What if we sued Microsoft?

[Legoean]

Seriously,
We can't look at their code to to find the infringments. So how about we find a few patent unfriendly judges and take them to court. I know it's a one in a million shot, but hell it's better than being held hostage buy monopolies. And I suspect that this action would be unexpected to say the least.

[n0dl]

Uhhh... What?
Hostage?

[lyceum]

You can't sue without being able to tell the court why you are sueing. If the code is closed you will nat be able to see or show why you are sueing. As one judge said, you can't take a shoplifter to court and say "you know what you took". That said, I would like to sue MS for FUD, but that's not illlegal.

[Tomosaur]

I'd rather not play Microsoft's little game, to be honest. Let them kick their feet and throw their little tantrums while we get on doing something useful.

[forrestcupp]

sue them for what? They had working windowing systems and the pretty little close, maximize, minimize buttons, the File, Edit, and View menus way before Linux did.

[ericesque]

You can't sue without being able to tell the court why you are sueing. If the code is closed you will nat be able to see or show why you are sueing. As one judge said, you can't take a shoplifter to court and say "you know what you took". That said, I would like to sue MS for FUD, but that's not illlegal.

True, but shouldn't the reverse be true as well?

He stole this from us, but we can't actually show you the record that we own it... that's classified.


This whole issue will blow over. At the end of it, Linux will have received free publicity, while MS will make themselves out to be the bad guy again. Looks like a win win for linux. :guitar:

[lyceum]

True, but shouldn't the reverse be true as well?

He stole this from us, but we can't actually show you the record that we own it... that's classified.


This whole issue will blow over. At the end of it, Linux will have received free publicity, while MS will make themselves out to be the bad guy again. Looks like a win win for linux. :guitar:

I think that is one of the reason MS does not REALLY go after us. If they did, we could look at their code, as it would then be open to the courts.

[starcraft.man]

If we sued Microsoft.... and won. The world would come to its end in a major catastrophic apocalypse at realizing that they DON'T have to be enslaved to a monopoly. Just my thoughts since it is a what if question :p

[misfitpierce]

Honestly you wouldn't get anywhere sueing a company with that much money. Money says a lot. Also I doubt this thing against linux will go anywhere.

[icecruncher]

:lolflag:
why not?
they do try their best to come out good and mighty, but it just isn't gonna work!
so let them scram bloddy murder, and ignore them.
the patent laws are only for the us anyway.

[ThinkBuntu]

They'll have a team of lawyers who are experienced at this sort of thing. If you win, they'll appeal into a favorable, business-friendly judge. Much rather see my donation money spent on improving a distro than for legal issues.

[Adamant1988]

Seriously,
We can't look at their code to to find the infringments. So how about we find a few patent unfriendly judges and take them to court. I know it's a one in a million shot, but hell it's better than being held hostage buy monopolies. And I suspect that this action would be unexpected to say the least.

Suing Microsoft is no better than them suing the the consumers. It WILL spark the mother of all patent wars and the software industry in America (at least) will implode. This whole situation is much like the cold-war, both sides are building up arms but neither side is willing to take the first step and spark that war, it's mutually assured destruction.

Microsoft just WANTS royalties, they're probably not going to get them. They're going to ASK these companies to pay them royalties, if they start suing people it's the same scenario as above. The FSF, and the OIN will get involved, and that will not end well.

[dannyboy79]

sue them for what? They had working windowing systems and the pretty little close, maximize, minimize buttons, the File, Edit, and View menus way before Linux did.
NOT TRUE, well ok, I know what you're going to say, that Linux isn't Unix BUT but Linux is basically Unix for free! Xerox PARC came out with a windowing system (1970's) way before Windows did in 1985. Which Windows copied from Apple anyway and again, Apple is Unix based.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_interface#Xerox_PARC

[samjh]

Apple is Unix based.

Nope. MacOS became Unix-based only recently. In fact, it's not even based on Unix, it's based on BSD.

Apple Macintosh's operating system was Apple's own. No Unix.


True, but shouldn't the reverse be true as well?

