Microsoft Getting Paid for Patents in Linux?

kripkenstein noted an Interview with Jeremy Allison where the interviewer asks 'One of the persistent rumors that's going around is that certain large IT customers have already been paying Microsoft for patent licensing to cover their use of Linux, Samba and other free software projects.' and Jeremy responds "Yes, that's true, actually. I mean I have had people come up to me and essentially off the record admit that they had been threatened by Microsoft and had got patent cross license and had essentially taken out a license for Microsoft patents on the free software that they were using [...] But they're not telling anyone about it. They're completely doing it off the record."

Why shouldn't they ?

[Space cowboy (13680)]

Yes, I know, software patents are the spawn of Satan, no-one (not even me, actually :-) likes them. The point is, though, that software patents are currently completely legal, and any owner of such is going to exploit that. Why would anyone expect anything different ?

I'm nowhere near a fanboy for Microsoft (quite the opposite, if you read my posting history), but in this case, I can't see they've done anything *wrong*. You can argue that software patents are bad - yes, agreed. You can argue that these particular patents are flawed, perhaps they are. You can argue that it's just not moral to profit from the work of others, and yes I agree with that too.

But, sadly, what they're doing appears to be legal, so perhaps the ire ought to be directed at what makes it legal, rather than shooting the messenger (dammit :-).

Simon (ducking)

Re:

[numbski (515011)]

I've not used Google. Sorry.

If SMB protocol is patented (wouldn't suprise me) apple would be in trouble too.

Then again, BeOS back in the day (hey, the free version in 99 quickly became my primary OS!) used CIFS (common internetwork file share) and apparently was inter-operable with SMB somehow? I've always been a bit vague on that point.

Anyhoo. If CIFS is "available" and "interoperable", why does everyone insist on SMB vs CIFS?

Re:Why shouldn't they ?

[numbski (515011)]

D'oh. Found my answer:

http://ubiqx.org/cifs/SMB.html [ubiqx.org]

"Like NetBIOS, the Server Message Block protocol originated a long time ago at IBM. Microsoft embraced it, extended it, and in 1996 gave it a marketing upgrade by renaming it "CIFS"."

Short answer: I have it backwards. SMB is the "open" one. CIFS is what you get after MS does their embrace and extend act on it. Ooops. Sorry for the misinformation!

Re:

[fatboy (6851)]

Enable WINS on one of your DNS boxen and point your client machine to it. (My best off the cuff guess)

WINS on a Mac

[StarKruzr (74642)]

Long ago and far away, before there was OSX, when sysadmins needed to connect Macs to Windows shares, there was... DAVE. [thursby.com] :)

Dave does WINS.

Re:Why shouldn't they ?

[Canordis (826884)]

Legal isn't the same as moral. Just because there's no law against something doesn't make it morally acceptable.

Re:

[Teun (17872)]

I would say (if true) Microsoft is trying to make money of the OSS developers by claiming it's their own.
If MS has found their IP in OSS stuff they ought to come forward and give the programmer a chance to fix it.
But then MS might only have SCO-type of proof...

Makes me wonder, if ever someone gets dragged into court by MS claiming their IP is being infringes upon and that someone could prove MS knew about it for a long time, even charges for it, would/should that make it a difficult case for MS?

Re:

[growse (928427)]

No, No they havn't.

Unless selling out = working with microsoft to provide non-GPL proprietory tools which allow better linux/windows interoperability and agreeing that both microsoft and linux code probably infringe on each other's patents and therefore agreeing not to sue each others' customers.

To me, that's not selling out, that's being sensible and making your product more attractive to corporates with $$$. Some would even say it was a smart business move.

Re:Why shouldn't they ?

[grcumb (781340)]

Unless selling out = working with microsoft to provide non-GPL proprietory tools which allow better linux/windows interoperability and agreeing that both microsoft and linux code probably infringe on each other's patents and therefore agreeing not to sue each others' customers.

