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 ?

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:Why shouldn't they ?

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!

WINS on a Mac

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 ?

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

Re:Why shouldn't they ?

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.

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 ?

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 ?

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 ?

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?"

Plausible, but no proof

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

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....

... 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

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

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

way to link mid-article

Summary is linked to the *middle* of the article. This ensures that any /. reader who actually goes to TFA doesn't have to read any of that pesky 'context' or let any of that tiresome 'background' get in their way. Gotta get those First Post!! articles in!

NFS is easier anyways

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

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

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:NFS is easier anyways

"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.

Re:NFS is easier anyways

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:NFS is easier anyways

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

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.

Alternatively, you take file serving away from MS

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

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.

What does Netapp do?

Do they pay Microsoft when you buy a CIFS license for a filer?

skating on thin GPL ice

Any of these putative companies purchasing a patent license cannot distribute any of the relevant code under the gpl. So maybe that's why they are keeping quiet, or maybe they are not re-distributing any software. If the former, then Jeremy Allison has a moral and legal duty to "out" those companies.

It is time....

It is time to delete the patent system, then we delete Microsoft too.

FUD

This smells like FUD.

Legitimate Businessman's Civic Improvement Cmte...

Would like to discuss your annual donation...

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

this sucks...

Every time I think of Microsoft and the harm they are causing the end user, and the consumer, it just irritates me beyond belief. Nothing they do benefits the consumer, NOTHING. And yet, the government applauds them for their fine efforts at being completely monopolistic in our modern day capitalistic society.

Makes me want to puke.

Think of the Shareholders

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!!

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?

Everyone, out of the pool!!!

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.

Careful with that double edged blade Microsoft!

IBM, SUN and RH may decide to make their software patent money now by extorting it from Microsoft shops at 10x the cost of Windows licenses. They could make a tidy sum and lay the groundwork for abolishing software patents in the public interest.

In other news...

You guys totally missed the point of the article. It was about the burrito command.

Mmm, burrito.

Puts the Novell Deal in Perspective

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.

I need a new OS

I'm getting older and I'm tired. OS Wars / Browser Wars / These are getting as bad as the regional conflicts in the world that have been going on for centuries. I need a new OS that will Rock my World, Will free the slaves to

IBM and other Linux OEMs?

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).

I don't doubt...

I would not doubt that Microsoft would try to extort its own customers in a SCO-like shake down. I'm pretty sure they paid SCO to do it as a sort of trial balloon. An insignificant piss ant like SCO first attacks giant like IBM, drags the litigation out for years and then Microsoft comes in: "See what SCO is doing to IBM? Nice little company you have here... Be a shame if Microsoft had to destroy it through litigation..."

I also don't doubt that some businesses may have capitulated. That does not, however, give any validity to their patent claims.

As an IT community we need to respond to Microsoft's aggression in several ways.

First we must start screaming for the justice department to once again prosecute them for their continued anti-trust violations. They must be held accountable for the damage they are doing through leveraging their monopolies. We must insist that they be broken apart into at least three and probably four separate companies.

Second, we must not cooperate with Microsoft in any way. Any "gifts" that they offer always turn out to have strings attached. Do not support any part of their dot-net strategy. I use "dot-net" in a loose way to cover many different things like their libraries, ASP.NET etc. The Mono project should die. Don't support it, don't use it.

Third, we should work to make Java, PHP, etc the defacto standards in delivering active server pages.

We all need to work together to make Microsoft irrelevant. It won't be quick, it won't be easy but it must be done. This company has shown again and again and again that it is not interested in coexistence.

Microsoft should be burned alive

When interviewed they refused to say which patents Linux infringes. This is pure fraud by Microsoft. Burn them alive.

This is what parasites *do*...

Microsoft is at its heart a parasitic entity, whose only purpose is to maximize its profits, which means maximizing income with the minimum amount of effort. Already we see that real software innovation has moved elsewhere. For example, if it weren't from external pressure from open source software like Mozilla, Microsoft would have stopped development on IE completely. An even better model for them would be simply to have others do the development at no cost to Microsoft, and then for them to charge users for the use of this software, via software patents, etc.

prior art on smb

i can't see how they could hold a valid patent on smb when it was developed at IBM, prior art people. this sounds a lot like extortion money to me - pay us or we will open our obvious patent's war chest on you.

Microsoft are probably...

Microsoft are probably offering their bigger corporate customers the chance to buy a patent licence so that they can continue to use Samba while Microsoft attempt to sue the pants off whoever wrote samba.

The reason they're doing this is because from watching SCO, Microsoft fully expect to be able to drag the litigation out for years, during the early round of which they will get a restraining order on the samba developers hence no upgrades. They will then release some windows update "security patch" to Exchange that just concidentally happens to make the current Samba incomaptable.

The only people that will then get Samba upgrades legally will be those licenced to Microsoft. It may even be Microsoft themselves that release the fixes in a fake show of support for Opensource to placate the EU.

comes a time...

...society just needs to revolt against the "company store" mindset. Corporations are not ever supposed to have gotten so important as to be so thoroughly entrenched into society that they become an obnoxious threat.

It is way past the time with that despicable company. There are a few out there that are the epitome of sleaze and greed, enron, exxon, haliburton/kbr, the media companies represented by the MAFIAA price fixing cartel come to mind.

And Microsoft.

I applaud the foreign nations who are actively resisting and moving away from them as much as possible. Regrettably, I know the USA will be the last to see the light on how they are dragging down and ruining the computer scene, they are well past any sort of usefulness for society. All they represent now is economic inertia and "the big skim".

