In my post here, I repeated Microsoft’s position that free and open source and Linux (hereinafter referred to as foux) infringes on no less than 235 Microsoft patents.
The open source crowd's invidiousness over Microsoft's patents, and indeed, it's (Microsoft's) entire IP portfolio and good fortune reached a defeaning crescendo this past week, with everyone and their shadows weighing in.
A little backgrounder:
In the May 14, 2007 issue of Fortune magazine, Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith, and licensing chief, Horacio Gutierrez informs users about the exact number of patents that are being infringed upon by the foux crowd.
Nowhere did they say they were going after any single individual or entity.
Though, they are entitled to that.
Do they have patents?
Without a doubt, yes.
Should they enforce them?
Yes.
You would think Microsoft’s legally obtained patents would be respected.
After all, it is Microsoft’s lawful property.
If they do not defend their IP vigorously, and those patents fall into disuse, then it invariably invalidates those patents.
What they have tried to do, is have the infringers agree contractually, to infringing on the patents in question, and to giving them (Microsoft) a merely trifling amount of money for compensation for the gi-normous amount of money that went into the development of those patents.
Reasonable, isn’t it?
To regular humans, yes.
However, to those troglodytes in the foux crowd, it is an affront.
Well, it is time to pay the piper: you steal (and make no mistake, what is being done is stealing, the criminality of which is still undeclared) IP belonging to a legitimate owner, be prepared to pay for that privilege. Just because you champion a free tableau, does not make theft OK.
Already you have man+dog coming out of the proverbial woodwork weighing in on this situation.
Discounting the neo-communistic ravings of Stallman and the maniacal rants of Moglen, we chance upon the following four opinions, which, in the light of their absolute absurdity, I highlight here.
Linus: Linus is yapping about Microsoft’s need to declare which products, and which patents. Err, sorry, Li. Not the way it works in the US of A, boy-o. The onus is on you to find out whose toes you might be steppin’ on, not the other way around.
Henderson: A blogger on this very site, Tom Henderson, wrote an op-ed piece titled, “A call to action against Microsoft’s open source threats”. In the article, he advises Microsoft to develop a Microsoft Linux distribution if, in fact, open source is infringing on Microsoft’s IP. He further opines that if there were some sort of action brought by Microsoft, then open source developers would go underground to steal IP and incorporate them in shipping products.
Is that an absolutely moronic piece of work or what?
Are you kidding!
Guy, let me shed light on those two asinine points.
1) Feel free to wait until Hades becomes a Sub-Zero mega-mart before Microsoft releases a Linux distribution
2) If the developers of open source go underground after more theft of Microsoft’s IP, fine. Their products will continue to be niche products, and even then only in the hands of the very few, as corporations and large-scale enterprises would not touch them for fear of litigation, as conspirators, either before, during, or after the fact.
Brander: this longtime Microsoft-basher , whose column in the print version of this site should be called The Microsoft Bash, thinks Microsoft is trying to outdo SCO in the sleaze department. How stupid is that assertion!
Metcalfe: this generation’s Cassandra*, LOL. Metcalfe asserts that Microsoft, without the aid of the government, would need a pair of F-16s to enforce his copyrights. If that is what it takes, then I suppose Microsoft would have to do so.
Funny though, that this is coming from a yob who insists on adding the words, 'the inventor of Ethernet' to every article he pens, or any description of him.
Bob, you are so out of touch as to be irrelevant.
Turn the page already.
It is waaay past 15 minutes. Go away.
*(While Metcalfe was previously well known as the inventor of the word 'Ethernet', he is more recently renowned for his 1995 apocalyptic proclamation about the end of the world sometime in 1996. Since that time, he has tried, IMHO, to make light of that statement.
In fact, the only sane person in the open source crowd is fellow African, Mark Shuttleworth, of Canonical, who correctly observes that the patent system, as currently run needs to be improved upon.
Can you believe the ‘nads on the foux cattle?
Did I hear anyone of them weep for Microsoft, which has paid out over $4 billion USD over the past few for patent licenses and infringement?
Per my policy of not linking to absurd columns, I have provided no links.
Pat me on the back for standing up to these fools here, or drop me a line at john.obeto@absolutevista.com.
Can’t get enough Microsoft information? Visit Microsoft Subnet for more opinions and news.
The Leader in Network Knowledge
Show us the patents!
Linux has not even been ACCUSED of violating any specific patent. Nothing but yelling, chair throwing and FUD. MicroShaft is acting like a terrorist gang that claims to have 235 hostages but refuses to show them. It's time to crap or get off the pot. If they can't show ONE hostage - err, patent - we have to conclude that they're just blowing gas and send in the SWAT team.
