Article II, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (emphasis added for retards):
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Make that Article I (The Legislative Branch), Section 8 (Powers of Congress)Interesting….. What really surprises me is there isn’t a single MS fanboy coming to their rescue - not here or elsewhere on the web.
Yeah, Rupert. After all, the first post here doesn't say "Dude, Opensource is screwed. Microsoft is going to be the clear winner here" and the second post doesn't say "I agree with that guy. ^".
Truth machine, most of what you are spouting is BS.
Patents aren't for HOW something is done so much as the concept itself.
A tot truck made from wood - whether hand-carved or by machine, built from Balsa or Oak - is still in violation of that patent.
You can't implement a filesystem per say, but by implementing the way a filesystem works, classifies information, organizes data, and stores the various chunks, you're patenting a filesystem. Because FAT32 is just a method of storing data, same as NTFS, Reiser4, and even crappy old ext2/3fs.
Truth Machine, get a grip. You're a FUD Machine, nothing more, nothing less... Except that you claim to know more than everyone else too.
Truth Machine wrote:
--
Well, we do not care here. Europeans do not have such nonsense as “software patents”.
Good grief, how can people be so ignorant? It’s only because of people who care that Europe is currently free of software patents, but the threat continues to loom. Get you head out of the sand and google Europe software patents, or just read http://fsfeurope.org/projects/swpat/
--
Why do you assume we are ignorant? How very rude.
We do not have absurd software patents, because we fought for it when lobbyists financed (mostly) by american corporations tried to enforce them (inter alia by corrupting the European Commision)... a propos, thanks for your contribution to the world wellbeing, USA ;).
And only because some of us decided to do something about that and counteract (by educating people, signing petitions, voting) we do not care about Microsoft's absurd claims. We laugh at it because we can - we fought for it.
Maybe it is time the people of the USA should do the same and stop polluting the world... because, I am sorry to say that, the cancer spreads from the USA.
Just out of curiosity... Where are you from, TM? USA?
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
Quoting Renee:
"Patents aren’t for HOW something is done so much as the concept itself."
That so? I'll go patent the concept of filtering out oxygen from the atmosphere to engage in aerobic cellular respiration, and charge everyone $1 USD per breath. It's the concept that counts, right?
I think Microsoft and the Bush administration should sue each other because they have both violated each other's patent on Pure Evil (TM).
About 30 years ago, when I was learning Turbo Pascal 3.02a on an Apple II+, I needed to sort a list. The first idea I came up with was called the "Bubble Sort". The second idea I came up with was a "Linked List", followed quickly by a "Double Linked List". From there it was an instant leap to a "Multiple Linked List". All of these sorting algorithms I thought up on my own without reference to any outside material. Imagine my suprise when I read "The Art of Programming" by Donald Knuth and found them described in his three volumes.
I believe that all except the Bubble Sort are now patented by someone. That is because the Patent Office is a political tool whose primary purpose has become generating "campaign" money for politicians, both left and right, who pull the strings behind the scene. This riggs the process in favor of patent holders with deep pockets. You can see this ploy in play in the VFAT patent appeal:
http://news.com.com/Microsofts+file+system+patent+upheld/2100-1012_3-6025447.html
"Microsoft has won a debate where they were the only party allowed to speak, in that the patent re-examination process bars the public from rebutting arguments made by Microsoft," he told CNET News.com. "We still believe these patents are invalid and that a process that gave the public equal time to present its positions would result in them being found as such."
So, prior art be damned. That is why IBM, Google, RH and other folks with money for political clout and patent portfolios to counter sue WILL get involved. They have to, or Microsoft walks away with the ENTIRE computer industry in America, from the hardware, through the development tools, to the GUI presentations and business algorithms. They won't get by just by letting competitors or users sign cross license agreements or paying licenses or royalties. Gates and Ballmer's greed knows NO boundaries. They will MONOPOLIZE the industry, not just PC OEM desktops, if they are ALLOWED to get away with it. What will be next, mobile phones becoming illegal unless they have Windows embedded in them? All gaming devices illegal except XBox? How much of a percentage of the house take will Microsoft take before the casinos and the mob strike back? Computer devices in warships, weapons, satellites, research vehicles, etc., all have to be running Microsoft IP? America trusting its security to Microsoft's IP despite its miserable track record in protecting its on OS against viruses? To where will those politicians with chests full of "campaign" contributions run off into "retirement" if Microsoft's IP embedded in security devices is going to "protect" them and their wealth? (They probably hide a line in a 3000 page omnibus bill allowing Unux in security devices owned by politicians only, and then only Microsoft's Unix, formerly known as SUSE.)
