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."

Re:Why shouldn't they ?

[numbski]

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!

this sucks...

[Grinin]

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.

I don't know why they should not own everything.

[twitter]

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:NFS is easier anyways

[MemoryDragon]

Actually SMB not even is Microsofts invention it was once an open protocol under the umbrella of IBM. Microsoft blatantly stole it!

Re:NFS is easier anyways

[macemoneta]

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.

WINS on a Mac

[StarKruzr]

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:NFS is easier anyways

[init100]

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.

AFS [wikipedia.org]? This system is used by several large sites, such as universities (including mine), governmental and corporate sites.

Re:Alternatively, you take file serving away from

[Colin Smith]

Only Microsoft can integrate native support for your protocol in windows.

So you're saying OpenAFS doesn't exist? Admittedly it's overkill but it's an example of an independant open network filesystem which has both clients and servers for Windows.

 

Re:Alternatively, you take file serving away from

[Jimithing DMB]

Wow. Your post shows a lot of ignorance. OS X has a kernel API for implementing new filesystems which is similar to BSDs although using opaque structures with accessor "methods" rather than direct access to structure data. It was apparently good enough for Amit Singh to implement FUSE on top of which now allows any Linux FS that can run under FUSE to be readily ported.

UNIX of course depends on what variant but at the very worst they all have some sort of NFS client so you could theoretically run a localhost-only NFS server to expose your filesystem to the kernel. Some UNIX and UNIX-clones like linux are open source so anything can be done.

And finally, we come to Windows. I know for a FACT that Windows has supported pluggable network filesystems for a long time now. What do you think Novell Client32 is? Sure, it's a GINA replacement for login but it also is a "filesystem redirector". It makes \\SERVERNAME\SHARENAME\... try the NetWare File Protocol on SERVERNAME before deferring to MS's CIFS.

And as others have mentioned, there is OpenAFS which does something similar.

I think the real problem is that most developers would rather deal with Windows remotely. Writing a CIFS server using your favorite development platform (generally some type of UNIX) is a lot nicer than writing a network redirector for several versions of windows. These days though it's probably easier because almost everything now is of the NT lineage so one versioni with maybe a few conditionals should be sufficient.

Still, it's worth pointing out that Novell has dropped support for NT4 and doesn't yet support Vista. Samba works with all of them.

You ain't seen nothing yet

[guruevi]

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'.

My thoughts exactly

[plopez]

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:I don't doubt...

[Alphager]

Java is fricking great. It is terrible for Desktop-Applikations (simply because the VM needs too long to be loaded), but server-side it rocks. I have been working on Java-servers which serve more than 200'000 clients, and it has been pleasant work. Get of your high horse; Java is used for way more than just slow Applets.