Microsoft claims over 200 infringements in Linux (again)

[netyire]

Ok, well here goes, please bear with me and help me out. ;) I think that Microsoft has said something about linux infringing on some of their patents something like linux users owe them money (I think). Furthermore, I think there is some stuff, about how Novell paid Microsoft in exchange for Microsoft not sueing their users or something (I think). Look at this webpage: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/20/microsoft_claims_linux_code/

Steve Ballmer says:

1. Microsoft signed the deal because Linux "uses our intellectual property" and it wanted to "get the appropriate economic return for our shareholders from our innovation".

2. "This is important to us, because we believe every Linux customer basically has an undisclosed balance sheet liability."

Anyway, I believe that one of the nice things about using a linux distribution like Ubuntu is knowing that I did not have to steal anything from anyone. Living with a clear conscience and the such and that is a strong selling point. Take it as either use Microsoft Windows and not be able to afford some software which you may want or use Linux and be free. Free is a good point here, and I like being free.

After all this, can I ask, is what Microsoft saying true? And if it is true, am I in anyway wronging Microsoft? Should I owe them money for their innovations. Should I go back to Windows, in order to keep on the right side of the law? Are they using their FUD tatics again? Or is it legal to use Ubuntu, do I owe Microsoft money, or if I buy a copy of Windows, can I use linux legally. Please help. Can someone help to explain this and sort out all this. Is it legal to use Ubuntu?

[bodhi.zazen]

IMO it's all Microsoft propaganda. Microsoft has been found guilty of let us say questionable business practices both in the US and in Europe and I would take any information you gain from Microsoft with a large grain of salt 8)

Is there a specific article or claim you have in mind ?

[Beernut]

Honestly Steve Balmer makes all these claims but won't cite specific sections of code where there are supposedly IP infringement. Why? Lets have a look at the Windows source code which won't happen because MS is notorious for stealing code. Steve Balmer is an idiot and I would take everything he comments on as FUD. Don't worry about it they don't have a leg to stand on look at the SCO vs IBM debacle.

If you are interested in keeping up on developments I like this site. http://www.groklaw.net/index.php

[taurus]

Move to Cafe and this subject has been discussed many times before in Ubuntu Cafe!!!

[bonzodog]

There is a possibility that the samba code infringes MS's IP, as it communicates directly with windows using the smb protocol, which is proprietary. Up until now, the samba team have relied on goodwill on the behalf of MS in ignoring the fact that the Samba team basically reverse engineered a part of the windows code.
MS only ignored it because it provided interoperability with their systems in something that was originally no threat to them financially. However, with Novell coming on board, and suddenly really developing Linux for mass commercial purposes, along with IBM, MS realised it could be a very real threat to their business after all.

Steve Ballmer got scared - he knew they couldn't just sue Novell for using a proprietary MS format without paying licensing, as they themselves relied on goodwill from Novell as they had some Unix Code in windows that Novell own the IP to.

This is why the whole deal went down.

Also, the Gaim project (which MS actually contributed to) also was developed by reverse engineering MS protocols originally.

[userundefine]

Oh I'm sure Linux does infringe on Microsoft's patents. Since a patent refers to an idea or a way of implementing one, I'm sure Microsoft has thousands of patents on the most obvious things, like double-clicking an icon. Just the same, Amazon has patented obvious ubiquitous elements of shopping online. Apple and IBM probably have similar patents. But I strongly doubt Linux has copied any Microsoft code which would be a copyright violation. And clearly it isn't infringing on any Microsoft trademarks. But the problem is that Ballmer didn't say just patents, he said the vague nonsensical term "intellectual property" which refers to all these things. So, essentially, Ballmer is full of **** IMO and is purely trying to scare companies into using their lackluster products.

As far as Samba, the DMCA allows reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability. Samba is completely safe, at least, bite your tongue, under current laws. Heh...

[gwilson]

Forgive me, but I really hope you aren't losing any sleep worrying about this. I'd be more concerned about the moral implications of crossing against a "Don't Walk" sign on a deserted street in downtown Milwaukee at 2:00 am. We only have to deal with Microsoft at all because they used morally questionable tactics to so thoroughly dominate the computer world in the first place. But don't ever burn a backup copy of one of your music cds because Karma will get you, if you do!

;-)

[Rhapsody]

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Microsoft were obviously hoping that SCO v. IBM would slow Linux development down (like how USL v. BSDi slowed BSD development in the early 90s), but it didn't work and Linux has just been getting more of a problem for them. So Microsoft has decided to get in this fight themselves, hoping their own legal clout will have a chilling effect on Linux and give them some room to breathe.

I'm certainly not losing any sleep over it.

[fragos]

As is frequently the case Ballmer was lieing or just stupid -- you pick. Novell got their hackels up over that BS statement because they never admited anything like that and Microsoft took it back. That's what you get for sleeping with the devil. Novell has been in big trouble business wise and made an easy target for Microsoft. If you look at the dollars, Microsofts payment was much larger than the the one made by Novell. It makes little sense but will help Novell and perhaps the rest of the Linux community. I might ask when has MS done anything first? IBM has bunches more patents and they are our friend. The Microsoft financed SCO garbage had fallen appart and Microsoft wanted a new source of FUD.

[macogw]

FAT32 drivers DO infringe. They weren't reverse engineered, just straight-up copied.

[netyire]

So besides the fact that Microsoft is trying to cast Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt everywhere, it is still technically legal to use Linux under current laws? Is it possible to infringe on patents, is it illegal?. If I am oppressed to use software which I do not like by a company I don't like, can I just buy their product and don't use it, and be legal that way?

EDIT: I think that since Windows is closed-source, (and the fact that it is probably inferior to linux) and because code of the Linux kernel is safely enough all open-sourced and legal (hey, maybe Microsoft copied us) - and to add to that any crapped up component which Windows makes, it is legal to reverse engineer and use for interoperability under the current DMCA laws (I take this under good faith). Hence I take it that Linux is legal, and perhaps Microsoft is too scared to open their source, for fear of maybe proving that they stole code. I reason that we are legal. Happy holidays! :D

[graigsmith]

i dont believe it should be possible to patent, telling a computer to do something.

haha , i told my computer to add numbers first your all screwed.

that's what most of the patents boil down to. IMO

[lyceum]

So besides the fact that Microsoft is trying to cast Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt everywhere, it is still technically legal to use Linux under current laws? Is it possible to infringe on patents, is it illegal?. If I am oppressed to use software which I do not like by a company I don't like, can I just buy their product and don't use it, and be legal that way?

EDIT: I think that since Windows is closed-source, (and the fact that it is probably inferior to linux) and because code of the Linux kernel is safely enough all open-sourced and legal (hey, maybe Microsoft copied us) - and to add to that any crapped up component which Windows makes, it is legal to reverse engineer and use for interoperability under the current DMCA laws (I take this under good faith). Hence I take it that Linux is legal, and perhaps Microsoft is too scared to open their source, for fear of maybe proving that they stole code. I reason that we are legal. Happy holidays! :D

If it was illegal companies like Google etc would not be using it. MS really doesn't need to fear opeining their code. Apperently it is buggy enough, and you can't steal from Open Source, it is open. Well, I guess you can, but then it is a fork and that line of code would need to stay open, depending on the licence.

[fragos]

Were you the individual that performed the strait-up copy? If not, on what basis do you say that?

[Sef]

FAT32 drivers DO infringe. They weren't reverse engineered, just straight-up copied.

Please provide a link to a site that supports your statement with fact. Otherwise what you say could be classified as FUD.

[Frak]

Think Microsoft betrayed Big Blue (IBM), and they stole code from one of the first open source developers, Gary Kiddal, in 1987 or near that time, with that code they perfected the Windows GUI for Windows 1.0. And I think Big Blue shouldn't sell Window's with their computers, I mean for what they did back in the late 80's/early 90's, but they are known as one of the only major computer manufacturer to successfully sell linux with their computers, and one of the only ones to sell unix with their computers. besides Apple, and I thought OS/2 warp was a good OS.

[macogw]

Please provide a link to a site that supports your statement with fact. Otherwise what you say could be classified as FUD.
Microsoft has recently secured patents for VFAT and FAT32 (but not the original FAT), which is causing concern that the company might later seek royalties from Linux distributions and from media vendors that pre-format their products (see FAT Licensing below). Despite two earlier rulings against them, Microsoft prevailed and was awarded the patents.
^ That's from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table

Two patents covering one of Microsoft's main Windows file-storage systems are valid after all, federal patent examiners have decided.
^ http://news.com.com/Microsofts+file+system+patent+upheld/2100-1012_3-6025447.html



By the way, copyright protects actual code. Patents are for IDEAS. So whether the code matched or not, it'd still be using the IDEA and be infringing. Patents say if "this is the same or similar it's still my idea."

Microsoft patents 1s and 0s (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130)

[d3v1ant_0n3]

As I understand the whole IP infringement thing, it's like a nuclear arms race- each side has their own, but no one actually intends to enforce them. IF someone were to start the ball rolling, the entire software industry would grind to a giant halt.

I might be completely misunderstanding things and living in some sort of parallel universe tho'

[macogw]

As I understand the whole IP infringement thing, it's like a nuclear arms race- each side has their own, but no one actually intends to enforce them. IF someone were to start the ball rolling, the entire software industry would grind to a giant halt.

I might be completely misunderstanding things and living in some sort of parallel universe tho'

Oh, no, that's totally true. If M$ tried to go after Linux, IBM would protect Linux. IBM has about a billion times more patents than M$. They won't start that war.

[TheRingmaster]

why doesn't linux have problems with apple? I think that it is because apple is a better company.

[riven0]

why doesn't linux have problems with apple? I think that it is because apple is a better company.

I don't know. I think Apple is too busy waging war on Microsoft - ever watched those Get a Mac ads?:D - to even bother with Linux at the moment. Microsoft, on the other hand, is pretty much ignoring Apple and concentrating on Linux.

As for infringing on Microsoft's patents; if Microsoft had anything to stand on, we'll all be in court right now!

