So What If Linux Infringes On Microsoft IP? 394
Mr Men writes to mention a ZDNet blog entry by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes wondering aloud if maybe, just maybe, Microsoft isn't lying about having patents that are part of Linux. "Come on, no matter how much of a Linux fan you are, you have to admit that there's at least a chance that Linux does indeed infringe on Microsoft's patents. After all, Microsoft does hold a lot of patents and while Linux is open source and we can all take a look at the source code, only Microsoft has access to most of its source code so it isn't all that difficult for it to prove — to itself at any rate — that there are IP infringements contained in Linux. After all, before IBM handed over some 500 patents to the open source community, it's pretty clear that Linux was infringing some of them. Given that, why is it so hard to believe that the same isn't going on with Microsoft?" Even then, he goes on to say, so what if they do? It's not like they're going to go after us with a 'Linux tax.' Kingsley-Hughes imagines that, for the most part, Microsoft is just going to sit on this info and use it to form more and more profitable deals. Better than the alternative, I guess.
'atleast a chance' ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft's FUD must be working (Score:4, Interesting)
Relax everyone, Linux is backed by pretty big companies, like IBM, that in the case Microsoft ever actually tries something, they'll get their ass handed to them and the Windows OS will be seen in the same infringing light.
Microsoft won't actually do anything until Linux starts eating up Desktop Sales, and even then, I don't see it happening unless MS is really going the drain, ala SCO - which won't be for many many years.
Afterall, if Microsoft really wanted the cash that badly, they would have already sued because Linux absolutely dominates in the server space, which is a market that MS wants.
This is all just a ploy to keep CIOs pondering Linux in line with the Microsoft way.
Re:I live in EU (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I Must Be Confused (Score:3, Interesting)
Also note that this claim involves patents, and not copyright. Just for the sake of argument, if Linux were to somehow violate some MS patent, then presumably so do the BSDs, Solaris, AIX and any other UNIX-like system with the possible inclusion of MacOS X. UNIX has been around long enough to invalidate just about any patent that MS might have in this case. If the patent is on some form of supporting software (Mono perhaps? FAT/FAT32 support?) we either don't use it, invalidate it with prior art, or come up with a different implementation which does not infringe on the specific claims in the patent.
Microsoft hasn't exactly been forthcoming with which patents they're talking about. In light of this fact, it's likely that this is a marketing effort to get people to move toward Vista rather than Linux. Alternately, there may be either sufficient prior art to invalidate the patent which they'd rather not have tested until they have sufficient capital behind it to convince the courts that they're being harmed. They might even be waiting for their patented techniques to become used in more Free/OSS code so they can sue at a later date - as may be the case with Mono.
Once the details are available and assuming they're not FUD, Free/OSS software will route around their patents in the same way web developers routed around the Unisys patent on GIFs. Life will go on, and MS will have to find another way to discourage people who use or are considering open systems.
Re:I live in EU (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not necessary. Since source code is just a description of the patent you can walk a fine line: You can add the patented feature and have a switch in the build script that can disable it. It would only be illegal to distribute binaries since only computers with a binary become an "apparatus" doing what the patent describes. That's how the Xvid guys sort of weasel around the problem for example.
Of course, for binary distros your argument still holds and it is a problem.
Re:I live in EU (Score:5, Interesting)
I think all Linux and OSS developers know they are living with a Damocles sword above their head : the FOSS community does not apply patents, implement a lot of trivial-but-patented ideas and, for one, I have been wondering why MS didn't attack Linux yet.
I now have an idealistic answer to this question. I think that most big patent holders also live with another Damocles sword. The value of their companies is (partly) related to the number of patent they own. The current system do not care about the individual value of patent, just about their numbers. I think that this system is deeply flawed but that it just keep on working because most shareholders believe in it. Now imagine the Redmond Behemoth clashing with the FOSS insurgency. Both sides are well known, if not of the mainstream public, at least in the IT field, including IT decision makers. Such a debate would very quickly point the flaws of the system and may even be able to disrupt it. Plus, the FOSS is more able to gain public support, considering that even if you can portray them as "IP thiefs", as we use these IP to create products for everybody, we can easily be seen as Robin Hoodesque thiefs.
Would I be in the skin of a Redmon lawyer or decision maker, I would be VERY careful about this issue.
More white knights needed (Score:3, Interesting)
If Microsoft does take the nuclear option and attack major users of Linux over patents, who will take up arms against a company with sufficient money in the bank to buy every lawyer in the western world?
