Microsoft Getting Paid for Patents in Linux? 377
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."
Plausible, but no proof (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why shouldn't they ? (Score:3, Interesting)
If MS has found their IP in OSS stuff they ought to come forward and give the programmer a chance to fix it.
But then MS might only have SCO-type of proof...
Makes me wonder, if ever someone gets dragged into court by MS claiming their IP is being infringes upon and that someone could prove MS knew about it for a long time, even charges for it, would/should that make it a difficult case for MS?
Re:Why shouldn't they ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Careful with that double edged blade Microsoft! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Why shouldn't they ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Contributory copyright infringement.
Quoting GPLv2 section 7:
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.)
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.
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:Puts the Novell Deal in Perspective (Score:3, Interesting)
When a business deal is made, the involved parties don't always understand what each side is getting out of it. It's not outside the realm of reason to take Novell's claims at face value. So let's assume Novell went in to negotiations with the best intentions - a real agreement to better compatibility and functionality. Microsoft enters negotiations with an entirely different goal and shrewd negotiators that they are, come away with a fresh source of propaganda to feed their ongoing campaign. Novell walks away with... well... what did they get out of the deal again? Granted - incompetence doesn't really sit much higher than having bad intentions.
Re:fuck IP and MS and everybody (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you hear that Mr. Chairman? This sort of behavior doesn't make an willing customer of me. If I have anything to say about it, you won't make an unwilling customer of me either. Either make something I want to buy or hurry up and die. In no case will I be forced to enrich you further.
In this case, the messenger is the message (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft refuses to reveal which code is infringing so that it could either be rewritten or (more likely) have the patent struck down due to prior art.
They're basically saying "You did something wrong but I'm not telling you what you did and you have to make up for it or else.". This is just plain extortion and should be dealt with as such.
As the old saying goes, when messenger is the message it's okay to shoot the messenger.
I don't doubt... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:fuck IP and MS and everybody (Score:5, Interesting)
patents (Score:3, Interesting)
If you patent a mechanical device and someone infringes on your patent to sell me a knockoff, you can sue them and make them stop selling it, but you can't sue me and make me stop using the one that I bought.
Something like this happened years ago. Kodak came out with an instamatic camera, one that ejected the photo paper when a picture was taken then slowly develops. Polaroid had a patent on this and sued Kodak, Kodak lost and was required to either issue a refund for those who bought the camera or exchange the camera for a Polaroid camera. The only reason to keep the camera was as a collector's item, they wouldn't be able to use it because Kodak could not sell the photo paper and the camera was incompatible with Polaroid's paper. Something similar probably would happen here with software. While a user might decide to keep it they very well may find they can't get support for it, at least not legally.
FalconMicrosoft are probably... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Proof (Score:2, Interesting)
"blow off" can also be interpretted to "take it up with the company that developed it", "provide proof that our closed-source code makes use of open-source code that you have debatedly patented" or simply state that everything must go through a lawyer if M$ is threatening court action.
If M$ comes to you and states that they want money for something they didn't do, and you give them money, do you still get to bitch about it?
Re:Proof (Score:1, Interesting)
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 )
Granted off the record and anonymous isn't great. That said, here's my off the record and anonymous anecdote on the subject.
My father in law is CXX of $LARGE_BIOTECH. They use Linux extensively throughout the business.
He and some of the other high ups at said company went to Redmond and met with some of the high ups there.
That day he was pulled aside into a private rom with about a dozen lawyers who threatened him repeatedly with lawsuits if he didn't stop using that Linux crap and help them get a foothold in the scientific computing field. He laughed in their face, and as far as I know it hasn't gone any farther than clear direct threats at this point.
According to him, acquaintences at similar levels in other companies have had similar experiences.
So, sure, I'm posting this AC and even if I wasn't it's not like my UID would prove I'm telling the truth, so take from this what you will.
The time to get pissed off is long before it's "proved" since its generally too late by that point. The problem is not running around like a chicken with its head cut off over everything.
On this particular issue I happen to have a 100% reliable source who does know this for a fact. Unfortunately that does very little to *prove* it to you.