Patents
By your own logic, MS should have paid those companies first since they had a legitimate patents. I don't understand why they had to sue MS. A such gracious company like MS should have known it and pay it out. I don't know how much but just pay it. I'm sure there are more patents out there they are infringing, please don't look just pay it out to everybody.
Time to Give Up MicroJunk
This is a good point and I have said this myself. I think microjunk is finally seeing that Linux & Unix have grown up and are pretty powerful and getting way more user friendly. If they really do have patents that are infringed on they should show this and prove it. Not Bully business and end users. Again this goes back to Microjunk being a Monopoly and now trying to strong arm everyone to stay with them. They have had a good run and now it is time that they fall. All this horrible software that they write with more security holes when first released than 5 yr old socks.
Insight to Linux Community
Most of the community is knows that Microsoft can only use the 235 number if they don't tell anyone the patents, if they sue, everyone will know the patent number. You don't seem to get that.
Additionally, you don't seem to get that Microsoft is infringing on almost as many OIN patents.
So, many of the foux folks (including myself) would welcome a lawsuit. As soon as Microsoft shows a patent, if it's an enforceable and truly valid patent, Linux developers will code around it very quickly. So, either the problem will get fixed, and the 235 will drop in number, or, one hell of a Patent Armageddon will ensue.
It's not like Linux is stepping on anyone's copyrights.
Troll
Troll.
Pot and Kettle
You miss something that is seriously important in your argument: the fact that it is impossible to write a program of any complexity with accidentally infringing a patent. This is why cross-licensing is so prevalent across the industry.
Given how easy it is to infringe upon someone else's prior art, you can be sure that Microsoft will have done it several times across the computer industry, and will have done so with respect to open source software for sure.
Except that "prior art" isn't a patent. None the less it is an equal moral claim to the idea, if not of the same legal force. If you're going to call the independent descovery of an idea "stealing" when legally it is "infringement", then you're making a moral, rather than a legal claim. And I'm afraid to say that in general, others invent where Microsoft merely innovates.
Oh, and one more thing: plenty of patent-owning entities have put code into open-source software, and retain the patents. Are you so sure that Microsoft have always filed ahead of their competition?
Someone is in need of a nap
My oh my, friend, you certainly are fired up. First off, it's a legal issue, no need to be talking down to an entire group of people. I'm pretty happy with linux. And I don't use the money symbol when referrencing Microsoft (imagine that!).
However, that is a pretty high pedestal you stand on defending a company whose practices have at least in the past been rather questionable; as well as a company who has been under some serious legal scrutiny itself in the past decade.
It's not like open source appeared overnight; it's made lots of people money for years. Previously, the only MS reply was that it's free competitors are unreliable and not well supported. Why legal threats now? (Operative word being 'threats').
The 'foux' peoples stance (when not fanatical, there are some loons out there) have been to adhere to the law, ie, whatever a court decides - whichever way it turns out, so we can all get back to whatever it is we do.
Basically, sir, all I'm really trying to say is that Microsoft is probably blowing smoke, it was a publicity stunt, not legal action. That, and take it easy, buddy, they're JUST COMPUTERS!
Well, just my two cents. Don't worry, Tux forgives you.
g'day
Good joke
However your web server is infringing at least 5 Microsoft patents that I can see. No I'm not telling you which ones - after all "that isn't how it works in the good ol' US of A". It is "time to pay the piper". You've been "stealing". Pay up or else.
Ummm. Do you know what a patent is?
1) Trademarks must be defended or they become invalid. Patents do not.
2) The *purpose* of the patent system is to specify your exact methods, in a reproducible manner, to the public. In return, you get a monopoly on those methods for a limited period of time. But there are no secrets. Trade secrets are something different -- if you choose to go that route, your protections are considerably less (but your term is limited only by how long you can keep the secret.)
This means that it *is* the way it works in the 'ol U. S. of A, boy-o. Your patent protection is designed to prevent people from using your methods without your permission, but in order to do that, you must tell them what they are violating.
3) A recent Supreme Court *unanimous* decision overturned the ridiculous criteria that lower courts had been using to evaluate the 'obviousness' criterion for patent eligibility. The lower courts and the USPTO have for years been applying a standard that resulted in an incredible number of silly patents being issued. Many of the patents MS has obtained would fail the standards that the SCOTUS applied -- this means that most if not all are invalid patents. They are *not* legally acquired patents until they have passed court review, so Microsoft may own nothing of value. Are all MS's patents worthless? Dunno, but some pretty "obviously" are: The IsNot patent, the FAT patent (FAT is way over 20 years old), the patent for tabbing through a web page, etc., etc.