[mdsmedia]

Microsoft has recently secured patents for VFAT and FAT32 (but not the original FAT), which is causing concern that the company might later seek royalties from Linux distributions and from media vendors that pre-format their products (see FAT Licensing below). Despite two earlier rulings against them, Microsoft prevailed and was awarded the patents.
^ That's from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table

Two patents covering one of Microsoft's main Windows file-storage systems are valid after all, federal patent examiners have decided.
^ http://news.com.com/Microsofts+file+system+patent+upheld/2100-1012_3-6025447.html



By the way, copyright protects actual code. Patents are for IDEAS. So whether the code matched or not, it'd still be using the IDEA and be infringing. Patents say if "this is the same or similar it's still my idea."

Microsoft patents 1s and 0s (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130)OK, that's made my decision easier. I was wondering whether to use FAT32 or EXT3 for my external drive. I thought, if I use EXT3 and in Windows use the software which reads EXT then I have the better format for my drive. If MS has a patent for FAT32 then that's just made my mind up :)

I certainly haven't lost any sleep over the MS IP FUD, but if they want to call my bluff I'm more than happy to accomodate them. It's just another reason NOT to use MS software.

[fragos]

Microsoft has recently secured patents for VFAT and FAT32 (but not the original FAT), which is causing concern that the company might later seek royalties from Linux distributions and from media vendors that pre-format their products (see FAT Licensing below). Despite two earlier rulings against them, Microsoft prevailed and was awarded the patents.
^ That's from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table

Two patents covering one of Microsoft's main Windows file-storage systems are valid after all, federal patent examiners have decided.
^ http://news.com.com/Microsofts+file+system+patent+upheld/2100-1012_3-6025447.html



By the way, copyright protects actual code. Patents are for IDEAS. So whether the code matched or not, it'd still be using the IDEA and be infringing. Patents say if "this is the same or similar it's still my idea."

Microsoft patents 1s and 0s (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130)

What you're saying may be true this time and with supporting facts but that still doesn't support your accusation of strait copy of the code. Microsoft didn't invent FAT and given how many companies have used FAT it may be in the Public Domain anyway. Even trade marks like Xerox and Kleenex were almost forfeit because the term was becoming generic. One thing certain about law, the details are almost never as simple as the common understandings.

[macogw]

What you're saying may be true this time and with supporting facts but that still doesn't support your accusation of strait copy of the code. Microsoft didn't invent FAT and given how many companies have used FAT it may be in the Public Domain anyway. Even trade marks like Xerox and Kleenex were almost forfeit because the term was becoming generic. One thing certain about law, the details are almost never as simple as the common understandings.

M$ DID invent FAT 32, though. FAT 16 and whatever else existed before 32. M$ did 32. I was told by a couple other Linux users that it is one of the best-documented FS's and therefore didn't even need to be reverse engineered. It could be copied without even having to figure out how it works because it's ALL there.

[Tux Aubrey]

I understood that MS also claims Intellectual Property Rights over the standard smiley. :-)

Its gonna big a big court case when it comes!

[macogw]

M$ is trying to patent using emoticons (but the pic version, not the text version) on messages to show the emotion before you open it--like how forums like this one have that green arrow, the devil face, etc. next to threads.

[Dies]

why doesn't linux have problems with apple? I think that it is because apple is a better company.

I seriously have to disagree with that, in a lot of aspects Apple is worse, much worse than MS, the only difference is market share. Apple is irrelevant because it poses no real threat to MS at this point, and definitely not on the server side.

But does it even matter if Linux infringes on their patents? I mean really?
Can you just come up to me and say hey you're infringing on my patents so you need to pay me?
Or do you need to tell me what you believe is an infringement and give me a chance to correct it?

It's like saying :

Hey mine's bigger than that.
Really? let me see it.
Oh no, no I can't do that.

[fragos]

M$ DID invent FAT 32, though. FAT 16 and whatever else existed before 32. M$ did 32. I was told by a couple other Linux users that it is one of the best-documented FS's and therefore didn't even need to be reverse engineered. It could be copied without even having to figure out how it works because it's ALL there.

Anonymous user sources said FAT was so well documented it didn't need to be reverse engineered. Its a hear say opinion and not a statement of fact. Opinion is fine if not quoted as fact?

[macogw]

Anonymous user sources said FAT was so well documented it didn't need to be reverse engineered. Its a hear say opinion and not a statement of fact. Opinion is fine if not quoted as fact?
It was a reverse engineer that said it, if that means slightly more than 0. But alright, sorry. It DOES infringe on the basis that they're the same idea though.

[Polygon]

if microsoft does follow up on this, and sama "uses" some of microsofts IP, it wil be removed and that will be that. They will obviously try to get around their IP so it can work again of course...

But i honestly dont think that they will follow up about fat32. Why? Cause EVERY single operating system has full fat32 support. so if microsoft cries "theft", then all we have to say is "why not mac os x, unix, bsd," and all of these operating systems that support fat32.

I think that patenting code is just stupid anyway. My dad made this comment that i like very much: "patents are designed for things that you physically take to the patent office. Thats why the patent system will eventually fail because of things like this (commenting on why fat32 is actually copyrighted ms but everything uses it, including flash drives and all that)

[fragos]

It was a reverse engineer that said it, if that means slightly more than 0. But alright, sorry. It DOES infringe on the basis that they're the same idea though.

FAT 32 does appear to have a patent. FAT doesn't so therefore the idea can't be infringed on from a patent perspective. My primary issue related to statements not backed by fact, only conjecture. I can't say much about patents I haven't read.

[netyire]

Hey thanks for all the input! I think I got my thoughts lined up more or less. If writing your own code based on other people's ideas was a crime - doesn't that stifle innovation?. Whatever is Steve Ballmer thinking, with him taking over Bill Gates, don't you pity the poor Microsoft users? ;)

[Frak]

I think that we should make microsoft think they won, then pull the rug from underneath them, by finding another way.

MAKE 'EM SWEAT!

[ububaba]

I think that we should make microsoft think they won, then pull the rug from underneath them, by finding another way.

MAKE 'EM SWEAT!

That was sweet.:mrgreen:

[fragos]

Hey thanks for all the input! I think I got my thoughts lined up more or less. If writing your own code based on other people's ideas was a crime - doesn't that stifle innovation?. Whatever is Steve Ballmer thinking, with him taking over Bill Gates, don't you pity the poor Microsoft users? ;)

Saying a patent is on an idea may be an over simplification. One example is Amazon's patent on "One Click Ordering." All your information is stored and the order is filled out for you and placed. Lots of sites do this with one small difference. You get to review your order and click the submit button. I for one like that better anyway. There's not a whole of difference in one click and two click ordering but they don't infringe despite doing almost exactly the same thing. Personally, patenting one click ordering is a perversion of the patent process.

[Mateo]

is ReactOS infringing?

[Frak]

is ReactOS infringing?
You would think...

[fragos]

is ReactOS infringing?

I'm not familiar with ReactOS. Without careful study of a patent you can't even say may be. A while back there was a patent case settled with RIM. We're talking about months or years in court for the final determination. Consider the SCO against IBM and everybody else over Linux intellectual property fiasco. Thankfully SCO is full of brown smelly stuff. This has been going on for it seems like forever. The entire issue of patents and intellectual property is a very complex area. Perhaps fun to conjecture about but the bottom line is well beyond most of our pay grades. That includes me and I've been a development engineer and high technology executive since 1964.

[WinterWeaver]

first off all... This is my opinion and should not be taken as fact ^_^
Everyone should do their own research proceed with clarity and perception towards their own decisions. =P

I believe this all boils back down to a statement by Mark Shuttleworth: "...software patents are evil"
There are two brilliant videos on Google. One is in a presentation where someone actually asks Mark what he thinks of software patents to which he gave the above reply.
not sure, but I think this is the one (somewhere near the end... too lazy to watch the whole thing now to find it, bleh):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1165754797197197496&q=Mark+Shuttleworth

The other video is a discussion at the EU on software patents.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-694927630239078625&q=Mark+Shuttleworth

I think the biggest problem is software patents. How does a software patent advance innovation? I believe that this may even become a human rights issue, because I like the freedom of choice, and Software patents can take away that choice from me.

I use both OS atm. ******* for games, and Ubuntu for work and other general stuff. This is my choice. I use what is at the time the best option for what I want to do.
With software patents, developers can be swayed to NOT complete and/or improve a project, because they are infringing on some patent somewhere. In the future, I wont have a choice anymore, and will be forced to use something which I don't want to... :(

anyway... too political for me... bleh.... I'm not a programmer or techie, and use Linux because I love it and it works. I trust in the Developers and Linux peeps that they know what is best and they will know what to do. So in the end, I'm not worried, and happily continue my current physical reality towards the dawn of endless opportunity.

WW

[netyire]

Who likes patents? While copyright products may make sense (after all, since its what you made, who is going to stop you from being selfish and demanding that people pay you?), who came up with patents (wait... its my idea, I demand payment! ;) ).

P - Pay
A - Alot
T - To
E - Enjoy
N - Nuts (Ideas, not real stuff)
T - This
S - is Stupid (No?)

Doesn't patents stifle innovation, and if claims are made that Linux infringes on someone's patents, why don't you state which patents (so we can hopefully remove the infringing code). Would that not satisfy you? But is your real motive to spread FUD, simply because you are afraid of something? What could Microsoft's true intentions be? :rolleyes: (Did Steve's memo mention killing linux) Maybe Penguins should be endangered. (Don't take this seriously). ;)

Read this: http://www.bustpatents.com/corrupt.htm
On why certain patents issued are not valid.

[fragos]

FYI on patent ownership. When you work for a high tech company you are required to assign all patents you may file to the company even if you created it on your own time. Its allways a condition of employment. If you're lucky you get your name on it but, the company owns them.

[KaeseEs]

FYI on patent ownership. When you work for a high tech company you are required to assign all patents you may file to the company even if you created it on your own time. Its allways a condition of employment. If you're lucky you get your name on it but, the company owns them.

This is close, but not quite true. My brother-in-law works for GE's polymer division. The contract dictates that they get the patent for anything you develop there or using their equipment. Stuff you come up with on your own time AND with your own equipment is your own. However, they get the right of first refusal on licensing of any patents you get.

It is also of note that the members of teams that get patents for the company generally get nice bonuses, esp. if the patent looks lucrative.

