Slashdot Log In
Why Microsoft Won't List Claimed Patent Violations
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon May 14, 2007 07:20 PM
from the only-stick-they've-got dept.
from the only-stick-they've-got dept.
BlueOni0n writes "Earlier today, Microsoft announced it will begin actively seeking reparations for claimed patent infringement by Linux and the open source community in general. One opinion on why Microsoft won't reveal these 235 alleged IP infringements to the public is that they're afraid of having the claims debunked or challenged — so instead they're waiting until the OS community comes to the bargaining table. But a more optimistic thought is that Microsoft may be afraid to list these supposed violations because it knows the patents can be worked around by the open source community, leaving Microsoft high and dry without any leverage at all."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Microsoft Says Free Software Violates 235 Patents 1217 comments
prostoalex writes "Microsoft told Fortune magazine that various free software products violate at least 235 patents, and it's time to expect users of this software to pay up patent licensing royalties: 'Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith and licensing chief Horacio Gutierrez sat down with Fortune recently to map out their strategy for getting FOSS users to pay royalties. Revealing the precise figure for the first time, they state that FOSS infringes on no fewer than 235 Microsoft patents.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Where's Novell? (Score:5, Interesting)
Where is their press release regarding this?
Where's the Cease and Desist? (Score:5, Interesting)
If someone is making a dubious claim, slap them with a c&d, and force this thing into court.
Parent
Re:Where's the Cease and Desist? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Declaratory Judgement (Score:5, Insightful)
And if MS refused to tell you then couldn't you get a declaration from a court that your product doesn't infringe? IIRC, this is similar to what RedHat is pursuing in its case against SCO (which is on hold while SCO v IBM drags on).
Maybe a small Linux distributor with no assets and not much to lose could pursue a case like this against MS.
Parent
Re:Declaratory Judgement (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Declaratory Judgement (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Declaratory Judgement (Score:5, Insightful)
If microsoft is accusing you of breaking the law then they either have to prove it or retract the statement and settle. Sounds like it would be safer than that act since as microsoft has named a number, it would have to prove that number, even if a couple did stick then their original statement is still false.
More important during discovery you could get the court to force them list these patents and where the infringements are...
Since anyone supplying a linux appliance, system or server would fall foul of microsoft's claims then I suspect anyone with deep enough pockets could take up this cause.. or set up a company front to do so for them and let it take the fall if necessary
Parent
Re:Declaratory Judgement (Score:5, Informative)
First, any party bringing a lawsuit under the American legal system must have standing to sue, meaning that they must have a material interest in the outcome of the suit. Since Microsoft has not specifically threatened anybody, at the moment, it would be hard to establish standing. A really good lawyer might be able to argue that a Linux vendor is harmed by the implication that Microsoft will sue that vendors customers for patent infringement, but with any actual patent suits in process, it would be a hard sell.
Second, the American legal system refuses to issue advisory judgements, and requires that a case be 'ripe' before it can be adjudicated. Since the court would be ruling on a hypothetical ("if Microsoft were to sue for patent infringement, would we be found to be infringing?") the court would (and should) simply refuse to hear the case.
Here [lls.edu] is a good reference for standing, advisory opinions and ripeness. A little google-foo should easily turn up others.
The only bright spot in this, from a potential plaintif's point of view, is that, as a convicted monopolist, there might be a way to accuse Microsoft of restrain-of-trade, or some other violation of the Sherman Act [stolaf.edu]. Unfortunately, I think that prosecution of anti-trust cases must be brought by the federal government, and that is not very likely with the current administration. Private actions can be brought for violations of the Clayton Act [stolaf.edu] but I don't quite see how it could aply in this case, and only consumers injured by their dealings with the violator have standing to sue, which puts most direct competitors out of the running.
Disclaimer: IANALBIHTBL (IANAL But I Have Taken Business Law)
Parent
No FSF owned software has been challenged (Score:5, Interesting)
There are two good reasons why no FSF owned code has been challenged:
1) The FSF is a legal entity, and can actually defend itself. The FUD factor is much higher for the project with no/many owners. Who is going to stand up for them?
2) The FSF is very careful about patents, it is quite common on the GCC list to see comments along the line of "the obvious technique for doing this is patented, but I found an alternative way to do it, so let's implement that". The core GCC developers seems to read patents in order to know what to avoid.
