backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 156 comment(s) - last by Jack Ripoff.. on May 24 at 11:14 PM

Open-source software infringes on its patents says Microsoft

The love-hate relationship between Windows users and Linux users has existed for many years. Advocates for free open-source software feel the open-source industry develops and improves software an order of magnitude greater than anything Microsoft can dish out. The Redmond, Washington-based software giant feels otherwise, claiming that free software curbs innovation and progress.

Innovation and progress is precisely what Microsoft aims to protect, and it does so using patents. Patents are the life blood of the software industry, and if patents did not exist then innovation would not progress the way it has been, according to Microsoft.

In light of that, Microsoft now claims Linux and many other open source software infringe on its patents -- a lot of them. Microsoft claims it has the right to demand royalties from Linux distributions and essentially users of Linux. In an interview with Fortune, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer clearly indicates he is all for supporting the protection of intellectual property.

"We live in a world where we honor, and support the honoring of, intellectual property. [The open source community will have to] play by the same rules as the rest of the business. What's fair is fair," Ballmer said.

Brad Smith, senior vice president and general council to Microsoft, said patents are required in this day and age to protect innovation. Smith and the rest of Microsoft believe that without patents, ideas and methods of doing things would often be stolen. In fact, according to Smith, the Linux kernel itself violates 42 Microsoft patents. Worst yet, Linux graphical interfaces such as KDE violate another 65 patents.

Microsoft doesn't stop at Linux. Open Office and other free e-mail applications are infringing on a total of 60 patents, Smith said. According to Smith, Microsoft is like any other company trying to protect its property and rights.

"Companies are very sensitive to the importance of protecting intellectual property because ultimately they know that their own businesses similarly turn on [such] protection," Smith said.

Microsoft wants to strike a deal -- a deal with those developing and distributing Linux and other vendors of free software. The deal Microsoft wants is simple: pay up.

Novell, the propagator of the widely popular SUSE Linux already rolls dice according to Microsoft's rules. The Linux advocator recently entered into a complex deal with Microsoft over Linux patent violations. According to the deal, Microsoft and Novell agreed not to sue each other's customers, because if Novell tried to sue Microsoft it would then violate terms of the General Public License (GPL) -- the foundation on which all open-source software is based on.

Based on the terms that both companies came up with, Novell agreed to pay Microsoft a percentage of all its Linux revenue until the year 2011. However, Microsoft too ended up paying Novell over $108 million and another $240 million in resalable coupons. Judging from the fact that Microsoft ended up paying Novell more than it received, it would appear that open-software and Linux was one-up on the software giant.

According to open-software experts Microsoft is the real winner. The deal with Novell allows Microsoft to go out and demonstrate it is correct about Linux violating Microsoft patents, since Novell agreed to pay $40 million not to have its Linux customers sued for violations.

Industry insiders are now weary of what may come of Microsoft's experts. If Microsoft convinces the patent system that it is right, the open-source industry could face potential meltdown. Eben Moglen, executive director of the Software Freedom Law Center says a massive war is about to be waged on the patent battlefield.

"Patent law's going to be the terrain on which a big piece of the war's going to be fought. Waterloo is here somewhere," Moglen said.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

My thoughts...
By smitty3268 on 5/14/2007 1:27:13 PM , Rating: 5
1. When you can get a patent for "buying something with a single click" that is supposedly non-obvious, the fact that MS only says a couple hundred patents are being broken is pretty amazing.

2. MS refuses to list out the patents being broken, just like SCO refused to cite the code it was upset about. We all know how that turned out.

3. Is MS really going to start suing it's own customers? Organizations like the Department of Defense are huge Linux users.

4. Is MS really ready to start a patent war? If they do, IBM and other tech companies could start enforcing their patents on MS, and they have thousands of them.

5. The Supreme Court recently made a ruling that will result in more patents being thrown out in court.

6. I believe antitrust law comes into play regarding patent enforcement, so their past could come back to haunt them here.

