Microsoft takes on the free world

[japs_it88]

I found this article on debianitalia.org website. you should definitely check it out. it is about microsoft claiming the violation of over 200 of its patents in free software.

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

This is absolutely absurd. And above all, if open source software is made from microsoft patented code, how would you explain that it is so stable, functional and most of all that it doesn't crashes?

[juxtaposed]

This has been going on for awhile now.

People are all "OMG, DEY GUNNA KILL LNUX", then everyone else realises that it is just to scare people and will ammount to absolutly nothing.

[Adamant1988]

I found this article on debianitalia.org website. you should definitely check it out. it is about microsoft claiming the violation of over 200 of its patents in free software.

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

This is absolutely absurd. And above all, if open source software is made from microsoft patented code, how would you explain that it is so stable, functional and most of all that it doesn't crashes?

1) It is actually highly likely that Linux infringes on Microsoft's intellectual property.
2) Patents and code are not the same thing. A patent covers a way of doing something, while copyright covers the code itself.

[celsofaf]

Old FUD news.

[DoctorMO]

It isn't that linux doesn't infringe something, the chances are that every bit of software ever written including the softrware for the Babbage computer and something hacked together for a turning machine probably infringe multiple patents.

The problem is that the patents system shouldn't apply to software. it doesn't make sense and it's stifling innovation.

See when you patent something you have to provide details for an implementation so someone skilled in the art can recreate the physical object. with software there is no physical object so the details must include the implemented code. this immediately shoves the code into public domain.

you can allow patents and make all code public domain, which is NOT what ANY software business would ever want. or you can have copyrights and no patents.

See you can't have your cake and eat it according to law... apart from software which is so new that the legal and government systems haven't had chance to catch up and stem the tide of system abuse.

[kamaboko]

It isn't that linux doesn't infringe something, the chances are that every bit of software ever written including the softrware for the Babbage computer and something hacked together for a turning machine probably infringe multiple patents.

The problem is that the patents system shouldn't apply to software. it doesn't make sense and it's stifling innovation.

See when you patent something you have to provide details for an implementation so someone skilled in the art can recreate the physical object. with software there is no physical object so the details must include the implemented code. this immediately shoves the code into public domain.

you can allow patents and make all code public domain, which is NOT what ANY software business would ever want. or you can have copyrights and no patents.

See you can't have your cake and eat it according to law... apart from software which is so new that the legal and government systems haven't had chance to catch up and stem the tide of system abuse.

Buddy, you have A LOT to learn about patents. LOL. Q: Why should a software developer work for free? How are they going to buy food, shelter, medical insurance? This is the No. 1 thing I can't stand about Linux proponents. They want everything for free. Well, someone has to write this crap, test it, distribute it, etc., and they should be compensated for their work at a price the market will bear. Furthermore, they should be able to lay claim to their work. This is no different than a musician claiming rights to their music, or an actor claiming rights to their likeness for advertising.

[CautionaryX]

The only thing that really irks me about this entire patent thing is that Microsoft won't tell anyone exactly which patents are being violated. Simply waving around a bunch of claims of patent infringement means nothing.

[Lord Illidan]

Please read :

http://patents.caliu.cat/explicacio.en.html
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/economic-perspective.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Arguments_for_patentability
http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html

[Adamant1988]

Buddy, you have A LOT to learn about patents. LOL. Q: Why should a software developer work for free? How are they going to buy food, shelter, medical insurance? This is the No. 1 thing I can't stand about Linux proponents. They want everything for free. Well, someone has to write this crap, test it, distribute it, etc., and they should be compensated for their work at a price the market will bear. Furthermore, they should be able to lay claim to their work. This is no different than a musician claiming rights to their music, or an actor claiming rights to their likeness for advertising.

No one said they have to work for free. I would pay for software, GPL'ing software doesn't make it free. Hell, you can go to the FSF's website and get their 'free' tools custom compiled for around $5000 dollars, or more. Free software, even free as in charge software, can be extremely profitable, with a decent business model.

So, where he has a lot to learn about patents, it sounds like you need to start learning the basics of business.