No, selling out == doing an end-run around the GPL by exploiting a legal technicality that subverts the intent of the license and leaves other Linux vendors in a position of increased liability. At one and the same time, it also subverts Novell's position in the market, because GPL 3 is virtually guaranteed to block this hole, making Novell's future status (and therefore its clients' as well) quite uncertain.

To my knowledge, there is no admission of infringement - or statement of non-infringement - of patents. The only thing it contains is an agreement not sue the others' customers. And this is the most insidious element of the agreement. It creates an atmosphere of FUD, and does nothing to clarify the two parties' relative positions.

Make no mistake - the only winner in this debacle is Microsoft.

I don't know why they should not own everything.

[twitter (104583)]

But, sadly, what they're doing appears to be legal, so perhaps the ire ought to be directed at what makes it legal, rather than shooting the messenger (dammit :-).

In this case, the messenger is also the guilty party. M$ is one of the largest proponents of software patents and other bogus "IP" laws.

The reason you should be outraged is that they now own your code. Without any further effort than paying off a bunch of lawmakers and lawyers, they have secured an income on .... everything. They also grant themselves the power to shut down projects they don't like. Make no mistake, a little control for M$ is total control when it gets in the way of your software freedoms. Long after Vista bombs in the market place, M$ will be profiting from your work and using it to cause you further harm in any way they please.

This is why anti-patent language in GPL 3 is so important and why everyone should support it. The true cost of supporting M$ though judicial extortion will only be revealed if we hang together. The internet itself would not function without GPL'd code. Laws will change if suddenly that code is unavailable.

I'm nowhere near a fanboy for Microsoft (quite the opposite, if you read my posting history)

I will do exactly that. See you in half an hour or so.

Re:Why shouldn't they ?

[Schraegstrichpunkt (931443)]

Contributory copyright infringement.

Quoting GPLv2 section 7:

For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

If you take out a Microsoft patent license, then you make copies of a Fedora CD to install throughout your organization, you are guilty of copyright infringement. Microsoft knows this.

(If you argue that making copies of Fedora CDs in violation of the GPL isn't actually copyright infringement, then neither is making copies of Windows 2000 CDs. I doubt that's Microsoft's position.)

Re:Why shouldn't they ?

[bcrowell (177657)]

But, sadly, what they're doing appears to be legal, so perhaps the ire ought to be directed at what makes it legal, rather than shooting the messenger (dammit :-).
Allison's argument is that it's not legal for the companies that are paying the money to MS. Those companies are only licensed to use Linux under the GPL. The GPL forbids what they're doing. (I'm sure that's a vast oversimplification, but that seems to be the general idea.)

Re:Why shouldn't they ?

[CAIMLAS (41445)]

It's legal? It sounds like blackmail to me.

"Pay us under the table and we'll not sue you into the ground on the basis of something which has never been proven before - but you'd rather not have to risk it, wouldn't you?"

In this case, the messenger is the message

[g2devi (898503)]

In this case, blaming Microsoft for this (assuming the claims are real) is not shooting the messenger.

Microsoft refuses to reveal which code is infringing so that it could either be rewritten or (more likely) have the patent struck down due to prior art.

They're basically saying "You did something wrong but I'm not telling you what you did and you have to make up for it or else.". This is just plain extortion and should be dealt with as such.

As the old saying goes, when messenger is the message it's okay to

Plausible, but no proof

[daeg (828071)]

While the idea is plausible and scary, where's the proof? If I were being threatened by Microsoft, I'd sure as hell make it public. What better way to defend yourself than getting support of the entire Linux/Free Software community?

Re:Plausible, but no proof

[DarkOx (621550)]

Its a nice thought and as a private organization or individual it might make sense but its not going to make sense to lots of corporate decision makers. Publicly admiting the Microsoft is threating to sue you is *Not* going to help your stock price any. Changes are you own some stock in the business yourself, so there is even a personal motiviation. Also there is going to be a long and costly legal battle if you decide to go the mat with M$. You can't afford to half ass your defense, if you lose its gonna really hurt so the only option is win, that is going to take dollars that you may not want to spend, because you could use them to be otherwise competivie, or you might not even have those dollars.