[adewale]

this all boils down to mere GREED

[dawlane]

Ok so Microsoft are trying using patent infringement to kill off linux. I've played with windows vista beta, and a some of the the things it does remind me of linux/mac os x (maybe the whole *nix community could demand payment :p ) , beside Microsoft could save them selves a lot of time and money by releasing the core of their OS to the open source community (just like Apple ?) to fix all the bugs and security holes (which they wont do because of fear that they will put a lot of software companies out of business and get sued some where along the way).

It all comes down to the fact that Microsoft is getting scared because people are finding out that
there is more to the world than their bug riddled, security holed, expensive Operating System (and the fact that more than half of the Internet (which I do believe they would like to control) runs on a *nix system (AOL I read somewhere uses it)

[Sunflower1970]

I don't see this posted anywhere....I found this article through digg just a few minutes ago.

They're at it again. Saying now 235 or so patent infringements:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/index.htm?section=money_latest

They won't say what they are, but here's the breakdown


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.

[floke]

** yawns **

(not at the op, at MS BS!)

B -O- R- I- N -G

[tebibyte]

Read the article here. (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/index.htm)

Thoughts?

[dspari1]

Seriously, they are setting themselves up for a big anti-trust lawsuit if they keep it up.

[saulgoode]

The good citizens of the United States generously fund facilities that specialize in resolving such claims and offer method of redress if they be true. They are called 'courtrooms'.

[Sunflower1970]

Yeah. Can't wait to see what will happen. If they persist, won't they have to open up some of their code to prove Linux and the other programs are infringing? Besides, if MS is all closed source, how would free software deveolpers be able to see it and "copy" it?

[koenn]

Well, I happened to be watching a video today, of R. M. Stallman (of gnu / free software fame) on software patents, and he stated that the Linux kernel probably infringes on some 295 patents. It's feasable that 42 of those are owned by Microsoft.
It'ss quasi unavoidable in software development to reuse existing ideas and techniques, and if those happen to be pattented ....

[moffatt666]

GO MS! Great way to wind-up the EU EVEN MORE!!! Numpties.

[juxtaposed]

Sorry microsoft, you can't patent a GUI.

[koenn]

Yeah. Can't wait to see what will happen. If they persist, won't they have to open up some of their code to prove Linux and the other programs are infringing? Besides, if MS is all closed source, how would free software deveolpers be able to see it and "copy" it?
you're mistaking copyright for patents. They don't claim that free software developers copied code from microsoft, they claim that Linux and (some) open source use ideas, techniques, methods ... that they have patented. Like, say, if they have a patent on
- a spell checker embedded in a word processing application
- said spell checker checks on the fly and marks spelling mistakes as you type

then Open Office infringes on their pattent (if the patent holds up in court)

See how (copyright on) source code never enters the picture ?

[juxtaposed]

I do love the title though: "Microsoft takes on the free world".

I previously didn't think microsoft cared about opensource at all, but now it seems they are feeling threatened.

[Sunflower1970]

you're mistaking copyright for patents. They don't claim that free software developers copied code from microsoft, they claim that Linux and (some) open source use ideas, techniques, methods ... that they have patented. Like, say, if they have a patent on
- a spell checker embedded in a word processing application
- said spell checker checks on the fly and marks spelling mistakes as you type

then Open Office infringes on their pattent (if the patent holds up in court)

See how (copyright on) source code never enters the picture ?

Ah okay. That makes sense. :) I wonder how many of those idea patents hold up...also would it depend when the idea was patented? Say Linux, or openoffice came up with something long before and GPL'd it...but then MS patented it...wouldn't MS have to back down since it was alread out there?

(this whole area of patents becomes so weird. Such a grey area. I'm still wondering how an idea can be patented...)

[Daveski]

Move a mouse pointer on a display device and you probably infringe on one of Microsoft's many ridiculous patents. The US seems to hand out patents like sweeties. I wouldn't be surprised if someone somewhere has a patent on breaking wind.

The real problem is if they will stand up in a court - which can be a risky business for the patent holder as if the claim fails, the patent may be disolved. This can also be a risky business for the 'infringer' as it seems courts sometimes rule that they need to pay royalties dating back to when the earth cooled. What a stange 'justice' system.

[floke]

There's a thread around here somewhere that shows that MS have patented the password (ie sudo) mechanism. Of course Linux breaches MS patents. But the real point is that this shows why patents are so f****ng stupid.

[Sunflower1970]

There's a thread around here somewhere that shows that MS have patented the password (ie sudo) mechanism. Of course Linux breaches MS patents. But the real point is that this shows why patents are so f****ng stupid.

I saw that article. But, they had sent that patent in in 2000. By that time Linux had already been using sudo...And doesn't Apple have a sudo-type function? I don't think that could/would hold up in any court.

[newbie2]

http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/05/microsoft_confi.html
:rolleyes:

[floke]

I saw that article. But, they had sent that patent in in 2000. By that time Linux had already been using sudo...And doesn't Apple have a sudo-type function? I don't think that could/would hold up in any court.

That's exactly my point. Its a worthless bit of paper.
Of course, MS can trumpet (rightly) that Linux breaches their intellectual property though, and can use words like 'sue' and 'lawsuit' in the same sentence, to deter firms thinking of switching to Linux - which, for MS, is precisely the point. Scare 'em into staying with Windows.

[JNowka]

I have a feeling that most of these patent are going to be dissolved either through the obvious clause, the fact that someone else had already created the technology before MS patented it, etc.

[floke]

Which is why MS won't ever go to court over it;' since the threat value is worth far more.

[tgalati4]

If Microsoft wins, then perhaps we'll get Ubuntu vouchers to save on the next version, Gutsy Gibbon!

Seriously, if Microsoft brings a suit and nobody shows up from open source (I'm mean who would waste their time in a courtroom trying to defend themselves or free software against Microsoft--besides RHS.)

If Microsoft wins, then I better turn off my Processor Identification Number. Oh, it's already turned off.

I can see Apple suing MS or vice versa. That would be fun to watch. They have the money to throw at the question: Who invented the cursor?

[Daveski]

I know this has been building for some time now, but I was only thinking the other day that MS is going to lash-out very soon. We've had some great news recently what with Dell offering alternatives to Windows, but if Linux starts to gain 'market' share at the cost of Windows, MS is definately going to take the gloves off. Judging by their track record, I am indeed worried that some serious stuff is about to kick-off.

[nrs]

I think it's actually very possible. Microsoft would still have to be stupid to push the issue though. For them, nothing good could come from it.

A patent armageddon would be pretty interesting though.

[koenn]

...also would it depend when the idea was patented?
If you can prove that something existed before a pattent on it was applied for, cour is likely to overturn the patent (render it invalid). But you do need prove that holds up in court. An other reason could be that a patented invention is an obvious combination that anyone "skilled in the art" could have made. That's already a bit more tricky.

The point, however, is that MS doesn't necessarily need to go to court. MS sells licenses. It can also sell licenses on whatever it is they have patented. So one of the scenario's (using the Open Office and Spell chack example) is : MS claims OOo infinges on their spellcheck patent and gives them a choise : a court case they can't afford and renders them bankrupt, or buying a license to use MS's partented spellcheck feature. In the latter case, MS get some extra income from OOo (without ever having to prove in court the validity of their patent), and OOo needs to start charging its users to cover the license fee or find an other way to cover the costs, like charging Linux distro's that include OpenOffice. No more free beer. Depending on what price they set on the license, they could possibly drive competitors such as Open Office out of the market.

It looks like watever scenario you consider, Microsoft wins and open source / free software looses. Could be interesting to see how this unfolds in the years to come. And yes, Stallman was right, 20 years ago. Software patents are a bad idea.

[smoker]

lol, looks like a good time to train as a 'patent' lawyer! all these lawsuits that may be bandied about may mean it will be a lucrative career:) :) :)

[Sunflower1970]

I can see Apple suing MS or vice versa. That would be fun to watch. They have the money to throw at the question: Who invented the cursor?

I was just going to post something like that...if MS tries to sue for certain patents, couldn't they also turn around and sue Apple for so called patent violations? (unless the companies have some sort of non-sue agreement between them..)

I though Apple did sue MS years ago for some sort of infringement on the graphical desktop or something..?

[floke]

Early 1980s - Apple sued MS for the 'Windows' GUI and lost.

[steven8]

It would be like Ford suing Cevy because they infringed on their patent to start a car by putting a key into an ignition and turning it.

[jfinkels]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_exercising_a_cat

EDIT: 500 beans!

[Sunflower1970]

Lol. That's pretty funny.

I read about some guy in Australia who tried to patent the wheel in 2001 :)

[Turgon]

Im very very glad im living in a country without software patents! Its so silly that you can patent a gui, a password method, ect. I hope the US will do somthing about this (I think I saw somtheing about it in the news the other day).

On the other hand, im sure microsoft breaks a good lot of patents themself (like the quite expencive mp3 one) and from what I heard that they want to get ridd of software patents themself, because it limits them in the same way as it limits linux. I therefor think its highly unlikely that M$ will start a patent war as they are against it and because of the fact that they might get badly hurt themself.

[BoyOfDestiny]

I don't see this posted anywhere....I found this article through digg just a few minutes ago.

They're at it again. Saying now 235 or so patent infringements:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/index.htm?section=money_latest

They won't say what they are, but here's the breakdown

Did you see that patent chart, with that increase in patents? Either they are really brilliant or a lot of those patents shouldn't have been awarded in the first place.

As one poster mentioned there was a patent case recently that makes a difference,

Ct of Appeals for Fed. Circuit Applies KSR: Affirms Obviousness
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/05/cafc_applies_ks.html

Anyway, I look forward to the GPLv3. I hope it provides the same as we get from the GPLv2, still enough for companies to want it, and keeps MS from doing ridiculous patent deals as "protection"

IF they resort to going after Linux with patents, even if this is just to scare companies into picking Windows... It shows they can't compete on merit, and are just using patents as an anti-competitive weapon.

Plus, it'll be interesting to see what the various companies and large corps that invest in Linux and have patents of there own (cough IBM) will do to MS.

Fun times ahead.:popcorn:

[jfinkels]

Im very very glad im living in a country without software patents! Its so silly that you can patent a gui, a password method, ect. I hope the US will do somthing about this (I think I saw somtheing about it in the news the other day).

