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."
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)
Re: (Score:3)
If SMB protocol is patented (wouldn't suprise me) apple would be in trouble too.
Then again, BeOS back in the day (hey, the free version in 99 quickly became my primary OS!) used CIFS (common internetwork file share) and apparently was inter-operable with SMB somehow? I've always been a bit vague on that point.
Anyhoo. If CIFS is "available" and "interoperable", why does everyone insist on SMB vs CIFS?
CIFS == SMB renamed (Score:2)
It wouldn't surprise me to find that Apple had paid a licence fee to MS...
Simon
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!
What is wrong... (Score:2, Insightful)
Corporate bullying should never be tolerated in a mature nation. Also, corporation profit compromising as a motive for prosecution tells a lot about (lack of) respect for humans.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
WINS on a Mac (Score:4, Informative)
Dave does WINS.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why shouldn't they ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're thinking of trademarks.
Patents have no such limitations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, No they havn't.
Unless selling out = working with microsoft to provide non-GPL proprietory tools which allow better linux/windows interoperability and agreeing that both microsoft and linux code probably infringe on each other's patents and therefore agreeing not to sue each others' customers.
To me, that's not selling out, that's being sensible and making your product more attractive to corporates with $$$. Some would even say it was a smart business move.
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.
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.
Re:I don't know why they should not own everything (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and the keyword there is suddenly. If the code is slowly, quietly and profitably (to the right folks) swapped out, it will happen.
And that's why we've got to raise a ruckus.
in the spirit of Al Capone (Score:2)
With this off the record business, I wonder if they are claiming it on taxes? Both on the giving and recieveing end of the "patent extortion". Basically just how under the table is this?
Why be different? (Score:2)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
The terms of the GPL only kick in for distribution. There are no GPL restrictions on how you use the software
Re:Why shouldn't they ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Allison's argument is that it's not legal for the companies that are paying the money to MS. Those companies are only licensed to use Linux under the GPL. The GPL forbids what they're doing. (I'm sure that's a vast oversimplification, but that seems to be the general idea.)
Re:Why shouldn't they ? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Pay us under the table and we'll not sue you into the ground on the basis of something which has never been proven before - but you'd rather not have to risk it, wouldn't you?"
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't done anything illegal
wrong and illegal are often two different things.
Re: (Score:2)
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 exc
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
Plausible, but no proof (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If it is true than Microsoft sure as hell selects his targets by who they
think will pay up offcourse and selects a target (victem) that doesn't want
to see this information out in public. I mean if some Windows only shop A
has customers that are trusting the company A because they only use Microsoft
products. Microsoft discovers that company A actually runs on Linux on his
internal network, i would say company A is a perfect candidate t
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.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, publicly traded companies are required to list all liabilities including those from law suits or potential law suits. If they are hushing it up, they may be violating exchange rules or SEC regs.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for starters, how about a statement from Microsoft, stating that such things do not occur?
If we don't get such a statement, that will mean something in itself.
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.
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux in general isn't good at LAN-level networking. It's hard to manage network users, and it's hard to get permissions set correctly. It's getting better, but right now, for heavy-duty LAN stuff, Windows and Active Directo
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
Re:NFS is easier anyways (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
AFS [wikipedia.org]? This system is used by several large sites, such as universities (including mine), governmental and corporate sites.
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.
Re:NFS is easier anyways (Score:4, Insightful)
First of all, Windows does support NFS. Secondly, NFS security is a joke. All you have to do is change the user ID of your user on your machine to the user ID of the person you want to steal files from on the file server. Gods help your server admin if he doesn't have root_squash enabled. Then all you have to do is su to root on your machine, and you have access to everything on the file server.
SMB has actual security and checks on the server side. Hence you have to type a password with mount -t smb, but not with mount -t nfs. Doesn't it seem kind of suspect when you don't have to enter a password with NFS?
Not flamebait, there are serious flaws in NFS (Score:2)
SMB it seems may be patent encumbered, which leaves the rather unpalatable alternative that there is a need for a ground up free, open standard network filesystem which can be implemented on all platforms.
No if your environment is secured. (Score:2)
-Not allowing users to change uid (or using mechanisms to make sure they do it only to a handful of them)
-Removing all external media from personal computers. Clog the USB ports. No laptops on the network (laptops go to a firewalled network considered hostile).
-Having restriction lists of machines allowed to mount filesystems remotely.
-Constantly generating reports of who is mounting what and when.
-And so on and so forth.
Security is a way of life, not a protocol. NFS may be shite
Re: (Score:2)
And for fuck sake, why doesn't Windows support NFS? It makes mixing boxes on a lan such a bitch ... oh wait ... I get it.
it does thru SFU [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:NFS is easier anyways (Score:4, Insightful)
Even in the mac world, rather than mess with AFP (which isn't difficult to use or set up), we just tell our mac users to connect using smb to our servers to get shares when they are not logging into the Apple Domain. It just works and it can communicate with all our OSs.
That said, I feel that NFSv4 is likely a more secure, more open solution. Alas, though, I doubt we'll ever see Windows support it fully, including permission mappings.