No for most public companies its going to be cheaper to bow to M$ extortion, hint M$ will customize their demands so that is the case, then to fight them. Its no surpise at all M$ can basically shake down corporate FOSS users. Until the patent/copyright situation is really resolved and sadly I don't think the SCO case is going to fully resolve it, especially the patent side, M$ can bully anyone they want.

Which is exactly what Novell was trying to stop ostensibly, although I think their motives were far less pure personaly.

If you do that....

[jotaeleemeese (303437)]

... you can as well hand over your company to Microsoft and do something else. Like flipping burgers.

If you think the shares of a company going open about something like this would tank, I would like to see what would be the result for MS shares (whose price had remained pretty flat for some time now).

I think this article is baseless, but it is nice weekend speculation, conspiracy theories and all that.

But then again, if somebody would have described SCO's actions before they started their disgraceful charade, few would have believed it.

Re:Plausible, but no proof

[HangingChad (677530)]

While the idea is plausible and scary, where's the proof?

I'd like to know that, too. Name some of these companies. Because I work with a lot of big end users, most of them running Linux in some fashion, and they all seem to enjoy telling the MSFT rep they lost those sales. I've been in the meetings, MSFT has questioned Linux IP but not in any specific fashion. When I asked them point blank if that was a threat they backed right off it.

You'd think if MSFT was really trying to muscle companies someone would be talking. Anyone have a copy of the letter? I'd be posting mine on Groklaw, then turn the stories in for here and Digg. I'd be amazed if MSFT could keep anything this big a secret as disorganized as they are.

Or maybe a couple wise guys show up at the office and say if they don't pay bad "tings" might happen?

Let's see some proof or this is FUD.

so do home users

[CaptnMArk (9003)]

Most home users have been forced to buy XP home anyway.

NFS is easier anyways

[tomstdenis (446163)]

No big loss. NFS is easier to use, has real file permissions, etc.

Just another "innovation" from MSFT [smb] that they'll try to horde instead of playing the "let's weigh in on technical merits" game.

And for fuck sake, why doesn't Windows support NFS? It makes mixing boxes on a lan such a bitch ... oh wait ... I get it.

Tom

Re:NFS is easier anyways

[undertow3886 (605537)]

First of all, Windows does support NFS. Secondly, NFS security is a joke. All you have to do is change the user ID of your user on your machine to the user ID of the person you want to steal files from on the file server. Gods help your server admin if he doesn't have root_squash enabled. Then all you have to do is su to root on your machine, and you have access to everything on the file server.

SMB has actual security and checks on the server side. Hence you have to type a password with mount -t smb, but not with mount -t nfs. Doesn't it seem kind of suspect when you don't have to enter a password with NFS?

Re:

[MemoryDragon (544441)]

Actually SMB not even is Microsofts invention it was once an open protocol under the umbrella of IBM. Microsoft blatantly stole it!

Re:NFS is easier anyways

[caseih (160668)]

NFS is easier, but until NFSv4 is widely deployed, SMB may actually be more flexible and more secure. Right now with NFSv3 (which was the default until the last year or two) if I wanted to export NFS shares to clients, I had to make sure I trusted those clients. Even with root squashing, all you have to do is masquerade the uidNumber and the NFSv3 server would happily give you full access. There were no user/password authentication and credentials at all. In fact at one time I was seriously looking at using a special pam module/daemon that would automount the user's home directory via cifs. In fact if you'll look at what Samba has done with CIFS (CIFS - an ironic name, no? What's common about it?) to add unix semantics including symlinks, you'll see that Samba is a possibility to replace NFS servers in some cases.

Even in the mac world, rather than mess with AFP (which isn't difficult to use or set up), we just tell our mac users to connect using smb to our servers to get shares when they are not logging into the Apple Domain. It just works and it can communicate with all our OSs.