On the other hand, im sure microsoft breaks a good lot of patents themself (like the quite expencive mp3 one) and from what I heard that they want to get ridd of software patents themself, because it limits them in the same way as it limits linux. I therefor think its highly unlikely that M$ will start a patent war as they are against it and because of the fact that they might get badly hurt themself.

We Americans are not going to see the decline of the patent system any time soon. People who invent things (as with copyright for people who create things) want to have the ability to decide how and where their technology is used. This is not an outrageous desire: people have pride and like to be able to benefit from their own creativeness. That's capitalism, for you :D

Same thing goes for copyrights (if anyone reads The Dilbert Blog by Scott Adams [I highly recommend it, very funny!], Scott talks about this all the time). People like to be in control of what they make. I am surprised at how successful the open source movement has become! It requires individuals to (basically) give up their opportunity to profit from their own creativity and ingenuity! I consider a great success.

[Nonno Bassotto]

The patent system has nothing to do with capitalism. Patents were born in order to make techonlogy public. Before their use, inventors had to keep their technology secret, to avoid it being stealed. Patents were introduced to let people show their inventions (you should provide details about your invention, together with a patent) and still have a limited time when they are guaranteed that no-one can copy it.

Anyway, as things stand now, patents do not protect the individual creativity, but the investment in research centers by big companies.

While this is legitimate, patents have now at least two problems
1) There is no check whether the invetion make sense or not, and no check about the patent being about something innovative, rather than obvious.
2) To patent something you have to do quite a complex legal research, which can be quite costly. In any case defending your patent in a court will give additional costs.

As a result, very rarely individuals can afford to patent their inventions, while big companies can patent the most stupid things, just to threaten other companies that don't want to sustain a legal battle. Often big companies make a deal not to sue each other. This is quite different from the spirit that inspired the creation of patents.

Not to mention the issues with 20 years software patents, which is simply ridiculous, the problem of patents in medicine for the less rich countries, the 1000 patents about Yoga (?!?) and so on...

[lamalex]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/index.htm

/me gets his Viking armour ready. Seriously though, GPLv3 Can't some soon enough. I just hope the major players on our side have enough weight to put up a fight. Come on IBM, we need you!

[Atreus12]

Does this sound like McCarthy to anyone else?


I hold here in my hand, a list of 235 known communists in the linux world

:rolleyes:

How about showing us the list?

-Andrew

[saulgoode]

Patents and copyrights are government subsidies of technological and artistic creation. Inventors have no inherent right to determine how the technology is used and artists have no inherent right to limit sharing of their creations. The systems are in place because society benefits from providing incentive for such innovation.

I am very much in favor of the copyright subsidies, though I think their lengths could be cut in half and still provide enough incentive for authors and artists to market their creations. I also think that hardware patents are a good thing.

But software patents are a terrible idea fraught with problems of interpretation and enforcement that are destined to leading only to judicial chaos. This does not benefit society and, since there is no inherent right of inventors to control their work (should they decide to make it known publicly), the whole idea patenting software methods should be scrapped.

Subsidize software authors through the copyright system; I have no objection. But don't waste taxpayer dollars rewarding those whose goal is to prevent society from innovating.

[Somenoob]

I find it strange how a corporation that owns billions claim how projects contributed by rather small and mainly independent individuals/companies violate their patents. And speaking of patent infringements has Microsoft verified the last violations? have they responded to showusthecode.com/ (http://showusthecode.com/) yet?

[Polygon]

its stuff like this that will make the patent system as we know collapse and a better one will take its place. patenting stuff like ideas and all that stuff is just stupid and creates monopolies like microsoft.

but the real fun is when (or if) ms shows us that list. i cant wait to see the epic battle that will take place between companies like red hat / suse / FSF / etc VS microsoft.

[DoctorMO]

"is that they first burn down the bridge, and then they burn down the patent system. That to me is not a goal that's likely to be achieved, and not a goal that should be achieved."

We will Mr Smith, if so required you will either see the patent system dismembered or a whole new breed of cyber terrorist; take you pick because either way social injustice isn't an optional component even for capitalists.

Patents are bad . They should not be granted to anyone who has the resources to compete fairly in the industry. only to new entrants. we already know that patents are issued to people not businesses; but they are allowed to issue them on behalf. blocks!

[B. Gates]

I find it strange how a corporation that owns billions claim how projects contributed by rather small and mainly independent individuals/companies violate their patents. And speaking of patent infringements has Microsoft verified the last violations? have they responded to showusthecode.com/ (http://showusthecode.com/) yet?
To be blunt, why the heck should MS respond to that site?

They ask for MS to show the code by May 1st, 2007. Or else what? What happens now that the time has passed? Ohhh, I bet MS is shaking in their booties!

That site represents a childish way to fight MS. :mad:

[gamma]

I'd love to read the list of these patents as said earlier. Lucky this won't hurt the Novell Linux users at all due to their signing with the devil. I'm disappointed that the Gnome team agreed to include Mono on the desktop. I believe Microsoft will be using .NET against the community in the long run. They came up with quite a genious platform if you ask me. Make easy to use tools and make them available for cheap and watch what happens. You can sue people who try to port the environment and you lock non-Microsoft users out at the same time. It also locks in development companies and consumers.

Why do you think Microsoft's XNA framework is free and the subscription to run your code is under 100 dollars? If you make an awesome game, there's little chance on easily porting your .NET code to something non-Microsoft based like OpenGL (c++). You're essentially tied into Microsoft's console.

[Somenoob]

To be blunt, why the heck should MS respond to that site?

They ask for MS to show the code by May 1st, 2007. Or else what? What happens now that the time has passed? Ohhh, I bet MS is shaking in their booties!

That site represents a childish way to fight MS. :mad:

It would be very fair and reasonable to respond to it, or respond to any FOSS groups for that matter. Or is their intention just to keep claiming that FOSS developers are violating their patents but never saying what exactly they are.

[Andrewie]

I think we should stop bashing Novell, Dell signed up to the deal and Red Hat is looking to sign up. This is not Novell trying to be dirty, there is way more at work.

I believe .Net is based on a open standard or something, so I don't think Mono is really that big a issue. You guys can call B.S. all you want but if (hopefully not when) Mircosoft sues me or any company, the fun is over.

[poohbear1616]

This is just hypothetical!
In the unlikely event of Monkeysoft ever being able to strong arm linux to the brink, there is BSD to for an alternative...:)

[B. Gates]

It would be very fair and reasonable to respond to it, or respond to any FOSS groups for that matter. Or is their intention just to keep claiming that FOSS developers are violating their patents but never saying what exactly they are.
Let me reproduce a comment I read on Slashdot regarding the issue (from http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=234609&cid=19108317):

------
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.

They don't need to stop those who are educated in getting OSS, all they have to do is add another worry for people who are non-tech savey who might adopt OSS.
------


So, Microsoft doesn't have to point out the details. The less details they specify, the better it is for them. They're the masters of FUD after all, and they like playing dirty. If we play by the rules and ask: "Oh please Mr. Gates, would you be so kind as to elaborate on your accusations of patent infringement? If you wouldn't mind.", we'll never get a response. That showmethecode site after all was toothless.

[SuperMike]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/

Microsoft is laying the groundwork now for a massive FOSS lawsuit for 235 patent infringements (collected so far).

This is just LUDICROUS!!!! Man I'm pissed.

Brad Smith, Ballmer's peanut grinder monkey, states:

"The only real solution that [the free-software] folks have to offer," Smith says, "is that they first burn down the bridge, and then they burn down the patent system. That to me is not a goal that's likely to be achieved, and not a goal that should be achieved."

[Adamant1988]

The only thing worse than FUD is when an otherwise innocent person starts yelling from the hill-tops about it. FUD-articles like this are worthless until a few souls decide to start posting these threads and get the 'news' to everyone.

A few points to make:

Microsoft will not start suing anyone, that would end BADLY and would probably demolish a significant amount of their 'IP' 'ammunition'.

IF and this is a big IF, Microsoft starts pressuring people to pay them, you will see the mother of all patent lawsuit wars start happening. The OIN will not sit around and watch that happen, Microsoft would have to deal with a very ugly mess then.

This is just theory craft, but I imagine they had this in mind when they struck that deal with Novell. Because right now, with all the FUD pouring from Redmond, Novell's offerings have to be looking pretty attractive.

[a12ctic]

Balmer is an idiot and theres no way their patents will hold up in court. The only reason why they have those patents is because Latiqua was given a goverment job and she stamps every paper that comes through because she cant read.

[B. Gates]

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Steve_Balmer

[saulgoode]

I believe .Net is based on a open standard or something, so I don't think Mono is really that big a issue. You guys can call B.S. all you want but if (hopefully not when) Mircosoft sues me or any company, the fun is over.

Basing something on an open standard does not secure against patent infringement. In fact, all MPEG standards are open yet all of them are patent-encumbered and demand licensing fess. Even obtaining a patent license does not guarantee against infringement suits.

Software patents are stifling technological innovation, the only justification for having them in the first place. I look forward to their very rapid demise.

[celsofaf]

I love those FUD threads. :D

[euler_fan]

BSD . . . yeah, until MS finds a way to sue them too . . .

Otherwise I both look forward to and dread the eventual showdown.

Look Forward To:
1) MS must put up or shut up
2) Most likely some of its patents will get invalidated
3) Those that don't will get worked around in a few weeks (months at the outside) and
4) I suspect many points of contention (actual bona fide items, for instance) will be worked around so fast they will become irrelevant before they make it to being heard in court.
5) Demonstrating that patents for software are basically worthless anyway because there are too many ways to work around any that exist to still create a competing product. Ergo not practical in addition to possible ethical issues.
6) The chance that software patents die.

Dread:
1) Period of stalled F/OSS development as developers scramble to get out of any legal hot water setting Linux back possibly years.
2) MS might actually win something
3) Lots of good programs simply go away because there is no one to re-engineer them (goes along with (1) above).
4) Software patents get backed by additional hard case law.

Unfortunately, it is mutually convenient for the cold war to continue. By never getting to the show down, in some ways, both sides win. Linux wins continued development and not having to scrap old infringing code that implemented things well (I suspect there will be any number of SourceForge projects that would go away) and MS gets some leverage over the corporate world.