It Mcirosoft does get away with this grand theft it will turn most personal PCs into door stops because Microsoft isn't interested in making Windows/VISTA safe to use. VISTA's only purpose is to act as a gatekeeper for the Entertainment industry while extorting huge license fees for Microsoft as well. I, for one, will hang this laptop on the wall as a monument to American corporate greed and political corruption.
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.
Remember Bill Gate made IBM surrender to his term...... Microsoft improved to next level system to fat systems. Just like Linux followed what Bill Gate did. But Linux made it comment to be free and use what ever is best for you.
When IBM and APPLE has the stuff. APPLES protected their rights. IBM surrender, They didn't do enough protected their patient right.... Let say it was too late. When Window 95 came out... that when sources was patient and protection junk..
I have problem with Vista or Microsoft stuff. their application is old or should I say.... There was nothing new improved for 2006 or next three years... sure I gonna get hate mails or comments what I wrote...
Linux has best burner I see in long time... K3B... it sure does let you have freedom to what you want to do. I may be wrong... If you look in past years of Microsoft what they did... HOW they created new applications, programs, They got it from IBM and APPlE function.or UNIX princples. Linux is doing same way Bill created Microsoft ...Linux has created it to be free... and use it what ever you or person like to do.
Despite millions of computer geeks all making their valid points of reference to the battle between Microsoft's Steve Ballmer and Linux - all of this is part of life and life is a fun little theatre that gives everyone a chance to settle their emotions and show their monkey shines. Just like Bill Gates said a few years ago - 99 percent of all people who use computers have the brains of a Spider Monkey. That is still true today. How many people can create a Binary Assembly Program to run a computer or any part of a computer? How many people can write a program and call it BASIC? How many people can write a program called DOS? How many people can even use Assembly or BASIC or DOS or UNIX or LINUX or any thing resembling a Commandline Environment? Bill Gates is correct! 99 percent of the people who use computers have the brains of a Spider Monkey. How many people talking crap about Microsoft or Linux can use the OS's (Operating System's) to create drivers for computer peripherals? The truth is - computers and the softwares that run on them have been so dumbed down it's pathetic. How many people that work with computers on a daily basis know the kinds of Clocks on a Motherboard. How many even know what a Motherboard is and that back in the day - Clock Boards had to be bought separately in order to even have a Clock in the computer?
The point here is - you need to know the complete history of Microsoft, Xerox, Digital Research, IBM, Novell companies and softwares like MINIX, UNIX, Apple OS, Atari OS, Commodore OS, OS2 and there's several others to boot...in order to be the mouth of the Internet as to being correct. Most of whatever anyone says can have some sort of validity - but, based on what? Microsoft does hold a lot of patents - but, did you know that even though it held one of the Original FAT patents that it had to purchase the complete company of Digital Research (DR DOS) in order to have FAT32 and get the 32bit technology required to take Windows 95 to Windows 95B. That's right - Microsoft doesn't own everything and hasn't for a long time - and just because it has the money to buy companies like Digital Research - the owners of DR DOS didn't sell the land with the house. Microsoft doesn't own FAT32 and 32bit but, have bought the rights to use it however they wish. That's how Microsoft does things...thing goes into the world and walks like a bully telling everyone they meet that they own everything and invented and created everything. The truth in that system of doing things - it doesn't take much to convince a Spider Monkey that it doesn't have rights to anything so it had better be able to pay for it's bananas. So - Microsoft does more things like in Disk Compression - outright stole Disk Compression from the company based in San Diego called Stacker and Stacker was selling its Disk Compression Softwares on the open market and Microsoft decided that since it's own compression technology sucked and was killing its reputation by wiping out complete hard drives and losing complete databases - it had to do something quick like steal something that did work and that was Stacker's Disk Compression -- and to this day it is Stackers technology that MS uses in all of it's Defragmenting and Compression Softwares and Microsoft is going to pay Stacker for the rest of Window's software life span. So - as long as someone is using a MS product - MS is going to pay Stacker a handsome check every year. That was a court order.