The obvious exception seems to be OpenOffice.org which is owned by Sun, but Microsoft has a cross-license agreement with Sun (like most of the large technological companies has with each other), which may make it difficult for Sun to defend OpenOffice.org. After all, thanks to the cross-license agreement, Microsoft is not accusing Sun of any wrongdoing.
Parent
Re:Mutually Assured Destruction (Score:5, Insightful)
My goodness, how apocalyptic.
Take a look around -- there is a whole big world out there beyond the borders of the USA, and a healthy technical industry as well.
If the US decides to blow their own industry away, that's more for everyone else.
Parent
Re:Where's the Cease and Desist? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Where's the Cease and Desist? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, this is indeed Slashdot.
Parent
Re:Where's Novell? (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing I think is interesting is MS's deal with Novell. If MS really had this big patent portfolio on which Linux was infringing, then Novell would have been in a very weak bargaining position.
Instead we see the opposite - MS paid Novell a lot of money for that deal. To me this says that MS is full of shit, its patents are hollow (or uninfringed), and they were paying a lot of $$$ to Novell to try and add credence to their dubious claims.
But what would I know - I'm just a hippy Linux user
Parent
Re:Where's Novell? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Where's Novell? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Barrel is smoking, feet are bloody (Score:5, Interesting)
Both parties are in awkward positions, if pro-Free-software legal experts are correct in their interpretation of the MS-Novell agreement and the GPL.
Increasingly it looks like the agreement will be in conflict with GPL3, and as software included in SLES migrates towards using GPL3 Novell will either have to freeze SLES at the last version of code relesed under GPL2 or somehow find their way out of the agreement to stay current.
MS is in an awkward position because in their end of the deal they are obligated to sell SLES certificates. Technically they are now a Linux distributor. To sell a distribution you MUST abide by the GPL--even under GPL2 when you distribute GPL software you MUST make the source code available without restriction. It does not matter if the code implements a patented invention, MS could not charge a royalty/licensing fee to restrict use of the application or its source code without violating GPL. If MS is serious about trying to enforce its patents it must immediately terminate its agreement with Novell. GPL3 would not make the above situation any different for these existing patents from what I understand--what GPL3 does is keep authors of GPLed code from creating NEW patents based on the functionality of that GPLed code (could a lawyer out there tell me if that is a valid interpretation?).
I'm not convinced MS will get very far with this latest cage-rattling. I suspect many of the involved patents are pretty dubious in nature--and some may be very old and could be close to expiration by the time litigation has finally reached a conclusion (another reason why they wouldn't pull a SCO and head into an embarrassing, protracted legal battle over IP). I also suspect that the Linux kernel itself violates few if any patents at all given how architecturally different it is from the Windows kernel. Microsoft would most likely go after the more outer layers of the OS onion--those involving interoperability with Windows. That is, after all, the stated focus of the MS-Novell deal.
I think we'd first see action against Samba for example. Mono would've been a target as well, but the Novell agreement took care of that. Frontpage interoperability with Apache is another likely Free software target (I realise not all of their targets are GPL, though that is their prime concern). ODBC drivers that let Linux talk to Microsoft databases might be in the crosshairs. This strategy could be part of the "if you can't beat them, join them" plan: If Vista and the corresponding to-be-released server OS prove to be disappointments over the long term the Windows platform as it exists today may be allowed to wither and die on the vine, to be replaced with something more Linux-like (or perhaps BSD-like).
If it does indeed "pull an Apple" and underpin its OS with such Free content it'll need a differentiator--and they intend that to be backwards compatibility with what will be "legacy Windows", which will also allow them to maintain their vendor lock-in. That key piece of the puzzle cannot be Free under the MSFT business model so the goal of more aggressively enforcing patents is likely to explore the feasibility of taking the "MSFT/Linux" or "BSD Windows" route whilst maintaining the leverage they enjoy as a monopoly.
Their investment in "open source research" as of late has provided them with some ammunition, however I think they are still too clumsy with the gun and will only be able to shoot themselves in the foot with such a clumsy strategy. MS is resilient though, so I hope defenders of Free software can keep them off balance before they recover.
Parent
Re:Where's Novell? (Score:5, Informative)
Are you familiar with the terms of the BSD license? Last I heard BSD was a free, permissive license [wikipedia.org]?