The fact it may be true doesn't mean it's not FUD (Score:2, Interesting)
People seem to be thinking that this is either FUD [wikipedia.org] or the claims are true. It's probably both.
First off, it's blatant and obvious FUD. They're being deliberately vague about what IP is infringed, and by which open source project and/or component of Linux, and talking about being "willing" to cut deals with other Linux distros than SUSE. No question that "willing" means "if we can find a reasonable business to target, you'll be hearing from our lawyers" and that that is meant to feed into people's decisions when looking at basing a product or service on Linux and hopefully drive them to make a different choice. They're not required to say what's being infringed or why until/unless they slap someone with a cease and desist, and so they're not. FUD, and no mistake.
But that doesn't mean it isn't also true. As an early commenter pointed out, there are lots and lots of software patents out there and Microsoft has a bunch of 'em. It's easy to infringe software patents without knowing you're doing so, and even open review won't catch all of this stuff. Under the current law, Microsoft has an absolute right to pursue a license fee from anyone using techniques they had the lawyers and money to patent, and in the absense of that fee being paid to file a court action.
So for Microsoft, this could well be a big win: FUD, plus the bonus of possible license fees or at least making the open source people waste a lot of time trying to figure out the whats, wheres, and hows of the infringement. They get a two-fer on this one.
So what's next? Ideally, a good faith letter to Microsoft from (say) RedHat or some other well-funded distro asking for the details of the alleged infringement, saying that they're eager not to infringe other peoples' software patents and also stating clearly that all information provided will be released to the community so the community can correct the infringement where possible. I suspect Microsoft won't provide the information unless given a confidentiality guarantee by the distro people, which if they're smart they will not be willing to provide. Consequently, if Microsoft later files a court case, they'll be required to list all infringements in the public record of the case -- and the judge in the case will see that the distro made a good faith attempt to avoid infringement prior to litigation, which will argue in favor of giving them a generous amount of time to cease and desist.
Re:I Must Be Confused (Score:5, Interesting)
If QT & Qtopia broke any patents they would have been sued long ago but then we would switch to wx perhaps for some other widget set. There's plenty to choose from.
My Unix desktop is a straight port of plan9's rio. No patent trouble there and if there was AT&T/Lucent would have been in trouble long long ago when they had any money.
When you have a long memory in this industry, you've heard many of the battles already played out and can pick a path of least risk.
BSD went through this phase already. That litigation was one of the reasons Linux was adopted in many places.
Patent Holders Onus (Score:2, Interesting)
I have no idea if patents are treated similar to copyright law but in my limited understanding, intellectual property owners have a responsibility to defend their rights when they know of infringing activity. If they neglect to defend their rights then they may end up forfeiting those rights.
For example this would prevent the scenario of someone deliberately holding off action so that the infringing activity increased before going to town with law suits.
In other words, you use them or lose them. And MS seems to be saying, we know patent infringment is occuring but they are not doing anything about it.
Somebody set me straight if I'm way off here.
Re:I live in EU (Score:4, Interesting)
They couldn't find any relationship between innovation and the number of patents a corporation has. It's nice to have some patents to use in a defensive manner. But they don't give you much leverage over the competetion.
If you effectively want to use patents you have to several things. Develop the patent. apply for it and actively defend against any infringement. If you do the later 2, you have less time for development. Which results in loss of your customers, who go over to the competition.
Companies like Google have to invent new stuff in order to stay ahead of the competititon. They don't have the time to wonder about patent infringement.
Most patents nowadays concern many small improvements that are obvious. Patents that the competition has to avoid in order to compete. At the moment patents allow a monopoly for the big guys. The innovative small guys remain screwed and face unfair competition.
No wonder that big American corporations are pushing for software patents in the EU. It sure would help them against the local competition.
Re:I live in EU (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I live in EU (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as the technical superiority of the competing choices, I am not ready to concede that point either. This is because I really appreciate the technical value and difficulty of loose coupling (especially between software and hardware, but also between software components), and in that respect Windows was vastly superior to anything out there at the time. For every other choice you were forced to buy the hardware and the OS from the same vendor - thereby locking you in - not only for future hardware purchases and upgrades, but also for software application purchases. I remember well the bad old days of $10,000 spreadsheet or word processing licenses for your unix-flavor-of-choice which would only run on your computer vendor's "workstations". I live in the US. I point at *all* patent systems and cry.
Re:I live in EU (Score:3, Interesting)
Would Microsoft care if something not Linux that couldn't be sold in thir main market contained the IP? Sure they would. But they'd still be laughing their asses off that their primary market would be that much less competitive.