That said, I feel that NFSv4 is likely a more secure, more open solution. Alas, though, I doubt we'll ever see Windows support it fully, including permission mappings.

Re:NFS is easier anyways

[oohshiny (998054)]

No big loss. NFS is easier to use, has real file permissions, etc.

NFS has been a joke from day one. The design itself had poorly thought out identity mapping, complete lack of authentication, failure to implement UNIX file system semantics, incredible inefficiency, and a useless RPC layer. I think Sun has done a grave disservice to the UNIX world with NFS. To this day, we still don't have a widely used, decent, secure network file system on UNIX.

Re:NFS is easier anyways

[johnw (3725)]

NFS is a joke. The security model is broken in version 3, and in version 4, it's a complicated mess.

This misses the point of the differences between NFS and SMB.

NFS was designed for use in an environment where both client and server boxes were secure, multi-user systems. One logical connection per share would serve for multiple users. Of course, if you allow insecure clients into the equation then all your security is blown out of the water.

SMB was designed on the assumption that the client would be an insecure single-user system. All the security is on the server, and connections are on a per-user basis.

Neither system is really ideal for the situations which we have today. What is needed is a secure system which copes with multi-user client boxes.

John

Re:NFS is easier anyways

[macemoneta (154740)]

What is needed is a secure system which copes with multi-user client boxes.

FUSE and sshfs [sourceforge.net] meet your requirements. I've been using sshfs between 5 systems for a year now, and its operation has been flawless.

Re:

[init100 (915886)]

Neither system is really ideal for the situations which we have today. What is needed is a secure system which copes with multi-user client boxes.

AFS [wikipedia.org]? This system is used by several large sites, such as universities (including mine), governmental and corporate sites.

Re:NFS is easier anyways

[Coward Anonymous (110649)]

"NFS was designed for use in an environment where both client and server boxes were secure, multi-user systems. One logical connection per share would serve for multiple users. Of course, if you allow insecure clients into the equation then all your security is blown out of the water."

And in a world where network jacks are in every wall, it is trivially easy to bring in an "insecure client" and even easier to bring in a LiveCD with you favorite flavor of Linux, NFS is secure how? NFS's default "security" and "authentication" is trivial to circumvent in a practical sense in most corporate environments.
SMB has many drawbacks. However, it's out-of-the-box authentication + ACL mechanism is vastly superior to what NFS (v2 & v3) has to offer. That is why NFSv4 ACLs look alot like Windows ACLs and why RPCSEC_GSS (aka Secure NFS) went from being an option to a MUST in RFC 3010.

Alternatively, you take file serving away from MS

[Colin Smith (2679)]

Write a free cross platform client and server network filesystem which runs on Windows, OSX, Unix, Linux and which uses an open standard for locking, authentication, encryption, ACLs etc.

Leaving file serving in MS's control simply leaves you open to patent infringement etc.

 

Re:Alternatively, you take file serving away from

[shaitand (626655)]

There is a huge problem with this.

'Write a free cross platform client and server network filesystem which runs on...'
Here is the catch.

'...OSX'
Only Apple can make OSX natively support your new standard. They probably will since it is an open standard.

'...Unix'
Unix is modular and you could plug in your solution even if vendors didn't ship it. You probably wouldn't have much trouble getting vendors to include an implementation of your protocol since it only benefits them to do so.

'...Linux'
Duh

'...Windows'
And here is the show stopper. Only Microsoft can integrate native support for your protocol in windows. Further Microsoft has complete control of the API's that would be required to hook support into windows after installation and can change them at will and break your solution's installed base.

Since Microsoft is a monopoly they don't have to play ball and interoperate with you. For the same reason, in order to have a chance of success you must interoperate with them.

Legitimate Businessman's Civic Improvement Cmte...

[mikelieman (35628)]

Would like to discuss your annual donation...

Rocco and Knuckles will be by to pick up the envelope.