Microsoft will never sue anyone over anything Linux. Instead - Microsoft has indemnified itself with Novell and can actually open up Linux and look inside and see what makes it work and see why it does better than Windows in some cases....and never get into trouble. If they do get caught using GPL in their softwares - the easiest excuse in the world will be used ---- "We bought the rights to this technology so we can better make programs that are cross platform!" In the near future I guarantee you that you will start seeing things in Microsoft Windows Softwares that came directly from Linux just like Microsoft bought rights to using System V and Unix from that bad company that sued IBM over UNIX System V. We won't say their name here. We want people to forget that company ever existed.
But, the important facts here are that Microsoft is in trouble technologically and for engineering anything new and there are limited ways of making a computer run and Microsoft needs an open door policy to Linux and UNIX and has indeed bought them....to have a conduit to open source from all the geeks in the world who are working on Linux and perfecting it. What better way to hire a 100,000 programmers world wide? Do get my point here? Why pay a 1000 immigrant programmers top salary when you can get most of them to work for free because of thier dedication to the task? Soon - Windows, Linux and UNIX versions of OS's will be directly crossplatformed and all of them will work together as if they were ---- made by the same company for the sole purpose of working together. Gee - I wonder why they all work together will be the next phase of questioning Steve Ballmer. How many products do you buy every day that are made by the same company but put in bottles with various different labels and each one claiming to better than the other. Well, that's about to happen with all the OS's and various other softwares such as office softwares and databases. Ballmer didn't get to be one of the richest men in the world by paying all his money to people who think they are worth it. Ballmer got to the top by being one of the most shrewwed business men in the market and getting lots of people to do lots of work for free or next to nothing and then selling an almost workable product to the masses as a fully workable product and the Spider Monkeys didn't and don't the difference and therefore will keep supporting Microsoft and all the Open Source Programmers of the world creating products that do work and putting them on the market for free - will become part of Steve Ballmer's library of sales. Ballmer is a salesman - not an idiot. If the Open Source Programmers don't want Steve Ballmer stealing their technology and implementing it into Microsoft Windows - they are simply going to have to either patent everything they do - or copy right it or convert to Proprietary Software Licensing. That's the bottomline. If you are going to put valuable free stuff on the market and brag that "look what you've done" then you can fully expect one of the best thieves in the world to take what you offer and sell it for their own.
Microsoft suing anyone over anything Linux --- NEVER GONNA HAPPEN!
Microsoft stealing everything good from Linux and putting it into Windows - MOST DEFINATELY!
Linux getting anything from Windows - NEVER!
Who wins - HE WHO STEALS THE MOST AND HAS THE MOST MONEY TO PROTECT THEIR STEALING!
That would be --- MICROSOFT - WINS AGAIN!
Who is at fault - YOU ARE! YOU PAID Micosoft and not the Open Source Programmers.
Who tricked who - YOU TRICKED YOURSELF! Only an idiot would put valuable free stuff where a thief can steal it.
Dear "Sometime" -- What you wrote barely resembles English; I sure hope it isn't your native language. But you're a nincompoop regardless of what language you speak.
"I may be wrong" -- and you are. " Just like Linux followed what Bill Gate did." -- What the effing hell are you talking about? Linux is based on UNIX and Minix; it doesn't "follow what Bill Gates did", which is to steal QDos.t
"Truth machine, most of what you are spouting is BS. Patents aren’t for HOW something is done so much as the concept itself."
Renee, you're an effing moron and a liar. I have my name on patents -- do you? Even 2 minutes on google would make it clear that you're wrong.
"Why do you assume we are ignorant?"
Tomasz, you're an effing moron. I didn't assume anything -- you made it clear that you're ignorant with your words.