Conclusion: This is all just a marketing stunt, where MS makes noise about how dangerous Linux is, so customers keep buying from MS. It could also be designed to pressure Red Hat to come to a similar agreement to the one Novell took, as they've been talking about it recently and Red Hat said they would only do it if the agreement was about open standards.




RE: My thoughts...
By Flunk on 5/14/2007 1:36:06 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the idea of software patents, especially ones on abstract concepts is absolutely silly. Software is covered under intellectual property and patents are for physically applicable (and specific) ideas.

This blatant attack by Microsoft (and other like it) show the flaws in the software patent system more than anything else. I believe that patent laws must be reformed to prevent large corporations from patenting obvious and abstract things or anyone without the money to fight these lawsuits is in jeopardy including the consumer.


RE: My thoughts...
By TomZ on 5/14/2007 2:43:57 PM , Rating: 1
What percentage of issued patents do you think relate to "obvious and abstract things"? I'll bet the number is quite a bit smaller than you think.


RE: My thoughts...
By smitty3268 on 5/14/2007 2:48:58 PM , Rating: 5
Software related? 50%

Non-software related? .5%

But I'm just guessing. I doubt you know either. Unless you're a IP lawyer? Practically every patent that is applied for is granted, because the govt. doesn't have enough specialists hired to go over them.


RE: My thoughts...
RE: My thoughts...
By Oregonian2 on 5/14/2007 4:51:30 PM , Rating: 5
Once upon a time when I worked for a large company, I was on an internal patent review list of people who reviewed "relevant" patents that somebody in the organization thought relevant to our business and I was to evaluate how it might apply to us (not my job as such, I was a relatively senior engineer back then and it was just something that came by once a month that I recall). I'll say right off that they weren't software patents that came by "my desk". Among the hardware patents (those that weren't just patenting someone's entire system design of something as a patent -- not sure why they did that, but whatever), a VERY large percentage, more than half were obvious solutions to the problem. Obvious to me anyway -- or often techniques that I had used previously, sometimes a long time previously (technically not patentable, but they still do so). Now, to a patent office clerk, maybe not obvious, but to a practicing engineer in the relevant field, very obvious -- if not the ONLY obvious solution to the problem. I can only extrapolate to SW patents, that given the same problem to solve that the same solution would have been obvious a lot of the time, if not most of the time. When I took a patents class a long time ago, such things (obvious to one "skilled in the arts" and/or previously used techniques) weren't supposed to be patentable. But in these days of lawyers-rule, I suppose such things don't matter.

P.S. - Some of dumbest (IMO) patents are ones where in a microprocessor design someone invents and patents the IDENTICAL approach that was used previously to solve the SAME problem in minicomputers or mainframes (back when minicomputers used to exist). Duh!


RE: My thoughts...
By treesloth on 5/15/2007 3:53:35 PM , Rating: 2
Regarding the P.S., do you know how such patents were ever awarded? IANAL, but it seems that what you're describing is a textbook case of prior art, which should negate the patent. I understand you're coming to this from an engineering standpoint and not a lawyer's, but did you ever encounter an explanation for the patents' validity?


RE: My thoughts...
By Oregonian2 on 5/16/2007 5:18:09 PM , Rating: 3
Even if they're stupid and invalid, they're still powerfully useful. They're not useful for IBM to sue Microsoft with, but are useful for the suing of small companies. Having a patent, even if utterly stupid, puts the burden of proof on the other guy. It's valid until proven otherwise (in court). So even the dumbest patent can be useful to intimidate small companies that don't want to pay lawyers to go to court to prove it invalid. I know that in the olden days before my time there was at least one large company that had a big ledger board on the wall listing how many patents and/or applications that each engineer in the company had. Big public scorecard list. In that sort of atmosphere they'd be trying to patent the concept of having a patent.