Maybe Microsoft "owes" to you, but according to the BSD license isn't Microsoft free to implment that TCP/IP stack at will?
Parent
And the fact that there is nothing wrong with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:And the fact that there is nothing wrong with t (Score:5, Insightful)
It's odd that you would bring this up in defense of BSD/Expat/MIT vs copyleft, because this is almost exactly the same reasoning behind the Free Software movement: the inability to modify software that is not freely available in source code format leads to us rewriting it. Having done so, we license the resultant works so that we won't have to do so again.
At the end of the day, though, most of us wouldn't care what licenser something is released under so long as we can modify it and combine it with other free works; the unfortunate nature of closed source software is the only reason that the GPL exists... if everyone gave away source code, we would never had left the halcyon days of the dawn of computing.
Parent
Re:Where's Novell? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Where's Novell? (Score:5, Insightful)
JOHN CLEESE: "You've trespassed upon my property!"
GRAHAM CHAPMAN: "I did not."
CLEESE: "You did! You did! You owe me a toll!"
CHAPMAN: "I wasn't aware that I did. Where did I step on your property?"
CLEESE: "...I won't tell you."
CHAPMAN: "What? Why not?"
CLEESE: "If I told you, then you'd find a route that doesn't cross my property. That would ruin my chances of collecting a toll in the future, now, wouldn't it?"
CHAPMAN: "You are a very silly man and I have no intention of paying."
CLEESE: "THERE! You did it again! Now pay up!"
CHAPMAN: "No. Go away."
Parent
The big problem... (Score:4, Interesting)
The thing is, if Microsoft divulges what the FOSS patent breaches actually are, the community will respond promptly, and that particular bullet will have been fired. Until Microsoft's list is actually available, we don't know how much harm they'll be able to do, but there's not much chance they'll be able to inflict fatal damage to FOSS.
This patent grab is essentially a one-shot hit, and until now, was always more valuable as a FUD threat than an actual tool of coercion. Micah hacks the computer system so Nathan can win. Peter controls the radiation power, and the ending is a cliffhanger into the next and final episode. That Microsoft is choosing to use it now is indicative that they believe it's value as FUD has waned, and I suspect that has more to do with the outcome of their their patent proxy SCO's efforts than with Vista's failure.
Re:The big problem... (Score:5, Interesting)
Viridian (MS Virtualization update for those not following along) was supposed to be released 4th qtr '06, but was pushed to '07 and they just announced that they are dropping promised functionality. I believe I read that some of that dropped functionality was designed to deal heavily w/multi-processor/multi-core technology.
360 is popular but makes no cash. Zune is getting hammered.
I would agree that their current strategy was formed before the general publc knew Vista was going to be a dog. MS has known it is in danger for quite a while. Not the same as actually being on the ropes for a company with as much market inertia as they have, but starting to look scary.
They must have known their ship was taking on water long before the general public became aware.
Regards.
Parent
Like McCarthy holding up an envelope (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Like McCarthy holding up an envelope (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Like McCarthy holding up an envelope (Score:5, Informative)
Just because there's a shark in a lake filled with trout doesn't mean you drain the lake to kill the shark. You could be one of the trout.
Parent
Re:Like McCarthy holding up an envelope (Score:5, Interesting)
While that may be true, it's also true (or alleged to be true) that Senator McCarthy held up a blank sheet of paper when he first claimed he had names of Communist conspirators/spies.
Furthermore, many of the people who were publicly humiliated and accused of being Communists were in fact nothing of the sort. Unfortunately, the problem with defamation is that once the slander/libel is out there, it's really hard to retract. Especially if the party making the outrageous claims is a respected Senator who gets to mobilize government resources to harass people. McCarthy's abuse of the system was his way to attack political opponents, not get rid of real Communist spies.
While it's quite probable that there are some real patent violations in the Linux kernel and in the source code of various GNU tools, that's about all you can say. Whether these infringed patents are even valid is another matter -- and you can certainly bet that FOSS authors are going to go after at least some of Microsoft's patent claims on the grounds that the patents are invalid. For each patent that gets invalidated, Microsoft's patent portfolio becomes just a little bit less valuable...
