Slashdot Log In
Red Hat Vows To Stand Up To Patent Intimidation
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Oct 11, 2007 03:36 PM
from the stiff-upper-lip dept.
from the stiff-upper-lip dept.
mrcgran writes "Eweek is reporting on Red Hat's assurances that can continue to deploy Linux without fear of legal retribution from Microsoft. This, despite the increasingly vocal threats emanating from Redmond. 'In a scathing response to Ballmer's remarks, Red Hat's IP team said the reality is that the community development approach of free and open-source code represents a healthy development paradigm, which, when viewed from the perspective of pending lawsuits related to intellectual property, is at least as safe as proprietary software. "We are also aware of no patent lawsuit against Linux. Ever. Anywhere," the team said in a blog posting.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Ballmer Suggests Linux Distros Will Soon Have to Pay Up 520 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Via Groklaw comes comments from Microsoft's Steve Ballmer at a UK event, in which the company once again threatens Linux distributions that haven't signed up with their program. '"People who use Red Hat, at least with respect to our intellectual property, in a sense have an obligation to compensate us," Ballmer said last week ... Ballmer praised Novell at the UK event for valuing intellectual property, and suggested that open source vendors will be forced to strike similar deals with other patent holders. He predicted that firms like Eolas will soon come after open source vendors or users. Microsoft paid $521m to settle a patent claim by Eolas in August.'"
[+]
Linux Patent Infringement Lawsuit Filed Against Red Hat/Novell 473 comments
walterbyrd writes "Just months after the last nail in SCO's case, and on the same day as Red Hat's brave words about patent intimidation, a company filed the first patent suit against the Linux operating system. IP Innovation LLC filed the claim against Red Hat and Novell over U.S. Patent No. 5,072,412. PJ points out there is prior art here: 'You might recall the patent was used in litigation against Apple in April 2007, and Beta News reported at the time that it's a 1991 Xerox PARC patent. But Ars Technica provided the detail that it references earlier patents going back to 1984.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
As a customer (Score:5, Interesting)
Well done !!! (Score:4, Insightful)
What has to be considered (Score:5, Insightful)
And even if brought to court - the case may be dismissed if the claims aren't good or if the situation is caused by unwillingness to reveal what the infringements are.
So in all - just call back to Redmond and ask about the details about the alleged infringements. Or write a letter.
On the other hand if everybody reading this sends a postcard to M$ HQ asking for specifics regarding the infringements they may be at least annoyed, but as long as the writing is sensible it's still legal. Just try to get a postcard with a penguin on for this! :-)
Re:What has to be considered (Score:5, Interesting)
if they reveal publically what if anything the infringements are then unless they are really earth shattering things they will just be worked arround or prior art found weakening microsofts position further.
so for the moment it is most sensible for MS to just spread very general fud without giving anyone any real information.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Not only that, but once they reveal the patents, others have a chance to prove whether or not it was "prior art" before they even have to worry about defense of it, in which case the patent itself is voided and you no longer have a patent infringement.
Microsoft is only trying to scare people. Until th
Re:What has to be considered (Score:5, Informative)
I was at a Redhat seminar this morning and they were talking about this exact issue. They said they belong to a consortium of companies (including IBM) who have pooled software patents for defensive purposes (I can't remember the name of the group, I want to say it's the Public Patent Foundation (www.pubpat.org) but that doesn't appear to be it). Specifically, if Microsoft tries to go against one of the members, they can search through their collection of patents, find one that MS violates, and counter sue with the desired effect of both sides either dropping it or cross licensing. Redhat's patent policy also states this (from http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html [redhat.com]):
Parent
You must be thinking of the Open Invention Network (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the direct number for this kind of feedback is 1-800-EAT-SHIT.
They might actually like that as a large number of calls
would tell them the FUD is being taken seriously.
What they promised (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope I got it right.
Actionable? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course if I could think of it, they surely could too, only they actually know what they're doing;-)
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer to consider that his actions are making microsoft look less and less professional compared to the Linux vendors.
Anyway, I just tried Vista on a machine my mum has bought. I was willing to give it the benefit of doubt, but after three days I've realised it really is a heap of c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Saying that Microsoft's claims are invalid and thus no one should worry is 100% wrong. A resolution to this problem needs to be forced quickly, the situation can't remain as it is now because it has already hurt Linux companies and the community itself.
Either MS
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Actionable? (It is in the UK) (Score:3, Informative)
See section 70 of the 1977 patent act (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patentsact1977.pdf) if you want to know the details.
They don't have to sue (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this an issue in Europe? (Score:4, Informative)
Does this effect Europe? And more specifically the UK?
As far as I am aware Europe (and the UK) does not "do" software patents so even if MS is telling the truth about the Linux infringements are they even valid in Europe/UK?
Re:Is this an issue in Europe? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Can we stop hating RedHat now? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why?
They've made huge contributions to Linux, and all of their custom system tools were released as Free (both kinds) when very few other commercial distros were doing the same. Now they're standing up to all this patent nonsense.
What is there to dislike about RedHat?