[wh0rd]

There should be some sort of amendment passed against things like this. It holds back technology and progression. It's such nonsense, the judicial systems are probably exhausted with patent suits.

[DoctorMO]

I think we should stop bashing Novell, Dell signed up to the deal and Red Hat is looking to sign up. This is not Novell trying to be dirty, there is way more at work.

No Red Hat isn't and Dell simply sanctioned the deal in a very light touch way, as if they were scared of angering some group of people... can't think who.

As for Mono/.Net it goes like this, ECMA standards do NOT require parent sharing, ISO standards do, so you'll never get sued over implementing an ISO standard but you may get sued for ECMA (Java script, C#, CLI, blah blah) so any standard coming out of ECMA I count as 'CORRUPT' and I reach for the eject button.

[woodsmoke]

one of the problems is the manner in which patents are granted in the U.S. and elsewhere... In the U.S. you have to do the search before you patent. Elsewhere you put the product out the door and see if any body buys it THEN you have a year, or so, to get a patent ... and for somebody to sue you... but if they don't already have the patent then they can't sue or it is a nuisance suit...

Did anyone read the interview with Bill a few weeks ago? He said that he has SO MUCH MONEY....that he could spend a hundred thousand a day and not run out...

He asked a reporter if he would sell him his ..ARM....for a million bucks...

I think that he probably will start sueing everybody and sundry merely because he has so much money that he can lose half of the suits but still bankrupt the suees...

:(

woodsmoke

[benzies]

Oh no's :(

I thought it would be appropiate in the 'general help' area since i cant make new posts in news.



http://www.copyrightings.com/2007/05/linux-violates-235-patents-says.html


So since this is 'general help'.... HELP!

[IanW]

Is there a list of exactly what those 235 violations are?
If not then it's most likely FUD.

[benzies]

Nothing yet on the list.

But this should give some relief


http://www.go2linux.org/node/134

If you find anything please post.

[BRAXS69]

unix/Linux Violates 235 Patents Says Microsoft (http://digg.com/linux_unix/Linux_Violates_235_Patents_Says_Microsoft)
you know i would love for them to shut up...:(

[darrensnospam]

Check this out:
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsid=8817

[the_darkside_986]

They can whine and pull imaginary claims out nothing but that will not stop me from spreading a free OS like wildfire. My g/f let me replace her lousy WinXP Pro installation with a lightning fast install of PC-BSD. (Ubuntu won't work on it.) And her mom says I could install PC-BSD on her system too. They like the KDE games--they are much better than the few games that come with a fresh Windows install. I could even convince my dad use FreeBSD if I wanted to.

And how does M$ think they could obtain this extortion money? By going to everyone's houses or shutting down all distros? We could just make 10 more linux distros and distribute them over P2P.

[Stickymaddness]

[-X In that case microsoft owes Xerox a few trillion dollars!!

[use a name]

Here we go again: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1418165.stm

Every fool can patent just about anything. MS is using them for FUD, nothing else. I doubt they have enough valid patents to be a real threat. But their FUD will scare of business.

Off to the patent office...

[PatrickMay16]

Even if linux does infringe on MS's patents, MS won't actually sue or anything. They're just throwing around some heavy talk to discourage people from using linux.

[warp99]

There is a possibility that the samba code infringes MS's IP, as it communicates directly with windows using the smb protocol, which is proprietary. Up until now, the samba team have relied on goodwill on the behalf of MS in ignoring the fact that the Samba team basically reverse engineered a part of the windows code. .

Samba does not have or has ever used any Microsoft code. SMB is a separate protocol that is not part of Samba. SMB is also deprecated. Samba now uses CIFS which is an open standard from Microsoft. The GPL code for CIFS is supplied by Steve French at IBM. :)

Read about SMB:

http://www.samba.org/cifs/docs/what-is-smb.html

[Adamant1988]

A patent is not on the code itself, but on a method of doing something, code is not patentable. So, now the issue at hand is that any piece of software can do hundreds, if not thousands of different things, and any one of those things that it does may infringe on a patent. Strictly the Linux kernel is expected to infringe on over 300 known patents (not just Microsoft's) so the chances that the kernel infringes on not just one, but several, of Microsoft's patents are very good. Now you have to start looking at other bits of the system. The chances of your distribution of choice infringing on hundreds, it not thousands, of patents is very good, and I wager that Microsoft can lay claim to a lot of those patents.

So, yes, GNU/Linux is illegal and infringes on tons of patents, but you're safe to use it. At this point the only users of the software who have a reason to even doubt it are Fortune 500 companies that Microsoft knows use it. However, Microsoft will not sue these customers, they will simply ASK for the money. Microsoft benefits most readily from not really doing anything in this situation, because:


Many, Many, Many of Microsoft's patents could be declared void if this went to court
Those same Fortune 500 customers that Microsoft is after are huge Microsoft customers
The Open Innovation Network has some very serious patent muscle that Microsoft may well be infringing on.


As the article this thread is based on would suggest, Microsoft moving to action would incite the wrath of the Open Innovation Network, and any other company that uses Linux and may have a patent that Microsoft infringes on, quite possibly Google and IBM would be in those ranks. So, no, you can sleep soundly tonight, the big bad Microsoft isn't going to kill your 'Linux' any time soon. Microsoft will continue to stomp it's feet, huff and make all kinds of threatening looks and noises, but it won't charge or make the first move.

[PartisanEntity]

The issue of patents is quite problematic, not only do many companies try to patent processes, which completely retards innovation and development but the issue of cross patenting also arises.

If MS tries to sue any Linux group based on patent right infringements many other companies will counter sue fearing that their processes will be stolen by MS during the court case.

It’s a huge mess and its main aim is mainly to intimidate smaller companies or groups. It’s not something we should ignore, but it is also not the monolithic giant it seems to be.

It will be very hard, costly and time consuming for the ‘industry’ to prove who invented what and who owns which rights.

[Robin T Cox]

See also:

http://news.com.com/Report+Microsoft+says+open+source+violates+235+pat ents/2100-1014_3-6183437.html?tag=nefd.top

or

http://urlkick.com/247c

Given the extent to which Microsoft products imitate open source, Microsoft might be treading on very thin ice were they to contemplate legal action.

But this is clearly a strong indication of how worried they are by the competition.

See also:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070513234519615
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/12126/1090/





[/URL]
[URL="http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/12126/1090/"] (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070513234519615)

[Adamant1988]

The issue of patents is quite problematic, not only do many companies try to patent processes, which completely retards innovation and development but the issue of cross patenting also arises.

If MS tries to sue any Linux group based on patent right infringements many other companies will counter sue fearing that their processes will be stolen by MS during the court case.

It’s a huge mess and its main aim is mainly to intimidate smaller companies or groups. It’s not something we should ignore, but it is also not the monolithic giant it seems to be.

It will be very hard, costly and time consuming for the ‘industry’ to prove who invented what and who owns which rights.

1) Patents are not bad. Software patents are bad, and patents on anything that can contain hundreds of thousands of ideas/methods for doing something are BAD.

2) Companies are not concerned with having their ideas stolen, they're concerned that Microsoft may well attempt to sue their customers. Microsoft is not immune, they infringe on thousands of patents themselves, they just have the money to cross-license that, and therefor aren't bothered by it. If push comes to shove I bet patent holders will be crawling out of the woodwork to get some of Microsoft's money.

3) Actually, This news by Microsoft is most threatening to larger companies as it stands, because Microsoft has acknowledged that right now those are the target for it's royalty collection.

4) It won't happen. If Microsoft started pushing this into the courts the entire software patent idea would implode.


On another note, has anyone thought that legal action on Microsoft's part may be akin to an anti-competitive action?

[Tomosaur]

1) Patents are not bad. Software patents are bad, and patents on anything that can contain hundreds of thousands of ideas/methods for doing something are BAD.
All patents do is prevent people improving ideas, engendering competition, and kill innovation. That is more or less the whole point of patents: "I came up with this idea, you're not allowed to use it, even if I myself never implement it". Patents are absolutely ridiculous.

Now, I'm not against the idea of protecting your ideas or your hard work - but I think patents have a lot of 'collateral damage' as it were. If you don't want someone stealing your idea - then don't tell it to anyone.

Patents reinforce our skewed industrial model - that you need money to make money. To even get a patent awarded is a financial strain for many people - and if some other company preempts you by 'getting their first', then you have to pay that company to license the patent. If patents didn't exist, we'd have a much more innovative and free global economy.



On another note, has anyone thought that legal action on Microsoft's part may be akin to an anti-competitive action?

Perhaps not in America, but certainly in Europe - most commercial FOSS companies aren't making money from selling products - the product is, 99% of the time, completely free. All the companies are doing is saying "it's your choice whether you use this software or not - but we can help you out if you get stuck". In essence, it's a totally different industry. Microsoft suing say, Canonical (for example), could be seen as Honda suing your local garage. Canonical (the garage) isn't making money from building and selling cheap Honda knock-offs, they're just providing a service (support / the ability to fix your car). If there's no profit from the sale of the product, then yes, it can be seen as anti-competitive. In America however, I don't think that distinction would ever be made, regardless of whether the software is developed and distributed freely.

[PartisanEntity]

Well patents aren't bad per se, it just depends on how they are used and made up. The idea of protecting your intellectual property makes sense, imagine you invent a new process, and before you have managed to find a bank to finance your project companies with billions at their disposal start selling your idea the very next week.

The idea of a patent was to allow the inventor to have a head start and benefit first from his creation.

A balance must be found between allowing the creator to benefit but at the same time not putting obstacles in the path innovation and development.

[Stone123]

Well Microsoft invented sudo and gksudo so it is posible:

http://www.builderau.com.au/news/soa/Microsoft-All-operating-systems-should-use-Vista-s-UAC-security/0,339028227,339275111,00.htm



Anyway the register isn't realy a good source of news.

[misfitpierce]

That's also facing commercial distros of linux that make money buy selling software. B/c thier selling what thier claiming I believe... So no worries plus steve ballmer is dumb and always making stupid claims

[orange2k]

I really like this section of text on the asio4all site www.asio4all.com

Everything else on this page, including the numbers 16, 48 and 100 is or may become a trademark of Microsoft, Corp., except for trademarks of their respective owners that are used for product identification purposes only.