[Lord Illidan]

That said, in the interests of argument, I'd like to present one myself.

Let's say I invent a new program which has the potential to really change the way we work today. Since I dislike software patents, I don't patent it, yet I really need to earn money from this program. Can a larger company grab my software, reverse engineer it and sell it under a different name? Thus, cutting off my bread & butter? Can they patent it themselves? (I think prior art would cover this). Give me some answers, this is interesting.

Also, lets refrain from calling eachother names please.

[mips]

Buddy, you have A LOT to learn about patents. LOL. Q: Why should a software developer work for free? How are they going to buy food, shelter, medical insurance? This is the No. 1 thing I can't stand about Linux proponents. They want everything for free. Well, someone has to write this crap, test it, distribute it, etc., and they should be compensated for their work at a price the market will bear. Furthermore, they should be able to lay claim to their work. This is no different than a musician claiming rights to their music, or an actor claiming rights to their likeness for advertising.

I think you might be the one that does not understand. You can achieve all the above with Copyright licensing. No need for patents to achieve what you are talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
.

[Adamant1988]

That said, in the interests of argument, I'd like to present one myself.

Let's say I invent a new program which has the potential to really change the way we work today. Since I dislike software patents, I don't patent it, yet I really need to earn money from this program. Can a larger company grab my software, reverse engineer it and sell it under a different name? Thus, cutting off my bread & butter? Can they patent it themselves? (I think prior art would cover this). Give me some answers, this is interesting.

Also, lets refrain from calling eachother names please.

Yes, conceivably they could patent it, but the patent would be worthless as your work is 'prior art'.

[mips]

Can a larger company grab my software, reverse engineer it and sell it under a different name?

If done in a clean room environment then reverse eng is completely legal. They would still have to write their own code as they cannot use yours and they can sell it under their own name. This is commonly referred to as competition in a free market society.



Thus, cutting off my bread & butter? Can they patent it themselves? (I think prior art would cover this). Give me some answers, this is interesting.

I do not see why they cannot patent it. If company X & Y work on the same idea and finish it the first one to patent it is usually the one that gets granted the patent.

Patents are by no means fair and neither is life.

[Lord Illidan]

So, with the example I posted above.. If I copyright my software under a GPL license and, say, Microsoft seals it and uses it without my permission or something, I can send them a sub-poena to check, and then sue them? IANAL

[Lord Illidan]

I do not see why they cannot patent it. If company X & Y work on the same idea and finish it the first one to patent it is usually the one that gets granted the patent.

Patents are by no means fair and neither is life.

So if I've been working on X for years, and company Y sees X, copies it and patents it, looking to make a quick buck?

[mips]

So, with the example I posted above.. If I copyright my software under a GPL license and, say, Microsoft seals it and uses it without my permission or something, I can send them a sub-poena to check, and then sue them? IANAL

Only if they 'steal' it and use your code. If they write their own from scratch then I see no issue.

[Adamant1988]

Only if they 'steal' it and use your code. If they write their own from scratch then I see no issue.

I think what we're talking about is patenting here, and patenting code is not possible, so...

[Lord Illidan]

I think what we're talking about is patenting here, and patenting code is not possible, so...

As in, patenting algorithms is not possible? But patenting software is? But isn't software code after all?

[juxtaposed]

Why should a software developer work for free?

I don't know, but however they do it, it works well.

[Swab]

This is no different than a musician claiming rights to their music, or an actor claiming rights to their likeness for advertising.

Actually it's completely different. You don't see a musician claiming that they invented a new way to play the guitar and that nobody else is allowed to play in that way.

I think it is you who needs to read up on patents.

[bobbybobington]

Patent: The concept of a mouse cursor or icon or folder
Code: the actual software to do those things

Microsoft has tried to take down linux via SCO vs. IBM, by claiming CODE was infringing. That didn't work.

Now they are claiming that linux infringes on their PATENTS. The catch is that they aren't saying what they are. It could be somthing stupid that wouldn't hold up in court like the idea of a "trash folder" etc... But the fact that they aren't releasing what the patents are, tells us that they don't really care about the patents. The patents are just a means to an end. That end of course the kind of "I won't sue you over IP if you pay us deal" that Novell and Xandros have signed. The ultimate goal is survive Linux. Linux is a threat to their business, so they need a way to make money off of linux.