Think of the Shareholders

[virtigex (323685)]

Do publicly traded companies have to report this kind of thing? I would be quite concerned if a company whose stock I own was paying money under the table to organizations that had been found guilty of criminal acts [wikipedia.org]. Does anybody have an idea of what companies are doing this, so that they can be asked in a stockholders' meeting.

Yay Rumors!!

[Blakey Rat (99501)]

I heard the illuminadi made them pay Microsoft because these companies know about the Venus base! NOBODY IS SUPPOSED TO KNOW ABOUT THE VENUS BASE! Anyway, the aliens in the Venus base don't use Windows because they know the French government has installed electron bugs in it which can enter your brain and make you like blueberry bagels, and really, who wants that?

Re:

[brxndxn (461473)]

I don't have mod points.. but this is important!!! Please someone, for the love of God, MOD PARENT UP! Our lives depend on it - both our own offspring and the offspring of the alien Mother Womb!

If we don't do something soon, Necrosaro may awake!!! Run for your lives!

Everyone, out of the pool!!!

[libkarl2 (1010619)]

I have yet to hear of any evidence, *ever* in the history of computing, where software patents were anything more than the proverbial Turd In The Swimming Pool(tm). You CAN'T polish a turd! Plate it with gold and voila -- it's STILL a turd!

As Floaters ensure that only the most discusting little kids ever use the swimming pool, Software Patents ensure that only the biggest, most amoral lawyer infested companies thrive in the tech industry.

Puts the Novell Deal in Perspective

[segedunum (883035)]

Now we can see that Microsoft's deal with Novell was explicitly designed to create and solidify this impression amongst companies using Linux. Novell were well and truly bent over the table, despite the fact that they so innocently claim that they have not admitted any IP issues with Linux or the software they use.

Re:

[_Sprocket_ (42527)]

Now we can see that Microsoft's deal with Novell was explicitly designed to create and solidify this impression amongst companies using Linux.

When a business deal is made, the involved parties don't always understand what each side is getting out of it. It's not outside the realm of reason to take Novell's claims at face value. So let's assume Novell went in to negotiations with the best intentions - a real agreement to better compatibility and functionality. Microsoft enters negotiations with an entir

IBM and other Linux OEMs?

[javacowboy (222023)]

Wouldn't you think that IBM, HP, and other large Linux server sellers would be a little annoyed at Microsoft shaking down their customers? The more their customers get shaken down, the less like IBM and all would get repeat business, right?

I would think that IBM could charge Microsoft with Racketeering (which is essentially what MS is doing) on behalf of their Linux customers.

Maybe the average corporation doesn't have the clout to stand up to Microsoft, but IBM does.

(Note: I'm not really a big IBM fan. I'm just pointing out that Microsoft isn't infallible).

Re:fuck IP and MS and everybody

[Explodicle (818405)]

fucking IP bullshit, people patent stuff just for patenting it so they can rape people later maybe someone should shoot them in the motherfucking head.

Slashdot: Where defining "patent trolling" with the language of an asinine thirteen-year-old will get you modded "insightful"! Hooray!

Re:fuck IP and MS and everybody

[Colz Grigor (126123)]

Dear sir,

I regret to inform you that the firm which I represent has acquired a patent on "the desire of shooting people in the motherfucking head" technology, which you've included in your most recent post to Slash Dot.

The licensing fee for this technology is $100, however the penalty fee for utilizing the technology without first having acquired a license is $900, so we will be collecting $1,000 from you post haste.

::Colz Grigor

Proof

[nurb432 (527695)]

As of yet there is no proof they are doing this. " off the record, anonymous contacts" mean nothing.

Now, if its proven to be happening, then ya. its time to get pissed off. ( though, no one can say this wasnt unexpected )

My thoughts exactly

[plopez (54068)]

I am going to call 'urban myth' on this one. If I'm wrong all of slashdot can give me virtual noogies as punishment.

1) If a publicly traded company is under real threat of lawsuit, they would have to publicly declare it or face SEC and exchange scrutiny.