[brim4brim]

I think its ******** TBH. Not just Ms or Ballmer but the whole Software patents area is nonsense.

It should be a lot harder to make a software patent than it is and I don't really think it should be able to at all. The ideas are obvious in the vast majority of cases.

I also think, one of the big problems with software patents is how long they take to expire. I think they should expire quicker than regular patents due to the pace of progress in IT. In fact with all patents, the time should be variable depending on how obvious the invention was.

[MarkX]

Before people start talking about patents they should first be aware of some generalities:

Patent laws VARY from country to country and the patent must be filed in each country/region.
If it wasn't patented in Mongolia, Mongolians can copy and sell the product within the country.


Patents expire.
When, depends on the country.


If the workings of something are (provably) exposed before starting the patent process, it is unpatentable.
If a product essentially identical in operation was provably previously seen/disclosed/published anywhere in the world, the patent is unenforcable. It needn't even be sold there as long as the workings of it are public. You can't patent something after it's been disclosed, anywhere in the world.

[bonzodog]

Ok, MS have now told us that GNU/Linux itself infringes on exactly 235 Patents that they own.

42 of these are in the kernel itself, and Gnome/KDE infringe on 65.

I suspect that certain people will now want to know what infringes and remove the appropriate code from the kernel.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/14/microsoft_oss_patent_number/

[Adamant1988]

Ok, MS have now told us that GNU/Linux itself infringes on exactly 235 Patents that they own.

42 of these are in the kernel itself, and Gnome/KDE infringe on 65.

I suspect that certain people will now want to know what infringes and remove the appropriate code from the kernel.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/14/microsoft_oss_patent_number/

This is precisely why the numbers of patents aren't being offered up. Although I think it's HILARIOUS that people think Microsoft needs to show their code to prove their case.

1) You don't need code to patent software, you need a method.
2) You don't need to SHOW code to file a patent infringement suit, you just need to say which patent is being violated.

[tcpip4lyfe]

This just in....Microsoft patents binary code.....

[Tomosaur]

This is precisely why the numbers of patents aren't being offered up. Although I think it's HILARIOUS that people think Microsoft needs to show their code to prove their case.

1) You don't need code to patent software, you need a method.
2) You don't need to SHOW code to file a patent infringement suit, you just need to say which patent is being violated.

I don't think the 'show us the code' request is to be taken literally. "Show Us The Code!" is a better slogan than "Show us your patents and then which parts of <insert software here> violate it so we can remove it!".

It's true that many people are confused about the differences between patents / copyrights, etc etc - but in this case, it's really just a demand for Microsoft to either shut up and stop slandering everyone, or to tell us where we're violating their patents so we can get rid of them. Currently they're just accusing people and spreading FUD, which in itself is fairly destructive. I don't even think Microsoft could successfully take anyone to court now - they've been claiming patent infringement for ages and haven't acted on it. It's the patent holder's obligation to defend their patents, it is NOT the responsibility of a third party to scour all of the patents granted to everyone, interpret that patent's description, and then make sure they don't infringe. Microsoft is required to lay out explicitly what infringes on their patents, then the FOSS developers can argue their own interpretation of that patent in court, apply for a license to use it, or just work around it by changing the design of the software. Only if a patent is willingly and consistently infringed upon would a lawsuit hold in court. If nobody knows what the patents ARE, they can't do anything about it.

[Adamant1988]

I don't think the 'show us the code' request is to be taken literally. "Show Us The Code!" is a better slogan than "Show us your patents and then which parts of <insert software here> violate it so we can remove it!".

It's true that many people are confused about the differences between patents / copyrights, etc etc - but in this case, it's really just a demand for Microsoft to either shut up and stop slandering everyone, or to tell us where we're violating their patents so we can get rid of them. Currently they're just accusing people and spreading FUD, which in itself is fairly destructive. I don't even think Microsoft could successfully take anyone to court now - they've been claiming patent infringement for ages and haven't acted on it. It's the patent holder's obligation to defend their patents, it is NOT the responsibility of a third party to scour all of the patents granted to everyone, interpret that patent's description, and then make sure they don't infringe. Microsoft is required to lay out explicitly what infringes on their patents, then the FOSS developers can argue their own interpretation of that patent in court, apply for a license to use it, or just work around it by changing the design of the software. Only if a patent is willingly and consistently infringed upon would a lawsuit hold in court. If nobody knows what the patents ARE, they can't do anything about it.

Look on these forums, people are saying "We will get to see their code if this goes to court and they don't want that". People are ACTUALLY wanting to see the code which is supposedly infringed upon, when they should be asking for patent numbers.

[newbie2]

Micro$oft now assert that Free Software is of high quality.
http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/25256/
:lolflag:

[bigtoereb]

What I would really like to see is an official response from Ubuntu principles (if it's possible) about whether they will be able to continue to supply us with a functional distribution if Microsoft decides to aggressively pursue whatever they think they can safely pursue (don't know what that is).

Meaning, if I commit to using Ubuntu, what assurances can they give me they will be able to maintain/produce the distribution moving forward and deliver/support it. I know this is generalized question but I'm not sure how to make it more specific.

Personal note:

All this crud about OS's etc just mainly makes me want to abandon them wholesale, all of them! I don't really need the aggravation. I'm not a Luddite, just tired of it all.

[bonzodog]

You all also have to remember that MS can only sue for these patents *inside* the US. Outside the US, software patents are useless.

Canonical/Ubuntu and a great number of other distributions are european in origin, therefore, will give MS the big finger and tell them they are powerless, and to go back to the US, and stop harassing them.

[Adamant1988]

You all also have to remember that MS can only sue for these patents *inside* the US. Outside the US, software patents are useless.

Canonical/Ubuntu and a great number of other distributions are european in origin, therefore, will give MS the big finger and tell them they are powerless, and to go back to the US, and stop harassing them.

Novell is a European distributor are they not?

[Adamant1988]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xRa6uoE7HLw



First they ignore you
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you...
Then you win.

Anyone want to guess which step we're on?

[jhenager]

Microsoft has been laying the groundwork for patent claims against Linux and open-source software for some time. Most notably, the Redmond, Washington, software company signed a Linux deal with Novell Inc. that indemnifies the company against Microsoft patent claims over Linux. Last week, Dell Inc. joined the deal, becoming the first hardware vendor to do so.

(from http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9019238&pageNumber=2)

I would rephrase this to:
Microsoft has been squealing like a stuck pig for some time.

Imagine, a company that blatently ripped off Apple's Mac interface (which was, in turn, stolen from Xerox) is now using the word 'honor'.
It is a comedy of errors, and Ballmer is the biggest fool of the court.
Microsoft built their empire on stolen intellectual property, but now that someone else 'borrows' their ideas, suddenly, they become righteous.
My first day on the job taking Microsoft calls, we were herded into a room, and told we could no longer call the compression utility bundled with DOS 6.0 by the name DoubleSpace. It had been renamed DriveSpace, and the new version was 6.2.
Shortly after that, after pleading guilty to reverse engineering Stacker, Microsoft paid the fine, bought Stak Electronics, and proceeded to continue to kill off Lotus 1-2-3, WordPerfect, and search for other intellectual property to copy/exploit.
Microsoft complaining about someone else copying ideas is like someone calling the cops because their pot plants were stolen. What a bunch of idiots.

[BoyOfDestiny]

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/11469/53/

Ugh...

All this business reminds me of the Vercotti Brothers from Monty Python's Flying Circus.

For the fans:

http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode08.htm#1

Skip down to where it says:
"The Vercotti brothers enter. They wear Mafia suits and dark glasses."

[kragen]

If Microsoft won then all it would prove is that its nearly impossible to produce a usable OS without infringing Microsoft's software patents. Surely that goes against everything patents were created for - promoting innovation!

Out of interest, what about things like Samba, or NTFS read/writing, things that were produced specifically for compatibility with windows? Are those likely to be under the list of software patents?

[dca]

Novell is a European distributor are they not?

Nah, Novell is American but they bought SuSE Linux which is German...

[tomplast]

FAT32 drivers DO infringe. They weren't reverse engineered, just straight-up copied.

Not anymore in Germany at least. I think I read somewhere that the patent for FAT32 in Germany didn't get extended.

[BarfBag]

Wouldn't Linux fall under clean room engineering? I know it isn't a reverse engineered Windows, and I also know that the code is/was very similar to it's derivative. However, it was written from scratch - correct?

We don't have anything do be afraid of. You know how many IBM patents Microsoft is infringing on? Apple is probably infringing on Microsoft patients as well. If Microsoft takes legal action against us, there's going to be a full scale legal war.

[goumples]

Yes Linux infringes microsofts patents.. but the patents themselves are frivilous nonsense such as "how the mouse moves around the screen". It baffles me how a company that built itself by stealing others ideas, and by buying out others ideas and not giving credit can cry: Patent violations!!! Intellectual Property!!"
Hypocrisy at its very finest ladies and gents.

[Anthem]

Wouldn't Linux fall under clean room engineering? I know it isn't a reverse engineered Windows, and I also know that the code is/was very similar to it's derivative. However, it was written from scratch - correct?
Incorrect on multiple counts.

First off, Linux isn't a 'reverse engineered' anything, certainly not Windows. The kernel as a whole was never developed in any kind of clean room implementation, although individual drivers have been reverse-engineered as needed.

Whether it was written from scratch doesn't relate to whether it infringes on patents. You're thinking about copyrights.

[justin whitaker]

Most of this is FUD. There is a legitimate question in those 235 patents somewhere: you can't say that Microsoft would lose on all of them...but not all of them are as important as others.

For example, all of the supposed violations in the kernel are critical: you live and die by those, as far as distributing Linux is concerned. So I would say that Torvalds and company need to come back with a code audit. That would go a long way to alleviate much of the jitters around this.

As for the interface...didn't Unix have prior art on this? I find it hard to believe that Microsoft could patent the WIMP interface, and be able to use it against any other company, since Mac and Unix had interfaces of their own around the release of Windows. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that that patent could not possibly be enforced since prior art existed.

No idea about Open Office....I would say that if there were a single point of attack that might kneecap Open Source as a whole, an office suite that mimics and tries to be 100% compatible with Microsoft's product would be where I would attack. Slow adoption of Open Office, and provide MS-Office Linux edition, and Microsoft protects one of their core revenue streams.