Yes, Europe and Asia matter to Microsoft. The U.S. is still their bread and butter. That's not U.S.-centric thinking. It's just the simple truth that they want first to get business in their home market, the largest single-nation economy in the world, and the most PC-centric economy in the world -- all three of which are the U.S. -- and that the rest of the world is approached differently. The people Microsoft are using to try keeping the U.S. market cornered and those they are using to try to keep the rest of the world's markets cornered are probably not even the same people. They are a big company, after all. It's probably someone's job to worry only about the U.S. -- probably several people -- and someone else entirely who is suppos4ed to worry about everyone else.
Re:I live in EU (Score:3, Interesting)
What Panic? Re:Microsoft's FUD must be working (Score:4, Interesting)
Because people seem worried, maybe some hyperventilating, and even some panicking.
That's the M$ plan, but I don't see any of it. What panic have you actually seen outside the Wintel press? This really is Microsoft's last gasp.
Microsoft won't actually do anything until Linux starts eating up Desktop Sales, and even then, I don't see it happening unless MS is really going the drain, ala SCO - which won't be for many many years.
No, this IS exactly the same thing they did with their SCO sock puppet and it's all they really have: an empty threat. They dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into SCO but they never had the first real infringement. This patent move is more of the same and just as empty. If they really had something, they would have laid it out.
Free software is making desktop inroads and is about to make more. Companies like Lowes have already kicked Microsoft completely out. Vista is going to push more companies in the same direction. People sitting on Windows 2000 are going to see even less of what they want in Vista than they did in XP and migrating to free software will be very attractive for them. The end will come swiftly.
Re:I live in EU (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Read the license (Score:2, Interesting)
False, nothing about the GPL ever prevents an owner from applying it, even if it doesn't enable recipients to distribute in practice, even if the conflict exists, the GPL still grants rights: even if those rights aren't usable in practice. The owner of the software may opt to utilize section (8), and the licensee may be in a country where the patent doesn't apply. Section (8) of the GPL states that:
The GPL doesn't restrict the actions of the copyright owner -- the owner PROVIDES the software under any license they like, but is not personally subject to that license, assuming the whole package they distribute is what they own. It just turns out that if there is conflicting IP, the GPL could be unusable in practice, I.E. none of the rights of distribution granted the recipient, would actually be usable, without violating the other IP owner's rights.
Maybe someday (say 20 years down the road), the conflict ceases to exist, and the recipient of the software placed under the GPL will then be able to distribute the software.
Maybe the IP conflict is questionable or disputed, but not yet ruled upon; in this case, it would be up to the owner of supposedly conflicting IP to attempt to seek judgement or court action to force distribution of software including their IP to stop.
The only restriction (7) imposes on the licensee is that a court action doesn't excuse a recipient from the GPL requirements. If you receive software licensed by the GPL, that you aren't owner of, and you are in the business of distributing it. If a court chooses to impose royalties upon you for every copy made, then you cannot distribute the software and impose restrictions on recipients from further distributing (or requiring them to make some agreement and pay royalties).
Remember, sections (11) and (12) of the GPL. There is no warranty from licensor to licensee. It would mean among other things that there is no warranty that the software doesn't infringe on some third party's rights.
In theory, you could free recipients from the imposed royalties, take on the liability for all royalties yourself, and thereby comply with both the GPL and third party's restrictions. However, since you couldn't force recipients to notify you of when and where they further distribute the software, it would be difficult to prove to the other IP owner that you have satisfied your liability.
If you don't impose restrictions on recipients, the GPL doesn't restrict you from further distributing.
Re:I live in EU (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I live in EU (Score:3, Interesting)
But what does any of this this have to do with the present and future of Linux? On the one hand you seem to be saying Europe hasn't been competitive with America in this area, but then you're quick to dismiss Linux as a copycat and you appear to be dismissing the idea that Europe (and others) should proceed with extending the OS if America should gut it through patend protection. So which is it, should Europe now step up in an area where it may have been deficient in the past, or should they just sit on their hands?
Windows has reached great heights because it stood on the shoulders of giants. So has Linux. Instead of dinging either of them as copycats, we should probably be saying "keep up the good work" and asking them to contribute as much as possible in the future.
Note: Everyone knows that Windows relies heavily on ideas that were present in Unix, the Mac OS, and other OSs that were popular or cutting edge at the time of its development. Dismissing Linux as a Unix clone very much ignores the free borrowing of everyone else. Sure, these were American technolgies, but America has not been shy about borrowing for Europe when we've seen something we liked (pizza anyone?
TW
Re:I live in EU (Score:3, Interesting)