4) Software patents are a relatively recent result of a 1998 appeals court ruling that allowed the patent of "business methods." Thomas Jefferson, (founder of our current patent system and one of the first patent examiners), the courts and the USPTO up until 1998 held that pure mathematics is not patentable. Several Supreme Court decisions bear this out.
And guess what? Software is a collection of algorithms and algorithms are math. SCOTUS hasn't weighed in on software patents since 1981, but at that time still firmly held that the principle that math was not patentable was still valid. All the recent activity with software patents has been spurred by lower courts and the USPTO, and are subject to being overturned by SCOTUS. We don't know what the current Court will do with software patents if they come before it, but we DO know that they have rejected some of the shennanigans that the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit has been up to in its patent decisions.
So it's *way* premature to claim that Microsoft has "legally obtained" IP in its patent portfolio.
5) Other entities own patents as well. OIN, IBM (the largest holder of intellectual property on the planet), Red Hat, etc. All of these have pledged to use their portfolios to defend any FOSS against patent claims. The nature of patents (and software patents in particular) mean that Microsoft is infringing on a great many of those patents. If they were to assert their rather specious claims again FOSS, they would be faced with counter suits out the wazoo. This would not be a net win for MS, and they know it.
And yes, the Open Source world has generally been supportive of MS in its fight against patent trolls. It was wrong that they were held up over stupid patents that should never have been issued, and it would be wrong for them to hold up others over stupid patents that should never have been issued.
But you obviously don't have much of a clue about what a patent is, other than the fact that it's called "intellectual property" so it must be valuable.
Ummm. Do you know what a patent is?
1) Trademarks must be defended or they become invalid. Patents do not.
2) The *purpose* of the patent system is to specify your exact methods, in a reproducible manner, to the public. In return, you get a monopoly on those methods for a limited period of time. But there are no secrets. Trade secrets are something different -- if you choose to go that route, your protections are considerably less (but your term is limited only by how long you can keep the secret.)
This means that it *is* the way it works in the 'ol U. S. of A, boy-o. Your patent protection is designed to prevent people from using your methods without your permission, but in order to do that, you must tell them what they are violating.
3) A recent Supreme Court *unanimous* decision overturned the ridiculous criteria that lower courts had been using to evaluate the 'obviousness' criterion for patent eligibility. The lower courts and the USPTO have for years been applying a standard that resulted in an incredible number of silly patents being issued. Many of the patents MS has obtained would fail the standards that the SCOTUS applied -- this means that most if not all are invalid patents. They are *not* legally acquired patents until they have passed court review, so Microsoft may own nothing of value. Are all MS's patents worthless? Dunno, but some pretty "obviously" are: The IsNot patent, the FAT patent (FAT is way over 20 years old), the patent for tabbing through a web page, etc., etc.
4) Software patents are a relatively recent result of a 1998 appeals court ruling that allowed the patent of "business methods." Thomas Jefferson, (founder of our current patent system and one of the first patent examiners), the courts and the USPTO up until 1998 held that pure mathematics is not patentable. Several Supreme Court decisions bear this out.
And guess what? Software is a collection of algorithms and algorithms are math. SCOTUS hasn't weighed in on software patents since 1981, but at that time still firmly held that the principle that math was not patentable was still valid. All the recent activity with software patents has been spurred by lower courts and the USPTO, and are subject to being overturned by SCOTUS. We don't know what the current Court will do with software patents if they come before it, but we DO know that they have rejected some of the shennanigans that the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit has been up to in its patent decisions.
So it's *way* premature to claim that Microsoft has "legally obtained" IP in its patent portfolio.
5) Other entities own patents as well. OIN, IBM (the largest holder of intellectual property on the planet), Red Hat, etc. All of these have pledged to use their portfolios to defend any FOSS against patent claims. The nature of patents (and software patents in particular) mean that Microsoft is infringing on a great many of those patents. If they were to assert their rather specious claims again FOSS, they would be faced with counter suits out the wazoo. This would not be a net win for MS, and they know it.
And yes, the Open Source world has generally been supportive of MS in its fight against patent trolls. It was wrong that they were held up over stupid patents that should never have been issued, and it would be wrong for them to hold up others over stupid patents that should never have been issued.
But you obviously don't have much of a clue about what a patent is, other than the fact that it's called "intellectual property" so it must be valuable.