RE: My thoughts...
RE: My thoughts...
By borowki on 5/14/2007 3:12:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
4. Is MS really ready to start a patent war? If they do, IBM and other tech companies could start enforcing their patents on MS, and they have thousands of them.

5. The Supreme Court recently made a ruling that will result in more patents being thrown out in court.


The recent Supreme Court decision and a few before it are precisely why Microsoft is pushing the issue now, as they make it harder to wage your so-called "patent war." The MedImmune v. Genentech ruling, for example, means that the company could license a patented technology while challenging its validity. eBay v. MercExchange means it's unlikely an injunction would be granted against Windows. Finally, KSR v. Teleflex tightens the stardard for patent, making it harder to win with bogus ones.

It's to Microsoft's advantage that the Supreme Court has put in place reasonable ground rules regarding patents. The company can play by the rules: If someone else owns a valid patent, it can pay a licensing fee or obtain the technology through a cross-licensing agreement. It's the Open Source crowd who can't play by these rules.


RE: My thoughts...
By Ard on 5/14/2007 4:46:44 PM , Rating: 3
KSR loosened the standard, not tightened. The Fed Circuit of Appeals had a much stricter standard of obviousness, requiring that a patent was only obvious if the prior art taught/suggested tying the earlier inventions together. The SC said this was far too strict and that obviousness should be looked at in other dimensions.

On-topic, if MS is coming after Linux after all these years, I'd think laches would've set in by now, effectively barring their claims.


RE: My thoughts...
By Ard on 5/14/2007 4:50:20 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, it depends on what you mean by tightening the standard. If you meant tightening the standard of getting a patent issued, then we're on the same page, as a looser standard of invalidating a standard is on point with the KSR ruling.


RE: My thoughts...
By Ard on 5/14/2007 4:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
Goddamn, need an edit system. Invalidating a patent.


RE: My thoughts...
By TomZ on 5/14/2007 5:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I hold a software patent to editing post comments, and DT wasn't willing to pay the license fee. :o)


RE: My thoughts...
By Vinnybcfc on 5/15/2007 7:07:11 AM , Rating: 2
You better go after PhpBB their properly using Edit for free


RE: My thoughts...
By Vinnybcfc on 5/15/2007 7:07:57 AM , Rating: 2
dam typing too quickly :(

probably* using Edit for free


RE: My thoughts...
By Jack Ripoff on 5/14/2007 8:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"It's the Open Source crowd who can't play by these rules."

quote:
"While Microsoft professes a preference to license rather than litigate, its record indicates otherwise. On Feb. 22, 2007, a jury awarded a $1.52 billion patent judgment in favor of Alcatel-Lucent against Microsoft over the Redmond, Wash., company's use of MP3 codices. This was the largest patent award in history. In the Eolas case, Microsoft was also found guilty in a $521 million patent infringement ruling over how Internet Explorer handled embedded content.

Richard Fontana, counsel for the SFLC (Software Freedom Law Center), which works with the Free Software Foundation, said that these judgments "[suggest] that it is Microsoft's proprietary software that is full of IP risk, and not Linux or FOSS [free and open-source software]. In the past three years alone, Microsoft has publicly paid out more than $4 billion dollars in settlements and court awards for alleged infringements of other companies' patents. And if any of Microsoft's own patents are not novel and non-obvious, that means that Microsoft's purported IP includes property it does not actually have any right to own -- property that has essentially been misappropriated from earlier inventors, or from the public."

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8462761823.html

quote:
"Open source faces no more, if not less, legal risk than proprietary software. The market needs to understand that the study Microsoft is citing actually proves the opposite of what they claim it does.

There is no reason to believe that GNU/Linux has any greater risk of infringing patents than Windows, Unix-based or any other functionally similar operating system. Why? Because patents are infringed by specific structures that accomplish specific functionality," Ravicher said."

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1729908,00.as...

Is it opensource that can't play by the rules or is it Microsoft?


RE: My thoughts...
By TomZ on 5/14/07, Rating: 0