So it's not in Microsoft's interests to divulge just which patents they feel have been infringed. Worst case scenario, they could lose a good chunk of their portfolio and still have nothing to show for it because the remaining patents that withstood scrutiny might be found to not apply; those patents that do apply could be easily worked around with a modest investment of engineering effort.
What makes me wonder is why Microsoft is bothering to take a page from SCO's playbook. It hasn't worked too well for SCO, so why does Microsoft think they'll fare better with the same strategy?
To tie this back to the McCarthy analogy: even if Microsoft is right that there are infringed patents (which is statistically likely), there's no guarantee that Microsoft has done the due dilligence to ascertain which specific patents have been infringed and leave no margin for doubt. Microsoft has broken down the numbers by OS component (kernel, "GUI," etc.) to tell us how many patents they believe have been violated by each component, but again, we only have their word for that. For all we know, Microsoft is trolling and pulled these numbers out of thin air. Kind of like McCarthy's list.
This seems like a pretty obvious fishing expedition. You know, the kind that involves big nets that scrape the sea floor and damage coral reefs, to use yet another tortured metaphor.
Parent
So how can MSFT proceed if they don't list them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So how can MSFT proceed if they don't list them (Score:4, Insightful)
It's been 4 years since this came out. SCO didn't have any facts to put into the case, and it's still banging around after 4 years. The only thing that will really limit them is their bankroll, which is running out.
MS has a much larger bank roll.
Parent
Re:So how can MSFT proceed if they don't list them (Score:5, Interesting)
Think about it. If MS were to actually start suing Linux users, it would make the front page of most newspapers in the US. The last time Microsoft was that involved in legal disputes in the US, it took a presidential impeachment to distract the public and the press. Microsoft would be under far more scrutiny than SCO, and the truth about their baseless claims would come out. By the time the dust settled and the judges dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's, precedents would have been established that would destroy Microsoft's core business practices. And because of the importance of the case(s), all the Fortune 500 companies would be demanding a speedy trial so that they could get on with running a business.
The more MS stalls, the more solid the case against them will be. If they come up with an excuse, it will be analyzed and probably debunked quickly, leaving them with fewer options. If they don't dig up every technicality they can think of, then they will lose sooner. The only option they have now to avoid inevitable humiliation in court is to stay out of court. Unfortunately for them, their FUD alone might provide enough grounds for somebody else to sue them, thus setting up the showdown they can't afford to have happen.
One thing is certain: once MS gets into court about these issues, they won't get to decide when they leave (just like SCO cannot drop charges and walk away). That makes it a huge risk for them to ever get near a court with their FUD.
And then, there is always the fact that IBM's Nazgul could beat the shit out of Microsoft with their all-encompassing Patent Portfolio. That might actually be the best delaying tactic: get into long fights with IBM, and make sure the real cases can't proceed until they are settled.
Parent
Now that the SCO case is tanking .,.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The SCO vs IBM assault (funded by Microsoft) is about to implode.
Therefore, Microsoft is poised to move on to their next strategy of
attacking free software.
Re:Now that the SCO case is tanking .,.. (Score:5, Interesting)
then they ridicule you,
then they fight you,
then you win." -
-- Mahatma Gandhi
Seriously, Microsoft is getting ready to pull off their kid gloves, now. They are really, truly, in a rather scary position.
1) Their flagship product, Microsoft Windows, is selling very softly. Word on the street is "don't buy until Service Pack 1, at least". (Told to me by our local computer store, I might add) Dell has reverted to Windows XP. Lots of public institutions are making very public noises about switching to alternatives, such as Ubuntu. What's worse is that some are actually doing it, and it's working. Apple OSX is ballooning. People are sick of viruses and dumb security alerts. The cost of supporting Windows clients has been rising almost exponentially as the number of band-aids required to keep a Windows system running has exploded. Anti-virus, Anti-spyware, Firewall, Malicious Software Removal kit, r00tkit detectors, frequent software updates, it's just getting to be too much for any reasonable non-technie to manage.
2) Their next big product, Microsoft Office, is similarly under heavy assault. The Massachussetts ODF debacle brought to the forefront the basis of Microsoft's lock-in, and jurisdictions are switching rapidly to ODF, PDF, and other open formats. Just today, we saw Norway joining the fray [slashdot.org].
3) Their big ace in the hole is the Windows API. [joelonsoftware.com] But they're losing that on several fronts:
3A) The Windows API is the cause of many security problems, since it's a buggy, insecure, festering pile.