Looks like Stallman might actually be a prophet after all. The GPL is an important piece in this chess game with the Monopolist.

Time to donate to the FSF, support Moglen, and generally make sure that we have our s**t correct.

[Adamant1988]

Copyright (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=copyright&gwp=13) Explanation

Patent (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=patent&gwp=13) Explanation.

I hope this will clear up some of the issues.

[koenn]

Micro$oft now assert that Free Software is of high quality.
and that Free / Open Source Software was able to reach such high quality only by stealing "Intellectual Property" from MS. Nice spin, isn't it ?

[DoctorMO]

Out of interest, what about things like Samba, or NTFS read/writing, things that were produced specifically for compatibility with windows? Are those likely to be under the list of software patents?

Possibly, some of those patents are so generalised that I'm surprised African mothers breast feeding their infants aren't breaking Microsofts patents (or perhaps they are *shrug*).

One thing I know is that the patent world will be decimated should Microsoft attempt royalties on Linux.

[pirothezero]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xRa6uoE7HLw



Anyone want to guess which step we're on?

hehe i love that video, music is just too rad.

[Adamant1988]

hehe i love that video, music is just too rad.

It's one of my favorites too. I've long been a fan of that set of vids from Red Hat, they're almost like art.

[SunnyRabbiera]

really though MS has no ground, Apple tried it and failed and MS will be no different.

I dont think anything will happen, if MS fires at linux then Apple can make a claim too

[hobieone]

saw this on cnn.com today heres the link http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/index.htm?postversion=2007051409

looks like microsoft started sueing both the distributors and users of linux! and open source software in general. interesting read but sounds like a nightmare and the courts it seems don't know how to proceed.

among those being sued isbuig name companies that uses linux like ibm.

[ThinkBuntu]

We've been over this. Also, expect Fortune to spin it in a way that makes Microsoft's mission seem both noble and probably. Have you seen the shot of Stallman? Or the caption? And I agree with a poster on Slashdot that, by referring to him by his complete name, it makes him sound far more like a villain-type (as opposed to Richard Stallman, Rich Stallman or Rick Stallman), or even like the sort of "wacky" who would go around being called by all three names.

[treak007]

Microsoft has been doing stuff like this for a very long time. They never accomplish anything serious, just try to scare people away from open source software.

[Adamant1988]

God, where is asyiu when you need him.

[Knowles]

It's rubbish and it won't stick, software is intangible and also a mathematical formula. Companies like Microsoft cannot 'patent' a function of computer software it's pure madness. Companies rise and they fall, fortunately for Microsoft they were in the right place at the right time. However now we have millions of computer literate users who can congregate knowledge and produce free alternatives to a high standard. This is how the world works and it will not go away.

[JAPrufrock]

Very interesting article.

[native]

If you think that report is scary, better hope we are not around if MS wins !!!

[TravisNewman]

This is why software patents == bad.

I don't think this will materialize, but if it does, MS is going to either take over the world more than they already do, or shoot themselves in the foot.

[kprowell]

Hmmmm... What about the command line? Wasn't that around before MS? I know it may be trivial but fair is fair. And, didn't Xerox have a GUI 1st? Sounds like they are truly scared of Linux.......and they should be.

[dhruva023]

does this patents have to do anything out side the us??

i don't thinks so.

[DoctorMO]

It's not that simple,

United States has managed to convince Canada, Australia, several asian countires to adopt software patents and most of the rest of the world including the EU to adopt stronger copyright and anti piracy laws; so these patents are worrying in more than just the US. although I thank the EUP for defeating the EUC (corporate pigs) several times with software patents. and I'm also pleased that the UK has now a number of case laws that went against software patents.

[RussianVodka]

I remember reading an article in which SCO was bitching that IBM stole 300 lines of code from them. After the inspection, it was clear that those 300 lines of code were in the public domain (or something like that). On the other hand, SCO stole over 700,000 lines of code from IBM.

[crane]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xRa6uoE7HLw



Anyone want to guess which step we're on?

That's what I was thinking, Well if Linux is under attack, then I am getting ready to celebrate. It seems it may be a battle of wits, and they appear to be unarmed!
Honestly, I do not see this as having any substance. But in the event that it does, I have an idea. Everyone who uses Linux and FOSS needs to think of what any and everything that future computer users would use in terms of theory, Naming, or ideas. The lets all patent something. I figure if 1 million people get a patent on some type of possible future computer idea, Then MS will have to infringe on these patents and we can attack them at their own game!

[moffatt666]

The case will probably get thrown out of court and the EU will continue to fine them even more for anti-competetive practices.

[hobieone]

what would be interesting but funny. would be the courts rule mathamatical algarithims aren't patenable there for all of microsofts patents are invalid

[TheKid965]

And I agree with a poster on Slashdot that, by referring to him by his complete name, it makes him sound far more like a villain-type (as opposed to Richard Stallman, Rich Stallman or Rick Stallman), or even like the sort of "wacky" who would go around being called by all three names.

Of course. Look at the perception of names such as Lee Harvey Oswald or John Wilkes Booth.

The public perception of relative unknowns with three names is, well, not the best. Couple that with RMS's look and decidedly confrontational attitudes, and it doesn't take much effort for the mainstream media to skin us all alive.

[johann_p]

Making software patentable is insane. Can't blame Microsoft (or anyone else) to use such a weapon if it is available. Can't really blame Microsoft for the fact that such a weapon exists. Blame you idiot legislators who made that possible, or better yet: tell them why software patents are an insane and counterproductive idea.

[lepz]

Here's another article (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2129663,00.asp)

[Adamant1988]

Making software patentable is insane. Can't blame Microsoft (or anyone else) to use such a weapon if it is available. Can't really blame Microsoft for the fact that such a weapon exists. Blame you idiot legislators who made that possible, or better yet: tell them why software patents are an insane and counterproductive idea.

Those legislators are in the pocket of big businesses, like Microsoft.

[FuturePilot]

Sounds like the same old usual FUD from Microsoft.

[Andrewie]

I almost want Microsoft to start suing everyone, once they start we'll be able to put this behind us

[steven8]

Those legislators are in the pocket of big businesses, like Microsoft.

Bingo!

[poohbear1616]

Here (http://www.wordesign.com/unix/chronology_of_the_unix_world.htm) is a chronology chart if anyones curious.

[Sunnz]

2 words: who cares?

Let them spend all the their time/resources on FUD/courtroom/whatever; while we FLOSS community spend more time on creating better code/functionality/system. Eventually our technology will outrule theirs in all aspects such that they'll just die trying.

Let's just ignore them and move on.

[Somenoob]

I was wondering what exactly qualifies as a infringement? it's closed source so they can't use their code. Or does it just have to be a similarity of another product?

[benzies]

To think they have the nerve!

[ikonia]

This isn't a help issue really - how about we let people like the gnu foundation and the like deal with this.

[poohbear1616]

IMHO monkeysoft would be better off leaving this alone. They run the risk of corporate suicide if they swing this sword.
There are numerous governments and BIG! companies around the globe including inside the US that use open source in some form wether it be Linux, BSD, or other. I'll name a couple, Walmart, Yahoo. There are countless others.
No good could come of this for Redmond.

[brim4brim]

I was wondering what exactly qualifies as a infringement? it's closed source so they can't use their code. Or does it just have to be a similarity of another product?

The code isn't patented, its the idea or end product of the code which is why its generally an obvious idea.

The hyperlink is patented for example (link you click in an email). Its not the code that does it that is patented, its the idea of having a link that somebody clicks using a mouse to be redirected to a certain file on a certain ip address that is patented.

[pcl]

Hi,
How far is Ubuntu concerned by the Microsoft claims about licences?
I don't understand how Microsoft says there are licences breach since their code is not accessible?
---

[rich.bradshaw]

Yeah, but Microsoft can see their own code.

[saulgoode]

I don't understand how Microsoft says there are licences breach since their code is not accessible?---

Patent infringement is not based upon "copying" someone else's invention. Even if you'd never heard about Joe Genius' patented, foomagical widget, should you happen to come up with something that uses the same patented principle, you could not market your invention without infringing on Joe's patent.

[poohbear1616]

A list of a few companies that use linux.
http://www.aaxnet.com/design/linux2.html

An old article about Microsoft using open source.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-530081.html

[lassegs]

I think someone should do some kind of PR stunt to get the other side of the story on the front page of the popular medias (like CNN, and our norwegian www.vg.no), so people dont start believing in this FUD.

I dont think this will hurt GNU/Linux in the corporations, because they always got some techie that can explain the reality to his Fortune-reading boss. But Ubuntu, as the leading distrobution for desktops, should be worried about what avarage Joe (or his norwegian equivalent, Ola Nordmann), thinks. Because all they have heard about Linux for the past three months is MS' FUD. We have to find a way to tell them the truth. So, anyone have an idea?

[Sunnz]

I think someone should do some kind of PR stunt to get the other side of the story on the front page of the popular medias (like CNN, and our norwegian www.vg.no), so people dont start believing in this FUD.

I dont think this will hurt GNU/Linux in the corporations, because they always got some techie that can explain the reality to his Fortune-reading boss. But Ubuntu, as the leading distrobution for desktops, should be worried about what avarage Joe (or his norwegian equivalent, Ola Nordmann), thinks. Because all they have heard about Linux for the past three months is MS' FUD. We have to find a way to tell them the truth. So, anyone have an idea?
Make funny video about it, put it on youtube and linkage it all over the net.

No not mac ads.

It needs to be entertaining, not geeky, so people watches it for entertainment and get the "message" when they have finish.

[newbie2]

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.

Microsoft has made the patents in question known to corporate Linux users and distributors, Gutierrez said.
http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/25254/

so... why don't Novell, Dell, Samsung et. al. give us the list?
:rolleyes:

[gigaferz]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6183437.html?tag=nl.e550

just read the article, do not reead the posts of those "IT" guys, (thy sound very silly most of the times)

[viciouslime]

Probably something for the cafe.

[Mazza558]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6183437.html?tag=nl.e550

This has been discussed in the Cafe. Here's a brief summary:

1.) In order to prove this, MS have to open up their code and show how Linux violates it.

