Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Getting Paid for Patents in Linux?
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:30 PM
from the now-wait-a-minute dept.
from the now-wait-a-minute dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Why shouldn't they ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I know, software patents are the spawn of Satan, no-one (not even me, actually
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)
I don't know why they should not own everything. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Why shouldn't they ? (Score:5, Informative)
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!
Parent
Re:Why shouldn't they ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Plausible, but no proof (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Plausible, but no proof (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
If you do that.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Plausible, but no proof (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
so do home users (Score:4, Insightful)
NFS is easier anyways (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Tom
Re:NFS is easier anyways (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Parent
Re:NFS is easier anyways (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Alternatively, you take file serving away from MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Leaving file serving in MS's control simply leaves you open to patent infringement etc.
Re:Alternatively, you take file serving away from (Score:5, Insightful)
'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.
Parent
Legitimate Businessman's Civic Improvement Cmte... (Score:5, Funny)
Rocco and Knuckles will be by to pick up the envelope.
Think of the Shareholders (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone, out of the pool!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM and other Linux OEMs? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Proof (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, if its proven to be happening, then ya. its time to get pissed off. ( though, no one can say this wasnt unexpected )
Parent
My thoughts exactly (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:fuck IP and MS and everybody (Score:5, Funny)
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."
Parent
Re:fuck IP and MS and everybody (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
"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."
Parent