For the past several years now I have expected nothing from them other than severely restrictive, over priced buggy bloatware, being pushed in the sleaziest manner possible-and I certainly haven't been disappointed in the least, they nail it every chance they get. And what is worse-you can't "vote with your wallet". You as an individual can decide to not use their stuff, but that doesn't stop some piece of all your tax money and some piece of the cost of everything you buy winding its way back into their already stuffed to the seams bursting wallets.

That is a clear sign when some corporation has just gotten too large and too intrusive and too greedy and too powerful, when you can't even avoid them when you want to.

The original icon with bill the borg was just so right-on. In fact, it's worse, imagine a corporate society that took the worst they could find from ferengi society and the borg and combined them, that's MS.

The only people I feel sorry for are the ones stuck working there in this economy, because they need a job that can pay the bills. I know there has to be a lot of folks there who know full well that "things are just not right", but are stuck for a handy alternative.

Perhaps those folks and any non-greed filled stockholders can turn that company around back to being useful and ethically straight-not just "profitable", I mean ethically straight. No one really minds honest decent companies, and no one really minds if someone makes a buck, but people do mind and do notice once companies have gone off the deep end into uncontrolled spasms of pure greed.

Yes, Balmer, someone does need to "take the food off your plate", you and your slobbering yes-men are overstuffed bullies and just plain rude and obnoxious in my opinion.

Put the damn fork down and push away from the table, haven't you gorged enough? Is society now supposed to fund your computing vomitorium so you can keep eating at the economic trough well past any semblance of normalcy and decency? Did you ever stop to think that yes, it IS possible to be civil in our civilization?

Of course they want it quiet

Of course they want to keep it quiet. Because unlike any other company, if MS were to be exposed at doing such a thing, they'd be buried under anti-trust lawsuits.

I hope it any of that story is true, that one of the people who are being threatened will draw a line in the sand, and blow the whole thing open.

Typical Bill Gates/Microsoft Corruption

This article, along with the other I just read quoting Bill Gates as claiming that "security experts" are producing Mac exploits "every day" that "totally take over your [Mac] machine" (I mean, WTF!), clearly demonstrates both that Bill Gates is a deliberate LIAR (as I have reiterated on Slashdot for years) and that Microsoft is a CORRUPT, ILLEGAL pseudo-monopoly and EXTORTION RACKET that needs to be put out of business NOW by any means necessary.

Microsoft and its management make Enron look like Greenpeace and Consumer Reports combined.

Help me understand...

Is there a patent issue between MS and Linux? From what I have read the problem is with Samba and MS, not Linux. If I uninstall Samba from my servers I'm fine, right??

SCO; Microsoft; Linus

Will the real Linux owner please stand up?

I'm seeing a Penny Arcade cartoon

"Go on. Eat a bug. Go on. Go on. Here's some money. Eat a bug."

Racketeering

I believe there are anti racketeering laws in your USA against just such a shakedown tactic.
All we need is one firm to blow the whistle & M$ is in a world of hurt.

Correct me if I am wrong.

You ain't seen nothing yet

Go work for ANY Microsoft 'Gold Partner' and you'll see how far a company has to open it's behind to get the cheaper licensing. And oh I forgot to mention, they can always come around and change stuff or make a 'friendly request' to implement a solution using their software (and friendly request as in, if you don't we'll pull your status). This is especially true in Gold Partners that provide services to other customers (like hosting companies).

My record: I have worked so far for 5 Gold Partners in Europe and the US and they all have the same 'problem'.

The Price Microsoft Demands

Can be estimated, however I don't know what some of these costs are, so if some other /.er's could fill in the blanks, please help.

The cost of bringing ONE well-defined issue to court and seeing it all the way through to a verdict of some kind can be estimated at $200,000. Not SCO-style trawling, but one or two concrete issues mixed with the usual absurd claims that get thrown out.

What I want to know is an annual price range for Unix licenses/packages. Then, post the annual costs of some higher-end Oracle packages that probably run on a Unix. Finally, what's the cost of a Windows Server package with lots of CAL's and some support thrown in.

From those estimates you can get a good idea what they are asking for. Not too much, but certainly generating revenue for Microsoft off the normal sales accounting.

Poorly Written Articles Piss Me Off

If you're writing an article or interviewing someone with a headline of "Microsoft Getting LINUX money", then don't leave in the crap about the Best Fajita house in wherever. DIAF, author, DIAF.

FUD: such payouts illegal under 'Sarbox' rules

Right...and people believe this?

"Off the record" payments of this sort would likely expose MS and the company doing the paying to various legal actions like: "monopolistic practices", "extortion", "bribery", and violations of the Sarbanes Oxley rules.

Something doesn't smell right with this "story"...it doesn't pass the "critical thinking" test (not that such a test is important for most people).

Re:A time for the lawyers

How exactly is MS breaching the GPL? Also, the GPL is a copyright license, not a contract, so you cannot sue for "breach of GPL". What you can so them for is copyright violation, if they are distributing your stuff in a way that you haven't given them a license for.

Re:fuck IP and MS and everybody

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

Re:fuck IP and MS and everybody

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

Yes.

We should be shooting them in the head.

Finally, people are starting to get it.

Re:fuck IP and MS and everybody

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:fuck IP and MS and everybody

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

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 something cool (the fact you say "find something to patent" shows how low the USA has sunk - mere discoveries("finds") aren't supposed to be patentable in the first place), profitting, and pumping some of the profit back into the campaign to abolish the patent monopoly system (which ultimately needs to go the way the institution of slavery went).

*In fact, it's now been shown [ffii.org] that that patenting work activity SUBSTITUTES for research activity, at least in the software field. That is to say, the patent system isn't just not encouraging innovation and progress, it's actually actively discouraging it. Brilliant.

Re:fuck IP and MS and everybody

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

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

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:fuck IP and MS and everybody

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 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).

In other news...

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

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.