2) Now suppose that they pay up quietly. There has to be a paper trail somewhere. Not openly declaring expenses on your balance sheet/share holder report once again may be a violation.

3) There would be dozens of people involved. The CIO, the CIO's staff, possibly a CEO + staff, accountants + a legal team to review any licensing agreement. Multiply by dozens of companies and you have hundreds of people involved, at minimum. No way a secret can be kept for any length of time with that many people involved. One disgruntled accountant is all you need to blow the lid off.

4) Why would they hush it up? Why not proudly proclaim that they have insured that they are in compliance and that they respect IP?

It doesn't add up. There is a much higher likelyhood that Chewbacca is from Endor.

Re:

[jchenx (267053)]

Disclaimer: I work at MS, although in the Games studios, and no where near the Windows and Office division. We're sort of the red-headed step-child of MS, since we were not exactly "corporate". I can't really comment on the original story, since I have no idea if it's true/FUD, and I don't have insight to give (other than yeah, it seems really slimey).

maybe someone should shoot them in the motherfucking head.

First of all, I know this is just a troll. Yet, it's quotes like these which make me wonder just how

Re:

[frogstar_robot (926792)]

*I* won't be advocating any sort of violence but if MS is engaged in patent extortion then I'm VERY angry about it. This means MS sees me as someone to shake down rather than to make a customer. Right now, I merely dislike MS and their products. If my workplace were ever shaken down in this manner I would be an implacable enemy. If I MUST buy certain technologies then I will make a point of buying them from MS' competitors. Any FOSS solutions they don't put a shadow over will be used in preference eve

In other news...

[Dystopian Rebel (714995)]

Reports of a hostage-taking in Redmond, Washington say that an unidentified man has taken several Microsoft employees hostage and has issued demands for bug fixes as well as the return of Clippy.

"I want system-modal Ok-Cancel dialogs to stop being buried under other dialogs," said the statement released by the man. "I want spyware completely removed from my computer and I want my registry to be less fragile."

"But most of all, I want Clippy back in MS Office. Clippy would have helped me write a better list of hostage-taker's demands."

Re:fuck IP and MS and everybody

[rolfwind (528248)]

First of all, I know this is just a troll. Yet, it's quotes like these which make me wonder just how crazy/zealous people can be. I worry that there will be an incident years from now, where some anti-MS nut swings by Redmond and starts capping who has an MS parking thing on their car, or carries their MS badge. Obviously it's bad for anyone who works at MS when they start have to fearing their lives, but it would also be horrible for things like the FSF or Linux-fans as it could make them look bad, in the eyes of a Joe User (who doesn't follow the tech industry).

I think you, sir, are the troll. Could you throw FUD or accusations of murder or attempted murder after the fact in the direction of FSF or Linux Users? By doing it now, you are claiming us of a zealotry (no, internet posts don't count, especially when someone releases steam) that has not surfaced yet when it has been shown time and again that MS is the lawbreaker and predator. Not us.

Thank you.

Re:fuck IP and MS and everybody

[Drizzt Do'Urden (226671)]

Maybe we should patent patenting stuff, and than we could sue people who patent something?

Re:fuck IP and MS and everybody

[Elektroschock (659467)]

It is much cheaper to invest in lobbying against software patenting. Europe tells a lesson here. It is just a matter of ressources. Support the anti-softpatent movement.

Re:fuck IP and MS and everybody

[operagost (62405)]

The patent holders will be first against the wall when revolution comes!

Slashdot: where posts using the "f-word" and threatening mass murder get modded "Insightful."

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

The process is clearly not exhaustive, because of the amount of prior art that is typically missed. Perhaps you meant exhausting. But even so, that doesn't mean it was meritorious or worthwhile (you could waste a lifetime of work making a marshmallow car. If no-one wants marshmallow cars, you've just wasted your life) - in this case you're telling someone to do work on satisifying the patent monopoly bureaucracy in a purely artificial system*. The work effort would be better spent on developing somethin