He stole this from us, but we can't actually show you the record that we own it... that's classified.The difference between those examples is that if the police try to take a shoplifter to court, they need to prove the shoplifter stole something. When Microsoft is shouting about alleged patent infringements in the Linux community, they are not taking us to court, they are playing a publicity game.

When or if Microsoft does convert their words into action, and actually start suing, they will need to disclose their evidence. They will need to specify exactly which patents are being breached and how. The Linux community will then need to defend, using evidence like prior art, the obviousness test, etc.

The gamble is a big one for MS. Suing people burns bridges really fast. A lot of those people they will need to sue will be businesses, some of who will have partnerships with MS already. MS will not want to destroy these partnerships. They also do not want the immense backlash that will happen if hundreds and thousands of businesses suddenly are slapped with royalty fees by Microsoft. MS needs to tread lightly, relying on negotiation and public relations ploys, instead of litigation. That is exactly what they are doing now. Say what you will about MS, they are no fools.

[dannyboy79]

Nope. MacOS became Unix-based only recently. In fact, it's not even based on Unix, it's based on BSD.

Apple Macintosh's operating system was Apple's own. No Unix.

Well again, I feel this is just nit-picking. Due to commercial UNIX licensing terms not being as favorable for academic use as the older versions of Unix, the Berkeley researchers continued to develop BSD Unix as an alternative to UNIX System III and V. Therefore BSD is Unix Based. So again, Unix had a Windows System before Windows.

[samjh]

Well again, I feel this is just nit-picking. Due to commercial UNIX licensing terms not being as favorable for academic use as the older versions of Unix, the Berkeley researchers continued to develop BSD Unix as an alternative to UNIX System III and V. Therefore BSD is Unix Based. So again, Unix had a Windows System before Windows.BSD and Unix is beyond the point. My point was that Apple's original Macintosh operating system was not Unix based. The first Unix-based Macintosh operating system was MacOS X.

Unix had X since 1985, same as Windows. Xerox PARC had Alto and Star, which were not Unix-based.

Otherwise, I agree that Unix had a windowing system before Windows. In the form of W ported to Unix in 1983.

[dca]

If either side issued patent lawsuits it would be all out war! IBM bought a TON in the early days fearing this would happen predicting MS would do the same thing. The only good thing is when you combine the IP patents held by IBM, Novell, et al on a single level, it greatly out-weighs what MS has...

MS will gladly tell you what patents infringe on their software so long as you belong to the IT dept of a Fortune 500 firm...

[H.E. Pennypacker]

You can't sue without being able to tell the court why you are sueing. If the code is closed you will nat be able to see or show why you are sueing. As one judge said, you can't take a shoplifter to court and say "you know what you took". That said, I would like to sue MS for FUD, but that's not illlegal.

FUD may actually be illegal. It can be considered libel, and in the case of Linux, it certainly is libel. The problem is whether anyone could sue Microsoft. Since someone does own the Linux trademark, suing them on the basis of libel is certainly possible. If there was no trademark, however, I am afraid nothing could be done, because lying is not illegal against faceless entities (or someone who is dead).

[dannyboy79]

BSD and Unix is beyond the point. My point was that Apple's original Macintosh operating system was not Unix based. The first Unix-based Macintosh operating system was MacOS X.

Unix had X since 1985, same as Windows. Xerox PARC had Alto and Star, which were not Unix-based.

Otherwise, I agree that Unix had a windowing system before Windows. In the form of W ported to Unix in 1983.
Agreed. Sorry to take this off topic.

I don't see any success coming from sueing Microsoft and I think that the money it would take would do way better in the hands of developers or what not to flat out beat Microsoft in their own game!

[Techn101]

Why sue Microsoft? Let them scream their FUD! We all know it's b*llsh*t. Just ignore their FUD.
Linux is growing, less and less people are gonna believe MS FUD's. It just shows that Microsoft is scared.
And they should, I Think that Apple and Linux will keep on winning Market Share, especially Apple I think.
By The Way I Think Microsoft is never gonna sue Linux, we have the Open Invention Network. (http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/). If Microsoft sues Linux, they will sue Microsoft back. The Open Invention network companies big guys like Philips, IBM, Sony, NEC have a lot more patents. Microsoft has infringed Patents of those Companies too.
Just ignore them ...