"We do not have absurd software patents, because we fought for it when lobbyists financed (mostly) by american corporations tried to enforce them (inter alia by corrupting the European Commision)…"
In other words, you're a liar -- you do care about software patents.
That "linux blows" post is hilarious.
Where to begin?
Point 1, if Linux "blows", we would not be having this discussion because no one would be using it.
Point 2, if Windows didn't suck, there would be no impetus to use something else.
Point 3, desktop concept can't be owned by Microsoft, if anything it would be Apple's and, if it was, there is no chance that Jobs would let that slip even though his OS is BSD at it's core.
Point 4, CDE has been using contextual menus for 20 years on UNIX.
Point 5, Microsoft winning here is a bad thing for everyone, even you stupid M$ fanboys. The problem is that they own so much of the market that they don't really innovate anymore. Zune is a copy of iPod, Live Network is a copy of a myriad of other things that closely resemble the Google offering, MSN was their attempt to copy AOL, which was a copy of Prodigy. I can't think of one new offering from the boys at Microsoft that they've developed. For the most part they have purchased anything that was good and crushed that square peg into the round hole they made for it. Hotmail, for example, was great before M$ bought it and crammed Passport into it.
Last point...
Microsoft < (IBM+Sony+Novell+fossCommunity);
while(openSourceAlternative.isAvailable){
smallBusiness++;
taxDollars+=taxRate*smallBusiness.getProfit();
}
Just want to point out the concept of "desktop" isn't Apple's at all, it's all started off at Xerox - the print company, who didn't know the goldmine they were sitting on. Lucky for us, they didn't copyright it, Microsoft and Apple made a fortune off of it, and are now breaking the golden rule: Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
They benefited from lack of patents/copyrights, but they want to ensure no one else does.
I love these people who proclaim themselves "gurus" but can't even distinguish between a patent and a copyright. The claim that Xerox didn't know what they were sitting on is an ignorant just-so story. Xerox PARC was Xerox's R&D division,which in addition to inventing the GUI invented laser printing and a lot more that Xerox has profited plenty from. In exchange for demonstrating their GUI to Steve Jobs, they got a sh*tload of Apple stock that is worth a pretty penny.
Guys, let's not get ahead of ourselves.
First of all, nobody, and I say nobody, wants to see M$ playing the 'big baby' here. If each and every person in the US (or any other country for that matter) would patent every part of his and her full name, wouldn't it be a little bit absurd? Or any person that can read a dictionary picks up a random word and submit it for patenting? (The patent office wouldn't even agree on these anyway.)
Its like any monolithic, capitalist company pick any animal/plant/object from nature and get a patent for it? That's insanity. Nobody can patent the air we breathe, the water we breathe, the food we eat, and even the words we write. That even goes for the words found in the source codes that every developer, hacker, programmer, engineer and architect in this world would write to make the very fabric of this 'software culture'.
"Guys, let’s not get ahead of ourselves."
Who are you talking to? And other than demonstrating that you're a moron, what precisely is your point?
Microsoft has only one agenda here, to make corporate types fearful
of using and relying upon Linux on servers and desktops. MS does
not -have- to win in court. It never has to -go- to court. It mearly has
to make the conservative business crowd nervous. That way they'll
"play it safe" by sticking with MS servers and Vista on the desktops.
As for Ma and Pa consumer, 90% of them will use Windows anyway
because it came "free" with their computer. Besides, they can't figure
out how to use anything else and all their friends use Windows too.
SUSE ? (K)Ubuntu ? Fedora ??? Alien words. Probably communist ...
The foundations of the Microsoft OS in conception and execution has almost certainly got some borrowed unix code in it. The only reason Windows exists is because UNIX couldn't fit on the micromachines of the early eighties. There's no other reason for it's existence. Why doesn't novell sue microsoft?
does microsoft pay royalties to xerox as well?
No one pays royalties to Xerox, because they didn't ask for them.
Have anyone noticed that a person calling themselves "truth machine" is an anal retentive moron? Seriously. Just read their moronic (and offensive) replies to others ' posts and see for yourselves.