3B) Even so, it's being emulated, warts and all [winehq.org] with increasing effectiveness with the WINE codebase.
3C) Lastly, it's just not as relevant anymore. New apps today are commonly web-based, partly to avoid the problems inherent in client-side software.
Case in point: I had a school contact me JUST TODAY and ask if our product (normally Windows/Mac) would work with WINE. (No need for WINE - it's GTK-based)
4) They've almost completely failed to diversify their product line despite trying for over 10 years to do so. They have other, profitable products, but the amount earned by MSN and Xbox is a pittance compared to what Windows and Office earn for them.
So why wouldn't they fight back with whatever they have? They're SCARED SILLY. They have BILLIONS of dollars in their war chest, and their revenue stream might be flat, but there's still an INSANE amount of cash available. They won't take this lying down, folks.
Get ready for the fight of your lives - this will make SCO look like yesterday's donuts.
Parent
Department of Redundancy Department (Score:5, Interesting)
Yesterday there was a link to a story on this issue, followed by lots of discussion as to why Microsoft is doing what they are doing. Today there is an opinion piece regarding the original story, in which someone lays out unsubstantiated brainstorms, all of which were covered yesterday.
I understand that Microsoft stories are huge traffic and comment generators on this website (any MS story is a guaranteed 300+ comments), but often times it seems as though the editors like to fuel the fire.
I don't know. Just thinking out loud...
- Scott
Pull over, you've just broken 235 traffic laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
When someone points out a mistake I made, I appreciate when they tell me exactly what it was, or tell me where to look if it's in my best interest to learn how to be more diligent with my work. I don't suffer fools, and being a smart-ass doesn't help.
What MS is doing is simply saying "hey you guys, there are 235 things you're doing that's going to get you in trouble, but we won't tell you what it is"
Will it make us go away? It has definitely incensed a bunch of us to either be even more anti-MS in our stance at their sword waving, (hopefully we can do the Indiana Jones thing from Raiders')
Equitable Estoppel or Laches? (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL, but I have some small knowledge of the law in this area...
If MS has knowledge that their patents are being violated, yet refuses to tell the violators exactly what patents they are violating and how, aren't the patent claims automatically nullified, since they made no good faith attempt to resolve the situation? If Linus or the OSDL contacts Microsoft and are rebuffed when they formally requests details of the patents in question and how they are being infringed, I would expect they would be laughed out of the courtroom in the best case. At worst, this might be viewed as a thinly diguised extortion attempt.
This is sort of like delivering a copyright infringement notice to a website without telling them what the infringing material is, and demanding the entire site be shut down or pay the claimants whatever they see fit.
Re:Equitable Estoppel or Laches? (Score:5, Informative)
On the other hand, MS may have "used in commerce any ... false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which ... in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of ... another person's goods, services, or commercial activities." See here [cornell.edu]. Note to /. geeks: learn the words "Lanham Act [wikipedia.org]" and "unfair competition." Oh wait, MS would never be guilty of unfair competition, what am I thinking...
Parent
Begun this patent war has (Score:5, Insightful)
It also means they have decided the odds of getting Europe to adopt software patents had become too low for it to make sense on holding their fire any longer. Because this will almost certainly put the pro patent forces in the EU on defense while everyone decides that waiting to see how this afair shakes out is the prudent course.
It also means they feel threatened. Now normally that would be sorta good news, but Microsoft is paranoid and fearful as a matter of policy, always afraid of being knocked off their perch. They never choose to wait and 'hope for the best' when attack is an option for dealing with any real of imagined competitive threat. I suspect the only reason they have held their fire for so long was they felt they could use SCO to buy time to come up with a better plan that risking a Patent War that will have unpredictable results.
But SCO is used up and they only came up with the one twist to a plain patent fight, the Novell deal. It a) takes Novell out of the fight and b) offers an escape path for any corporation who decides the risk is too great, just throw Novell money and opt out of the fight. It will probably clear the field of everyone except the principles, which was the plan. Before it is over we will be following, at a minimum, RedHat V Microsoft, probably IBM v Microsoft and since this will probably trigger another anti-trust action we will also get DOJ v Microsoft.
will the Novell deal backfire? (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems unfair (Score:4, Interesting)
SAMBA infringing on networking protocol patents? (Score:4, Insightful)
Personal note: I'd be glad to get rid of Samba in Linux - it would be a push in the direction of getting rid of M$ on the client/workstation side, which is a good direction. There are plenty of Linux servers in business, and if M$ made everyone stop using Samba, a lot of business owners would sooner replace the network filesharing protocol to something better like SSHFS, or something similar.