Re:NFS is easier anyways (Score:4, Insightful)
NFS has been a joke from day one. The design itself had poorly thought out identity mapping, complete lack of authentication, failure to implement UNIX file system semantics, incredible inefficiency, and a useless RPC layer. I think Sun has done a grave disservice to the UNIX world with NFS. To this day, we still don't have a widely used, decent, secure network file system on UNIX.
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:2)
Re:Alternatively, you take file serving away from (Score:2)
Well, that was the idea with CIFS. Microsoft embraced it, and then extended it to become SMB. [samba-tng.org]
Re: (Score:2)
With an independently controlled and standard network file system that wouldn't be the case.
Re:Alternatively, you take file serving away from (Score:2)
And how do you hook that into Windows such that the Kernel can efficiently make access control decisions and everything else it needs to do?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 local
Re: (Score:2)
What does Netapp do? (Score:2)
skating on thin GPL ice (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FUD (Score:2)
Legitimate Businessman's Civic Improvement Cmte... (Score:5, Funny)
Rocco and Knuckles will be by to pick up the envelope.
this sucks... (Score:2, Informative)
Makes me want to puke.
Think of the Shareholders (Score:5, Insightful)
Yay Rumors!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If we don't do something soon, Necrosaro may awake!!! Run for your lives!
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.
In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
Mmm, burrito.
Puts the Novell Deal in Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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 entir
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).
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sun have sat on their laurels for all too long with Java. It's telling that Java is a common source of fodder for thedailywtf.com, because the language in itself is horrific to develop in, and seems to be evidence of being "The software industrys way of proving that no matter how fast hardware manufacturers can
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
comes a time... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is way past the time with that despicable company. There are a few out there that are the epitome of sleaze and greed, enron, exxon, haliburton/kbr, the media companies represented by the MAFIAA price fixing cartel come to mind.
And Microsoft.
I applaud the foreign nations who are actively resisting and moving away from them as much as possible. Regrettably, I know the USA will be the last to see the light on how they are dragging down and ruining the computer scene, they are well past any sort of usefulness for society. All they represent now is economic inertia and "the big skim".
For the past several years now I have expected nothing from them other than severely restrictive, over priced buggy bloatware, being pushed in the sleaziest manner possible-and I certainly haven't been disappointed in the least, they nail it every chance they get. And what is worse-you can't "vote with your wallet". You as an individual can decide to not use their stuff, but that doesn't stop some piece of all your tax money and some piece of the cost of everything you buy winding its way back into their already stuffed to the seams bursting wallets.
That is a clear sign when some corporation has just gotten too large and too intrusive and too greedy and too powerful, when you can't even avoid them when you want to.
The original icon with bill the borg was just so right-on. In fact, it's worse, imagine a corporate society that took the worst they could find from ferengi society and the borg and combined them, that's MS.
The only people I feel sorry for are the ones stuck working there in this economy, because they need a job that can pay the bills. I know there has to be a lot of folks there who know full well that "things are just not right", but are stuck for a handy alternative.
Perhaps those folks and any non-greed filled stockholders can turn that company around back to being useful and ethically straight-not just "profitable", I mean ethically straight. No one really minds honest decent companies, and no one really minds if someone makes a buck, but people do mind and do notice once companies have gone off the deep end into uncontrolled spasms of pure greed.
Yes, Balmer, someone does need to "take the food off your plate", you and your slobbering yes-men are overstuffed bullies and just plain rude and obnoxious in my opinion.
Put the damn fork down and push away from the table, haven't you gorged enough? Is society now supposed to fund your computing vomitorium so you can keep eating at the economic trough well past any semblance of normalcy and decency? Did you ever stop to think that yes, it IS possible to be civil in our civilization?
You ain't seen nothing yet (Score:3, Informative)
My record: I have worked so far for 5 Gold Partners in Europe and the US and they all have the same 'problem'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Contract law.
Does this mean that a "license" is a contract? Case law seems to indicate yes.
RTFGPL (Score:2)
RTFGPL, dude. GPL is NOT an EULA. It's a distribution license.
From the GPL Section 0 [gnu.org]
Re: (Score:2)
A license that you need to make 100 copies of GPL-covered software, for each of your servers. That, or it's legal to make 100 copies of Windows, for each of your servers. Either way, Microsoft loses.
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct it would be legal to install a single piece of software that you've purchased on 100 computers without needing to invoke the GPL or any other distribution license. With windows you give up the right to use the software in this manner when you agree to the EULA. The EULA is a contract in which y
Re:fuck IP and MS and everybody (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 )
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, I know this is just a troll. Yet, it's quotes like these which make me wonder just how
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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."
Re:fuck IP and MS and everybody (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you, sir, are the troll. Could you throw FUD or accusations of murder or attempted murder after the fact in the direction of FSF or Linux Users? By doing it now, you are claiming us of a zealotry (no, internet posts don't count, especially when someone releases steam) that has not surfaced yet when it has been shown time and again that MS is the lawbreaker and predator. Not us.
Thank you.
Re:fuck IP and MS and everybody (Score:4, Funny)
Re:fuck IP and MS and everybody (Score:5, Interesting)
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."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)