Red Hat Vows To Stand Up To Patent Intimidation 168
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.'"
As a customer (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes due to the extremely weak and broad patents that have been handed out despite prior art, MS probably has some weak ones. But MS and the whole FOSS community know that
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.
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]):
You must be thinking of the Open Invention Network (Score:5, Informative)
I call for a trade! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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).
The name you are looking for is the Open Invention Network [openinventionnetwork.com], which is backed by such small-time players as Google, IBM, NEC, Novell, Philips, Red Hat and Sony.
Re: (Score:2)
From what Ballmer was saying a few days ago it's more likely on of those patent troll companies will pop up and go for Red Hat it's self. That way defensive patents will be useless since the troll company doesn't actually do anything other than sue people and Microsoft will not get themselves directly involved, although I expect they will be there in the backgrou
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why they would need to disclose the patents involved to make such a deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why novell played along is unclear, maybe they really belived the patent threats, maybe they just wanted the money and didn't realise how this would blow up. Maybe they wanted to be the only linux seen as legit by those who belive microsofts patent claims.
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: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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (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)
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, Red Hat substituted Up2Date for Yum in RHEL 5.
Re: (Score:2)
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:2)
I hear that argument about once a week on average, but yet nobody has been able to explain what their problem with RPM is. Would you like to try?
Re: (Score:2)
Suse 8x/9x came with such and old versions of gaim, that none of the protocals worked, they where liek a year behind. No big deal, just download the latest gaim right?
Wrong
Have to update GTK, KDE, and a half dozen other libs. Something that would take a windows user oh, I dunno, they might have to update DX or drivers at the most, not the whole entire X11 server.
I use linux a lot, but not as a desktop. To much work.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not as if the latest Windows programs run on Windows 95.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a common answer, but it is completely useless. Yes, using the rpm command was a chore because of dependency hell, but now we have Yum, which resolves and downloads dependencies as necessary, just like Apt. Now, what is the problem with RPM again?
To me, the "bad rpm, good apt" argument seems more like a mindless drone argument than anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Ballmer can shoot himself in the foot all day. (Score:2)
That's just the problem - the tech community. Those who understand it, don't manage it; those who manage it don't understand it. I wish there were some way around this, but I'm not going to manage it... I'd rather be writing code than anything managerial, how about you?
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no. He found THAT
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
Re:Sarbanes Oxley - no, Lanham Act violations (Score:2)
Problem is: you take msft to court, and msft will bleed you dry with legal expenses. Legal expenses are nothing to msft. Settlements are nothing to msft either.
Msft gets sued all of the time. Msft pays about $1 billion a year in settlements. But, when your taking in $40 billion a year, it's just a minor cost of doing business.
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if people really are so naive to believe that Microsoft is only bluffing. FYI, there are patents on things like GUI hyperlink, checkbox, double click, listview, you name it.
Why hasn't Microsoft sued yet? (Score:2)
You wrote:
IMHO, if Microsoft was sure it had valid patents, it would have sued by now. Even small patent trolls like Acacia, which filed the recent patent infringement suits this week against Novell and Red Hat, exercise their "rights" if they believe they have them. I am convinced that Microsoft has not filed its
Re: (Score:2)
Again, that is a naive assumption. There are many possible reasons to not sue by now.
Red Hat & Novell Just hit with Patent Suit (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
He was also trying to say that the idea of suing users of a particular piece of code is ridiculous and could be easily turned around on MS if they used (unlicensed) patented methods in their code, something no one can check on.
Re: (Score:1)
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".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"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."
It seems to be that you're not looking at the big picture in the software business. MS Windows, at least for the past 10 years, has been mostly sold through computer purchases - preinstalled, that is. So why would someone go buy MS Windows when they get it with their computer? The rankings you're citing are not a true indicator of how MS Windows is doing in the OS market.
Most of Mac people buy their OS X from Apple, I am noting for you again: OS does not EXIST yet, it is pre-order without any kind of "early pay" rebate. People say "We buy whatever ships in whatever time", it is degree of unbeliavable trust.
General PCs come with Windows Pre installed,true. The thing is, consumers demand the earlier version of Windows even ready to pay extra price. The "Vista" they don't want worth billions of dollars of development costs. Microsoft spent billions for nothing.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Informative)
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:2)
Yes, and the DoJ's remedy was not worth the paper it was printed on - handed out after Bush had been elected. Please don't go pretending that effective action was taken against Microsoft, or that the post-Bush DOJ didn't cave in when it came to it.
Re: (Score:2)
The other theory was that if MS hadn't messed with it, Java would have been a major alternative platform to Windows. We know now that theory was probably wrong too given the tepid interest dev
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sometime recently there was a good Doonesbury comic on this topic. One of the character makes a comment about both parties being equally corrupt. Another character says "Yeah, but when the Democrats do it, they know it's wrong."
Of course, this is little consolation if you're among the victims of their actions.
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But PACS dont generally get involved in presidential races (probably because they fear /. will
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.
RedHat + IBM ? (Score:2)
Re:humm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
SCO had nothing.
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:2)
They couldn't sue over patents, because they had none. A while after the IBM suit was filed, they received their first patent.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If so, your lawyer needs prior art take a look at the history of mod_JK and wipe the fsckers out, is this another of those holding companies for carpet bagging lawyers or is the sewage coming from someone who actually at one point put Apache in front of a web app?
Re:Ouch? - Lets investigate this - shall we! (Score:2)
Netblock owner LNH INC. [netcraft.com]