Posted on 05/14/2007 7:28:15 PM PDT by mylife
Report: Microsoft says open source violates 235 patents
By Stephen Shankland
Story last modified Mon May 14 06:16:01 PDT 2007
Microsoft claims that free and open-source software violates 235 of its patents, according to a magazine report published Sunday.
In an interview with Fortune, Microsoft top lawyer Brad Smith alleges that the Linux kernel violates 42 Microsoft patents, while its user interface and other design elements infringe on a further 65. OpenOffice.org is accused of infringing 45, along with 83 more in other free and open-source programs, according to Fortune.
It is not entirely clear how Microsoft might proceed in enforcing these patents, but the company has been encouraging large tech companies that depend on Linux to ink patent deals, starting with its controversial pact with Novell last November. Microsoft has also cited Linux protection playing a role in recent patent swap deals with Samsung and Fuji Xerox. Microsoft has also had discussions but not reached a deal with Red Hat, as noted in the Fortune article.
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer is also quoted in the article as saying Microsoft's open-source competitors need to "play by the same rules as the rest of the business."
"What's fair is fair," Ballmer told Fortune. "We live in a world where we honor, and support the honoring of, intellectual property."
The story notes that some big tech proponents of open source have been stockpiling intellectual property as part of the Open Invention Network, set up in 2005 by folks like Sony, Red Hat, IBM, NEC and Philips. The article surmises that if Microsoft were to go after open source, these companies' combined know-how might give it some patent weapons to go after Windows.
A Microsoft representative did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment.
Given how deeply entrenched open-source software has become in the computing industry, taking direct legal action against the open-source realm would be a complicated, hackle-raising undertaking for Microsoft. Customers use open-source software widely, and many major computing companies--IBM, Dell, Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard, Motorola and Oracle, for example--support Linux work directly.
It's not the first time that open-source patent concerns have arisen. A 2004 study by a Open Source Risk Management, a company selling insurance against risks of using open-source software, concluded that Linux could violate at least 283 patents, 27 of them Microsoft patents.
Patents and the open-source movement get along awkwardly at best. Patent law gives proprietary, exclusive rights to patent holders, but open-source programming is built on the idea of free sharing. Newer open-source licenses sometimes address the issue by requiring contributors to open-source projects to grant users and developers of the software a perpetual, royalty-free license to any patents that relate to the contribution. Now on News.com Report: Microsoft says open source violates 235 patents Most hated blogger on the planet? Photos: Engineering lessons learned from Katrina Extra: Online radio remixes the future of music
Different companies have dealt in different ways with the open-source patent conundrum. For example, HP has taken a pro-patent stance, while IBM, Nokia, Sun and others have granted some rights to use some of their patents in open-source software.
The Open Invention Network remains a relatively young effort, but it has attracted participation this year from proprietary software giant Oracle and from Linux support seller Canonical. A company may license the network's patents for free as long as they promise not to assert any patent claims against those involved in the "Linux environment."
The Free Software Foundation is working on a new draft of the General Public License, one element of which will ban partnerships such as the one struck by Novell and Microsoft.
Oh, and I have bought 3.1.1, windows 95,98,ME, and finally XT.
Everything between 3.1.1. and XT has been a nightmare.
Now the Ahole wants to tell me I cant play an mp3 on the computer in the den because I downloaded it for a fee on the PC in the family room. this digital rights stuff is computer fascism
Screw that!! MS sucks
me 2.
i’ll be doing something,
and i notice that microsnot wants permission to go out of the zone alarm and tattle to bill gates what i’m doing.
He sucks.
and he is going down
I never respond to the “send a report” stuff.
They come up when I use “firefox” or some other prog that MS doesnt “own”
I know the asshat is using the info to thwart the competition
yeah i bought those, except vista.
and i was a real sucker for windows me—junk.
i’m due to get a california settlement of $100.00 from microsoft from a class action suit.
the $100.00 can be applied to new pc hard and softwares but i’m wondering if it’s worth it to buy more ms. hafta see.
Try ubuntu 7.04 its free
Its not quite there but the pressure is on Microsoft
95,98 and ME were HORRIBLE
ok.
i’ll try it.
but i get confused. what happened to red hat etc etc etc. ?
linux’ come and go, come and go.
Bluffing is a broad term. I’m sure there is something there, but good luck in actually getting at what it is. Much better for Microsoft to be vague for as long as possible and scare other businesses away from the use of anything other than windows over possible litigation over.
Blackmail and intimidation, it’s the Microsoft business model ;)
Well open source is always morphing.
Red hat sells a particular version of code and what they really sell is support for that code.
Ubuntu is free and the support is free. You may or not like it, but it pretty impressive and its free.
I have to admit Im using XP at the moment, but I am this ‘ ‘ close to saying goodbye forever to microsoft
You got that right
ok, i’ll try ubuntu. thanks.
i’m going to bed now. me tired.
Linux is constantly changing.
Its coming of age though. its about to become a “standard”
me tired too
Cya
Only the most dim rate SCO's credibility at above zero. (What are the Freeper manners, I'm not naming any posters specifically, should I ping them? No need, they'll be along shortly to identify themselves.)
MS following the exact same path won't work. Even PHBs know they've seen this particular line of BS before.
If your intimidation is so transparent even an MBA can see it, you're done, stick a fork in the effort.
Wow!/s
You are trying too hard ~ sometimes the lines blur. In this case the “operating instructions that make a machine operate” could differ, but it’s the operation of the machine that makes the difference ~ but that wasn’t the point I was making anyway. Whatever the standards of evidence might be in a court of law, I suggested that the items Microsoft is complaining about might well be code for code IDENTICAL ~ and that would satisfy all of us that there could have been some hanky-panky (although probably not a court of law if it had a different standard).
OK. While I agree that there *may* possibly be identical code, the next question would be "in which direction was the copying done?" The SCO case proved that while SCO claimed infringement, and showed a little code, it was proved that the SCO code was newer than the Linux code--hence it was *SCO* that was copying from the GPL code.
With patents, it doesn't really matter who wrote it first--only who owns the patent. So the next step would be to determine if the patent is valid--and there are many who believe that a lot of MS' patents are not valid.
So any case MS would bring will be an interesting case study in all this and the finer points of patent law.
No doubt Microsoft intends to plumb the depths eh!
Actually, from this article, it appears the comments were made to force companies into more Novell-like deals with MS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.