The patent system wasn't created for this (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, they shouldn't be allowed to continue their predatory and intimidating ways because they are a convicted monopolist. Where's the oversight?
Obligatory 300 quote (Score:5, Funny)
When this linux-child was born, like all Spartans, he was inspected.
For the strength of the code lies only in its openness.
---oOo---
The Threat:
Microsoft Messenger:
Choose your next words carefully, Leon-ix-idas. They may be your last as king.
Linux:
You bring the skulls and crowns of conquered corporations to my desktop, you insult my queen, and you threaten my people with lawsuits and FUD! Oh, I've chosen my words carefully, Microsoft. Perhaps you should have done the same! *kick*
---oOo---
The preliminary skirmishes :
Microsoft :
Send in the SCOuts to test the strength of these Spartan defences.
Linux :
Our Unix ancestors built this wall. Using ancient stones from the bosom of Greece herself.
And with a little Spartan help, your Microsoft-sponsored SCOuts supplied the mortar.
---oOo---
The battle:
Microsoft :
A thousand lawyers of the Microsoft empire descend upon you. Our patents will blot out the sun!
Linux :
Then we will code in the shade !
---oOo---
The aftermath:
Narrator:
The world will know that freemen stood against a tyrant, that few stood against many,
and that before this battle is done, that even a god king can bleed.
Microsoft:
WTF happened ? Who threw that chair ?
Re:MSSCO (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Much of Microsoft's IP strategy is FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Just take a look at the amusing comments on the Office blogs about licensing their Office 2007 user interface IP. It's abundantly clear that some of the bigwigs in management there are not lawyers, and haven't even read about their own company's history in this area with Apple and others in the past. Some of them really do believe that just because they spent a significant amount of time and money researching something, they automatically get perfect monopoly protection of that research under IP laws.
Parent
Re:Much of Microsoft's IP strategy is FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO failed Microsoft... so, as the old saying goes, if you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself.
Parent
Re:I might respect Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
The singularity OS is basically a
The comparison between the assets that Microsoft have, such as Singularity, the
Microsoft have held back the general state of computing in order to preserve their monopoly. It's absolutely clear. Yahoo for Douglas Crockford and watch his Javascript videos. It stands out like a sore thumb how many examples of Microsoft throwing a spanner in the works of Javascript. Repeat this across a whole industry, many times a year and it becomes clear that FOSS and contributors to FOSS are going to be how this industry is driven forward.
Any time there is even a sniff of a state legislating for open standards and Microsoft goons pop out of the woodwork.
GNU/Linux and the web have now cracked Microsoft, the water is starting to flow in, and the whole edifice needs to start bailing, or flounder. Start using your research. Cooperate with open standards, and start to compete on merit, and maybe Microsoft will have a chance.
Parent
You can't always work around patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider the MS FAT file system patent. There is no way you can work around the patent and still provide FAT functionality (required to work with cards from cameras etc.). For such patents there are three choices (i) Keep infringing, (ii) pull support or (iii) challenge the patent and get it overturned. With these types of patent, MS will have to weigh up whether it is worth exposing their patents to challenge, especially since many of the claims are probably quite unlikely to succeed.
Parent
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks for playing. Please try again.
Parent
Re:This can (and thus probably will) go on forever (Score:4, Informative)
With 235 possible infringing patents Microsoft has a lot more to work with. I believe that most of the patents will be found invalid and the rest will be worked around, but the process will take time and money.
I wonder if litigation is really in their best interest though. Part of the reason IBM is defending themselves so vigorously against SCO is to defend against the implication that they were behaving unethically; donating someone else's copyrighted code in bad faith to Linux. IBM makes a good deal of money supplying products and consulting services based around Linux. Wouldn't IBM's business be threatened by implications of intellectual property problems? Does Microsoft really want to go up against IBM over patents? Whatever you may think of SCO's legal team, IBM's is frighteningly competent.
Parent