Personally, I'm not a particular fan of the distribution any more since they stopped including the old skool unix/X stuff (fvwm2, gv, xfig,
Re: (Score:2)
Three little letters: R... P... M...
Oh yeah, and how about the way they messed up system structure? And how they left their community supporters in the lurch without support after deciding that the RHEL/Fedora split (and, actually, there was about a six month period where there was only RHEL)? No. No reason at all to dislike them.
Give me Canonical and Ubuntu any day.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not as if the latest Windows programs run on Windows 95.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Little do most people know, Red Hat has the key Fedora developers on Payroll, and tons of kernel hackers. Just one kernel hacker at Red Hat i
Ballmer is the worst thing to ever happen to MS (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO is an example. There was some uncertainty before everything fell out. I don't think there is any uncertainty about patents or copyrights regarding Linux anymore. There is a lot of confidence in Linux now.
Microsoft needs to get off the litigation and on to innovation. Ballmer seems to not understand what this company attitude does to Microsoft's customer base and its reputation.
When I see comments like this I see that Microsoft needs a new CEO with a vision and not a Steve Ballmer with a litigation team. Just my perception. I think there are many others who share this view.
The Dilemma of War... (Score:5, Insightful)
To compete against free software on the server side, there are some unique problems. Much more savvy "users" in the form of sysadmins who can and will learn new systems, stable and trusted software bases which provide both freedom to tweak and freedom from vendor lock in, and a very long history of Unix style systems proving themselves equal to server tasks. (Indeed, Solaris itself is now freely available, for those who are gun shy of Linux.) Licensing costs and concerns are impossible - Linux is free in many forms.
Hence the temptation to use patents. Patents are one of the few weapons that cannot be easily countered by an open source software movement, particularly if the patents have the effect of shutting open source software out of certain markets altogether. The lack of revenue to pay lawyers looms large here - in the US legal system that's a very dangerous position to occupy. But there are still drawbacks for Microsoft:
Much major open source work is not done in the US, but in places like the EU. Microsoft's position in the EU is weaker, and opening an offensive there would be more difficult. Politically it would also have ramifications, possibly serious ones.
If Microsoft DOES open a patent offensive against major open source projects, they run the risk of triggering Armageddon - a broad scale patent war that could leave the entire US software industry in ruins. There are defensive alliances behind open source who's potential in a legal contest must be weighed.
If they go TOO gung-ho, it could have the effect of helping to convince Congress to remove the software patent go-ahead.
In the short term, lawsuits against the free software key players least able to defend themselves would have a major harmful effect on the community (to say nothing of the individuals caught up in it.) However, potential long term effects are another story - Microsoft doesn't hold large legal clubs everywhere.
A lot of our manufacturing is now being done overseas, and many companies are outsourcing wherever they can. If all of a sudden the price of outsourcing was being compatible with non-Windows systems INSIDE the US (foreign governments may mandate avoiding dealing with someone like Microsoft, after all...), it would be very interesting indeed to see how that played out...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents are one of the few weapons that cannot be easily countered by an open source software movement, particularly if the patents have the effect of shutting open source software out of certain markets altogether.
Not true. In the same way a DDOS is effective against single boxes on the network, a plethora of patents by open-source contributors could effectively stall closed-source development. Imagine if:
They have been called out on the matter (Score:2)
Someone call homeland security.
The open source principle and process is one of having the ability to fix and/or modify code.
Microsoft is not playing by those rules.
Open source doesn't play by Microsofts rules.
But it is Microsoft that is making a accusation against open source.
Open source is willing to fix the problem. Microsoft is not willing to allow that.
All in all, what would any reasonable court think of this?
Why are Redhat using that "IP" word? (Score:3, Interesting)
By using the term "intellectual property", Steve Ballmer is saying Linux infringes Microsoft copyright, trademarks and trade secrets. Perhaps he should stick to throwing chairs instead of using big words he doesn't understand.
Sarbanes Oxley (Score:3, Insightful)
Would this "beware! there be dragons..." attitude of Microsoft constitute a violation of said US law? Is cutting air supply with vague patent threats a punishable behaviour?
e
Call Microsoft's bluff! (Score:5, Interesting)
In this particular case, mere common sense would tell most practicing attorneys that if Microsoft had valid claims, it would simply start rolling out the lawsuits and collecting money. Think of all the copies of OpenOffice.org and GNU Linux that are drifting around the world!!! If Microsoft had valid claims against those the users or their distros, dontcha think that they would file suit against a really solid test case, and then trot out that case for everyone else in the world to see? Of course they would.
Here is a link to page 13 of the list:
[digitaltippingpoint.com]http://digitaltippingpoint.com/wiki/index.php?title=SMFM_list_page_13 [digitaltippingpoint.com]
So I am not buying Microsoft's questionable claims, and I have signed up for the list. Let's put an end to this questionable puffery! Microsoft, if you have a claim against me, sue me now, or shut up! You can serve me with a lawsuit here:
Christian J. Einfeldt
Law Offices of Christian J. Einfeldt
580 California Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104
In your complaint, Microsoft, you will want to specify which programs I am using. I am using openSUSE GNU Linux 10.2; Edgy Kubuntu; OpenOffice.org is my only office productivity suite, and so when you file suite against me, you might really want to stick a finger in my asking for an order barring me from using OpenOffice.org to write my reply briefs, because that is the tool I use for all my court briefs. I am also using Firefox, which you have heavily borrowed from, so please be sure to throw that in.