2.) Patents don't apply in Europe for software

[dstew]

Linux is not in trouble. MS runs out this argument every once in a while, but they never actually sue. If they do, they will have to "show their cards" so to speak and let everybody see their code.

[gary0]

This has been discussed in the Cafe. Here's a brief summary:

1.) In order to prove this, MS have to open up their code and show how Linux violates it.

2.) Patents don't apply in Europe for software

And they aren't about to do that, so they're going up a dead end road. Judging by the amount of bugs in their software, they'd probably be too embarrassed to open up anyway.

[KIAaze]

If Microsoft were to start suing, it could also kick off a patent war on a grand scale. An organization called the Open Innovation Network, funded by IBM Corp., Red Hat Inc. and others, has amassed a vast number of software patents. In the event of a Microsoft lawsuit against open source companies or customers, the OIN would retaliate in kind.

"We believe it's highly likely that Microsoft would infringe some of our patents," said Jerry Rosenthal, OIN's chief executive.

Microsoft details patent breaches (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MICROSOFT_OPEN_SOURCE?SITE=AZMES&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

[Sunflower1970]

Linus Torvalds chimes in, says it's nothing but FUD, as has already been said here by others :)

http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=07/05/15/1455258

[thomas.hoyland]

i just cant understand why ms is doing this
its like it wants a load of flack
its realised oooo this vista is kinda crap and started looking for revenue elsewhere
where else to make money but from free products?

im sure i heard something a bit ago about ms trying to get a patent on SUDO, saying how they think its the way forward

ive also seen a kind of ms version of pdfs - i may be wrong?
and silverlight?

it seems theyr trying to compete - and theres nothing wrong with that - i think ms does a good job some places - i just think theyr acting really immaturly

[sqela]

if anything apple should be suing gates for vista copying osx:lolflag:

[Daveski]

This has been discussed in the Cafe. Here's a brief summary:

1.) In order to prove this, MS have to open up their code and show how Linux violates it.

2.) Patents don't apply in Europe for software

I don't think they would be required to open their code unless they claim a copyright infringement. I think that patents are for ideas, copyrights are for implementation or code. MS could claim they owned a patent on the idea of displaying a splash screen while something loaded. Then they could claim that Ubuntu voilates this patent as it displays a splash screen while booting - no code would need to be opened, just a short-sighted judge to validate their claims.

[Enverex]

Microsoft details patent breaches (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MICROSOFT_OPEN_SOURCE?SITE=AZMES&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

Erm, that links is just the same as the others, no detail of the patent breaches at all.

[benzies]

Heres what i found to be the latest


http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199501831

At least we wont be sued.:(

[Daveski]

Linus Torvalds chimes in, says it's nothing but FUD, as has already been said here by others :)

http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=07/05/15/1455258

and:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml;?articleID=199600443

"The fundamental stuff was done about half a century ago and has long, long since lost any patent protection,"

[saulgoode]

I don't think they would be required to open their code unless they claim a copyright infringement. I think that patents are for ideas, copyrights are for implementation or code. MS could claim they owned a patent on the idea of displaying a splash screen while something loaded. Then they could claim that Ubuntu voilates this patent as it displays a splash screen while booting - no code would need to be opened, just a short-sighted judge to validate their claims.

I would just add that the very process of obtaining a patent is accomplished by making your invention public. You cannot hold a "secret" patent, all patent technology is publicly available (though for certain "top secret" military/defense technology, a patent might never be obtained and anyone subsequently re-inventing the technology would have their patent rejected).

[benzies]

Sorry to spam this but....


http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/it-business/supplier-relations/news/index.cfm?newsid=3029#commentsform
http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/it-business/supplier-relations/news/index.cfm?newsid=3029#commentsform
http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/it-business/supplier-relations/news/index.cfm?newsid=3029#commentsform
http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/it-business/supplier-relations/news/index.cfm?newsid=3029#commentsform
http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/it-business/supplier-relations/news/index.cfm?newsid=3029#commentsform
http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/it-business/supplier-relations/news/index.cfm?newsid=3029#commentsform


HAHAHA!

[steven8]

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml;?articleID=199501831

They say it. They aren't going to sue anyone. They just want folks to be scared and pay up like Novell. - They're afraid of the gplv3.

[the.dark.lord]

*yawn* What's new?

[Tundro Walker]

Odd. When the mafia goes around trying to scare up "protection" money from small shops and local residents, it's illegal. But when Microsoft goes around bullying folks by saying they owe some undisclosed amount due to using Linux which infringes on some undisclosed patents, which were made for some undisclosed intellectual property...it's just business.

Welcome to the United States. Of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the lawyers...

[flowingfire]

I think this is best summed up with a quote:

"Intellectual property has the shelf life of a banana." - Bill Gates

[steven8]

I think this is best summed up with a quote:

"Intellectual property has the shelf life of a banana." - Bill Gates

Bill Gates has the IQ of a banana. And I mean that in the kindest way. . .

[blazoner]

Odds are that someone over at MS just came up with the idea for the patents, then sat back and waited until it was implemented in FOSS, then just popped the code into their bloated OS, since they'll never show their source code anyways.

[blazoner]

On another note, down with the Stallmanist Regime!

[Tom Mann]

I just wish the FSF (or whoever could stand for Linux) would bring this to a head by taking Microsoft to court for slander. It seems that forcing the issue is the only way to finish this once and for all.

[lassegs]

Get it clear people, MS doesnt need to show any code, because you dont patent code, you patent the method something is done, ie. "when you push this button, that happens" or "when double-clicking the mousebutton, the folder opens."

Its the same with the Beryl magic lamp animation (or whatsitsname) and OS X. OS X had already patented the way that was supposed to look, so Beryl removed it. It had nothing to do with the code.

[tikal26]

I am really amazed at the lates from MS
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199501831

To me it sounds like they are actually scare of linux this time and are trying to get money out of it. They know that a lawsuit is going to be no good and if Linux was braking any reasonable patents (not the clicking you mouse ones) the community would probably change them in a few weeks.

I can't believe that they are actually getting money out of a product they have repeatedly called inferior.

[Peter1234123]

Did anyone hear about Microsoft saying that Linux violates hundreds of their patents? LOL!!! Microsoft must have violated more than that themselves, from stealing DOS from Tim Patterson and SCP, to stealing the 2 button mouse from HP. For God's sake, even the new Vista design was mostly stolen from OSX. Microsoft bases its success on other's work.

[jmullagh]

With all this talk about how Linux infringes on Microsoft propietery code... yet nobody has stated the obvious and possibly the true reason why Microsoft HAS NOT sued any Linux distro to date.... the 'CODE' is NOT truly Microsofts and this CAN be proven in court. As a matter of fact, it would not surprise me in the least that some, if not most of Microsoft's code is indeed open source code!!! So, what this whole thing amounts to is Microsoft trying another scare tactic. Just like the ads Microsoft has put out about it Server software solutions. You know... the ones about the London Stock Exchange and all.... read the articles COMPLETELY and you will find that it is a 1/2 truth. Simply put, the London S/E utilizes only 10% server activity with Windows solutions... the rest are Linux. Truth be told, Windows cannot deliver what a Linux server can and MICROSOFT KNOWs IT. Moreover, read the ads further and it is interesting to note Microsoft comparing its server solution to Linux and with that said, then what the heck is all this talk about infringements? In other words... it is all hype and a strategic market ploy by Microsoft to now 'scare' you into purchasing thier unstable operating system soluton... Vista! Ohhh... one more thought.. hmm.. why is Gates leaving??? the REAL reason???

[Frak]

With all this talk about how Linux infringes on Microsoft propietery code... yet nobody has stated the obvious and possibly the true reason why Microsoft HAS NOT sued any Linux distro to date.... the 'CODE' is NOT truly Microsofts and this CAN be proven in court. As a matter of fact, it would not surprise me in the least that some, if not most of Microsoft's code is indeed open source code!!! So, what this whole thing amounts to is Microsoft trying another scare tactic. Just like the ads Microsoft has put out about it Server software solutions. You know... the ones about the London Stock Exchange and all.... read the articles COMPLETELY and you will find that it is a 1/2 truth. Simply put, the London S/E utilizes only 10% server activity with Windows solutions... the rest are Linux. Truth be told, Windows cannot deliver what a Linux server can and MICROSOFT KNOWs IT. Moreover, read the ads further and it is interesting to note Microsoft comparing its server solution to Linux and with that said, then what the heck is all this talk about infringements? In other words... it is all hype and a strategic market ploy by Microsoft to now 'scare' you into purchasing thier unstable operating system soluton... Vista! Ohhh... one more thought.. hmm.. why is Gates leaving??? the REAL reason???
Umm... Again...
Nothing to do with source code.
And yes, we know its all business.

[Sunnz]

Umm... Again...
Nothing to do with source code.
And yes, we know its all business.
Hmmm, then can we work in reversed order?

If FLOSS has the code first, and MS copied it, then it implies that the idea itself must have first come up by FLOSS developers.

Which would contradicts the definition of patent!!! So it would render MS's patent invalid!!! And that would be the reason why MS will never list the offending patents!!!

And maybe it would violate the anti-trust law: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070518/115006.shtml (read it, it is a similar case to MS and they are getting sued!)

[KIAaze]

On another note, down with the Stallmanist Regime!

I don't understand.
Do you feel oppressed by Stallman or by the GPL?
You know that you are not forced to do what Stallman says or to use the GPL, right?

I would rather say:
Down with software patents!:x


why doesn't linux have problems with apple? I think that it is because apple is a better company.

Apparently it does:
Beryl had to give up the magic lamp animation because it was "patented" by Apple... :(

cf a few posts above.

Its the same with the Beryl magic lamp animation (or whatsitsname) and OS X. OS X had already patented the way that was supposed to look, so Beryl removed it. It had nothing to do with the code.

[Daveski]

Microsoft may well be hit by the GPL3 as it is mentioned that issuing 'vouchers' for SUSE they are considered a Linux distributer. The additions to GPL3 when it arrives may well invalidate all claims of patents...

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070518124020691

[Rumor]

Mark Shuttleworth has written a well thought out response to all the hullabaloo in his blog. It was refreshingly non knee-jerk or incendiary.

Link via Digg.com: http://digg.com/linux_unix/Mark_Shuttleworth_Microsoft_is_not_the_real_threat