[samjh]

Why sue Microsoft? Let them scream their FUD! We all know it's b*llsh*t. Just ignore their FUD.The problem is that no one really knows whether it is purely FUD, or they have substantial evidence.

In fact, no-one will know until the alleged patent violations are disclosed, and the abused patents are specified.

It is not good enough to simply ignore Microsoft. They are unlikely to sue, but in the case they do sue, it would be wise for FSF, the Linux kernel team, and various other teams (especially Gnome, KDE, and X/X.org) to begin analysing what parts of their projects potentially breach Microsoft patents, and devise potential defences against any claims of patent violations for those parts.

When or if Microsoft decides to sue, the FSF and other FOSS community projects had better have done their homework, or the legal fees that need to be spent on researching possible defences may get out of hand. Best to formulate a technical defence strategy now, so that lawyers on the FOSS side can focus on legal strategy and court advocacy instead of being bogged down in nitty-gritty technical details.

[justin whitaker]

Suing Microsoft is no better than them suing the the consumers. It WILL spark the mother of all patent wars and the software industry in America (at least) will implode. This whole situation is much like the cold-war, both sides are building up arms but neither side is willing to take the first step and spark that war, it's mutually assured destruction.

Microsoft just WANTS royalties, they're probably not going to get them. They're going to ASK these companies to pay them royalties, if they start suing people it's the same scenario as above. The FSF, and the OIN will get involved, and that will not end well.

Yeah, that's about right. Microsoft is taking a page out of Mafia films, using shakedown tactics and protection rackets to scare their customers...almost all of their corporate clients, and almost all of the Forbes Global 1000 use Open Source for something, even if it's only a web server.

I was reading about Eben Moglen's argument that now that Microsoft is dsitributing Linux to Dell, which is part of their interoperability deal with Novell, the GPLv2 could apply to Microsoft's code, and GPLv3 certainly applies. If Microsoft comes after someone on one of these 235 spurrious patents, it will get very, very ugly.

[steven8]

The problem is that no one really knows whether it is purely FUD, or they have substantial evidence.

In fact, no-one will know until the alleged patent violations are disclosed, and the abused patents are specified.

It is not good enough to simply ignore Microsoft. They are unlikely to sue, but in the case they do sue, it would be wise for FSF, the Linux kernel team, and various other teams (especially Gnome, KDE, and X/X.org) to begin analysing what parts of their projects potentially breach Microsoft patents, and devise potential defences against any claims of patent violations for those parts.

When or if Microsoft decides to sue, the FSF and other FOSS community projects had better have done their homework, or the legal fees that need to be spent on researching possible defences may get out of hand. Best to formulate a technical defence strategy now, so that lawyers on the FOSS side can focus on legal strategy and court advocacy instead of being bogged down in nitty-gritty technical details.

The FSF and others are not just operating blindly. They spend a lot of time watching legalites.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/team

[justin whitaker]

Seriously,
We can't look at their code to to find the infringments. So how about we find a few patent unfriendly judges and take them to court. I know it's a one in a million shot, but hell it's better than being held hostage buy monopolies. And I suspect that this action would be unexpected to say the least.

No, just no. Even if we had a leg to stand on, as a community, we don't have the deep pockets that Microsoft has.

I suggest something that is better: code audits. Torvalds and company should be looking at the 42 supposed violations in the kernel (and they would have to guess what those are), and audit the code to make sure that someone, somewhere did not submit a patch or something that infringes on MSFT IP. Then, they can point to the code audit, and say, we did an audit, and we are 100% clean.

Every other project should be doing that...hell, we as a community should be doing it. Last thing we need is to have the whole thing brought down because someone copied something from an actually enforceable patent. There has to be at least one of those in those 235 purported violations.

[samjh]

Steven8,

That link talks about people involved in license enforcement, not patents.

I think the FSF probably do have some lawyers that monitor patents relevant to GNU projects and give advice on such issues. But I'm pretty sure that most FOSS projects do not have - or use - such guidance.