[Adamant1988]

Patent: The concept of a mouse cursor or icon or folder
Code: the actual software to do those things

Microsoft has tried to take down linux via SCO vs. IBM, by claiming CODE was infringing. That didn't work.

Now they are claiming that linux infringes on their PATENTS. The catch is that they aren't saying what they are. It could be somthing stupid that wouldn't hold up in court like the idea of a "trash folder" etc... But the fact that they aren't releasing what the patents are, tells us that they don't really care about the patents. The patents are just a means to an end. That end of course the kind of "I won't sue you over IP if you pay us deal" that Novell and Xandros have signed. The ultimate goal is survive Linux. Linux is a threat to their business, so they need a way to make money off of linux.

If Microsoft becomes invested in Linux enough to start being a contributor themselves, in the future, all of the companies that 'sold out' to them, will have eternal bragging rights.

[jrusso2]

1) It is actually highly likely that Linux infringes on Microsoft's intellectual property.
2) Patents and code are not the same thing. A patent covers a way of doing something, while copyright covers the code itself.

I don't agree. I think Microsoft's so called IP would be found to be obvious and therefore not valid.

[samjh]

I wonder why people keep bringing up code issues when discussing patents.

Patents protect ideas, inventions, innovations. Copyrights protect the form or manner in which an idea is manifested.

For example, a guitar player invents a device that can make an electric guitar imitate the sounds of 10 other musical instruments. The player applies for and is awarded a patent for the idea. The patent will include details about the inventor (the guitar player), and the invention (functionality, usage, etc.). The player then copyright the device, which protects its design, circuitry, etc.

A software example (completely hypothetical):

Microsoft comes up with an idea of a "Task Bar" which includes a menu of programs installed in the computer, a variable list of icons that depict running processes, and a system tray that displays processes for [insert explanation], and other specific features.

It then applies for and is award a patent for the invention, "Task Bar", which includes details about the developers who invented the idea (ie. Microsoft and the names of Microsoft employees involved in the project), what the invention does, how it can be used, and the scope of the invention, among other details.

It then copyrights the "Task Bar", which protects the design and implementation (ie. the code) of the "Task Bar".

Microsoft sues the KDE and Gnome projects for patent violation. It claims that the KDE "Panel" includes an application "Menu" that lists installed software, and accommodates a "window list" that displays running processes in a way similar to Microsoft's "Task Bar".

Microsoft does not need to reveal code, or prove that KDE or Gnome used Microsoft's code. Microsoft merely has to prove that the KDE/Gnome "panel" and "window list" are breach of their "Task Bar" patent, in that it has reasonably identical functionality and usage, without being prior art or failing the "obviousness" test.

[bsund]

sry just read the first posts bit drunk here you see..

but i reacted..

to think that all microsofts stuff is crap is complete ignorance

there is extremely talented people at microsoft..

this whole thing is that microsoft feels threatened by GNU and does what it can to fight back..

if GNU/Linux/Ubuntu would get close to M$'s userbase (client side).... there would be loads and loads of these threats..

I think MS Lawyer think "hmm that GNU program does same thing as our, lets sue" whilst GNU programmer think "hmm that MS app is kewl but lack this.. lets make it better"

anyhow..

for Patents.. Software Patents are true crap.. it's like someone take patent on doing left turns with a car.. and everytime someone take a left turn they either are breaking the patent or have to pay a fee..

thank god (jesus,muhammed,buddha,satan,whoever) EU didnt approve software patent and i hope it will be abandoned in us

[Adamant1988]

I don't agree. I think Microsoft's so called IP would be found to be obvious and therefore not valid.

Just the kernel infringes on 300 patents. That is JUST the kernel. You're telling me, that out of all of the applications that run on top of that kernel, and are distributed with Linux; that none of the GNU tools, NONE of it violates a Microsoft patent? You know what, I'll take that bet. Out of those 285 patents that Microsoft is claiming are a problem, it only takes one to be an issue.