Oh, and I have installed about 100 copies of GNU Linux, OpenOffice.org and Firefox on various different computers for a public middle school in San Francisco, and I have also given out about 16 computers with those programs installed on them. So be sure to add a couple of causes of action for that, Brad Smith.
Hey, don't forget the fact that I started the "Sue Me First, Microsoft" list, where I very publicly questioned the veracity of your claims, so you would do well to add a couple of counts of defamation, since I am publicly calling into question both the veracity of your claims and your motivation for merely making a public fuss, without proving your claims.
But of course, I have nothing to worry about, because your claims probably are defeated by 1) obviousness; 2) prior art; and 3) limitations on patenting math. After all, if Microsoft could have patented 1 + 1 = 2, you would have done so, wouldn't you?
What about this one? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071011205044141 [groklaw.net]
joining up the DOT.dots .. :) (Score:4, Informative)
In July 2007, Acacia Research Corporation announced that Jonathan Taub [groklaw.net] joined its Acacia Technologies group as Vice President. Mr. Taub joins Acacia from Microsoft
Acacia Research Corporation
--
Is there any disinterested law official anywhere on the planet that is concerned with what is going on here. A seller of inferior software facilitates the formation of a patent troll and extortion racket. It then uses threats from said same company to intimidate people into using its own product and scare them away from using competitors product.
Re:Moron? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
No Lawsuits against linux is misleading (Score:3, Funny)
The latter is the one that matters. If companies can be sued for using linux then they are at risk.
The real question
Re:No Lawsuits against linux is misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
After releasing code under the LGPL, it doesn't matter who "owns" it. A recipient is free to use it. Period.
The sticky situation is where you have released code under LGPL or BSD or whatever free license and it is based upon a patent that you own. In that case, you would claim that use of such code requires patent royalties to be paid to you. This is not the situation that Ballmer has been claiming. He is claiming that unspecified Linux code, independently developed by unspecified Linux people infringes on 235 unspecified patents owned by Microsoft. I do not believe that he has ever claimed code sharing and clearly, the recent code released under Microsoft's public source license is tainted for use in an Open Source project whether or not patents are involved.
What you write makes no sense and is not an analogous situation.
What Red Hat is doing is very important.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
But this all points to one thing. Software patents are bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Dream on. It's only going to get worse from here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
But this all points to one thing. Software patents are bad.
Check Amazon top selling software, OS X Leopard is currently number 4 without even being released yet, XP Home edition is somewhere at 50th or something, Vista DOES NOT EXIST on that list which has Ubuntu, the same Ubuntu which you can download for free is on list.
If it came to this point and they started to work with some struggling Linux vendors who would give up their real job to port some Flash wannabe technologies, it is the exact time to get afraid. That same vendor also speaks about patents, unpublished agreements with MSFT, their highest IT manager writes how "great" MS Office XML is...
I think it is really time to "fear".
Parent
Re:Finally (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
I'm no fan of Bush but (Score:3, Informative)
Besides the primary outcome of the case was that AOL, Sun, Real etc got their payday. It just turned out that the fate of the Netscape browser and the Java language on Windows really had little to do with the consumer.
The only significant issue was the agreements with OEMs and the remedy came to late to make much difference.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate the bastards in power as much as the next guy, but to imagine that the democrats are less owned by big business than the republicans is self delusion on a grand scale.
O_o
Since when is not the Bush administration known for being the 'big-corp-is-now-in-power' period? Through-and-through the bush administration and the upper parts of the republican party are supported by big corporations. The big republicans are playing in the game, too. Big business is in the white house more than it ever was -- why else would Blackwater stand untouched facing current criticism? Why else would we see an andministration that knowingly year after year plans for a budget deficit that is
Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
I laugh every time I see a whiny liberal talk about how the Democrats are going to ride in on a white horse and come up with a thousand laws limiting the power of businesses. GUESS WHAT? It's the laws that give businesses the power.
Corporations cannot use force.
Governments can.
As soon as the democrats start fucking things up, the republican machine will get going and try to convince every undecided voter that the democrats are the problem.. wash, rinse, repeat.
Parent
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I call bullshit. Take the most corporate-friendly Democratic administration of the last half-century and it doesn't come close to the sheer mendacity and highest-bidder whorishness of the Bush Administration.
Parent
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Ronald Reagan brought about a decline of the middle class that continues to this day, thanks to his hostility towards working Americans and willingness to sell large parts of our society to the highest bidders.
Parent
Re:humm (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The problem with Microsoft taking the SCO path, however, is that -- when it looks like the suit is about to tank, declaring bankruptcy to avoid the final trial would only result in a charge of mass-murder (when the entire federal bankruptcy court dies laughing).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Note that this does not involve Linux either, only Apache/Tomcat.
A good question to ask this company is what would happen if you switched to IBM's Websphere which is just apache and java.