What I'm more concerned about is looking at those patents that Microsoft is claiming to use against Linux and FOSS communities, and developing defences against potential patent violations. One would have to be very naive to think that there are absolutely no features in Linux or other FOSS projects that can attract accusations of patent violation. It's great if work has already gone into such investigations, but if nothing has been done about it yet, something should be done now that Microsoft is getting more specific and threatening.


I suggest something that is better: code audits. Torvalds and company should be looking at the 42 supposed violations in the kernel (and they would have to guess what those are), and audit the code to make sure that someone, somewhere did not submit a patch or something that infringes on MSFT IP. Then, they can point to the code audit, and say, we did an audit, and we are 100% clean.

Every other project should be doing that...hell, we as a community should be doing it. Last thing we need is to have the whole thing brought down because someone copied something from an actually enforceable patent. There has to be at least one of those in those 235 purported violations.That's similar to what I'm talking about. But your suggestion also covers copyright issues as well as patents, so even better.

Distinction should be made between potential copyright infringements and patent infringements. I think it is unlikely that any FOSS project willingly infringes on copyright. If they have, it is extemely foolish, considering that the source code can be examined by the public. Patent infringements have broader scope, and therefore broader potential for trouble. Patents are basically ideas, so patent infringements do not have to involve code.

[jiminycricket]

Suing Microsoft is no better than them suing the the consumers. It WILL spark the mother of all patent wars and the software industry in America (at least) will implode. This whole situation is much like the cold-war, both sides are building up arms but neither side is willing to take the first step and spark that war, it's mutually assured destruction.

Microsoft just WANTS royalties, they're probably not going to get them. They're going to ASK these companies to pay them royalties, if they start suing people it's the same scenario as above. The FSF, and the OIN will get involved, and that will not end well.

They're already getting royalties from Novell (20% of Linux revenues, or at least 40 million dollars after five years), Samsung, and Hitachi, plus,


Some customers actually entered into direct patent licenses with Microsoft at that point, Smith says, including some "major brand-name companies" in financial services, health care, insurance and information technology. (He says they don't want to be identified, presumably because they fear angering the FOSS community.) Others wanted Microsoft to work out the patent issues directly with the commercial distributors like Red Hat and Novell. (Red Hat has about 65 percent of the paid Linux server market, according to IDC, while Novell has 26 percent.

Microsoft is threatening their customers, and other companies like Red Hat. Remember, they were trying to get Red Hat to make a Microvell deal before Novell did it with MS.

[steven8]

Steven8,

That link talks about people involved in license enforcement, not patents.

You're dead right, samjh. I just kind of wanted to point out that they are not 'legally blind'. The FSF and big orgs may be more aware than many 'FLOSSers, I'll admit.

[Adamant1988]

]No, just no. Even if we had a leg to stand on, as a community, we don't have the deep pockets that Microsoft has. [/B]

I suggest something that is better: code audits. Torvalds and company should be looking at the 42 supposed violations in the kernel (and they would have to guess what those are), and audit the code to make sure that someone, somewhere did not submit a patch or something that infringes on MSFT IP. Then, they can point to the code audit, and say, we did an audit, and we are 100% clean.

Every other project should be doing that...hell, we as a community should be doing it. Last thing we need is to have the whole thing brought down because someone copied something from an actually enforceable patent. There has to be at least one of those in those 235 purported violations.

What we do have are a collection of companies and individuals with fairly extensive portfolios of patents. Patents that Windows may be infringing upon (which is why Microsoft paid Novell money). So, you'll see a full scale legal war happen in the event of any law-suits, which won't happen. The issue is ignorable.

[dca]

Well, we can all thank Novell now for signing this covenant w/ MS. Now, it looks like if MS decided to attack (which they won't) the portfolios can't be combined: Novell, IBM, HP, etc...

In fact, if you wanted to really know what patents are in question and you're not able to get an answer from MS because you're not a large corporation, just give Ronny (Hovespepoeapian *whatever*) a call and he can tell you...

[Bronto]

Can't we just ignore them?