Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CNET: Is open source getting to Microsoft?
CNET ^ | September 15, 2006, 4:00 AM PDT | Martin LaMonica

Posted on 09/15/2006 9:59:49 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach

Microsoft's decision to not enforce patents on Web services standards underscores the growing acceptance of core open-source tenets.

The software giant on Tuesday published the Microsoft Open Specification Promise, a document that says that Microsoft will not sue anyone who creates software based on Web services technology, a set of standardized communication protocols designed by Microsoft and other vendors.

Reaction to the surprise news was favorable, even from some of Microsoft's rivals.

"The best thing about this is the fundamental mind shift at Microsoft. A couple of years ago, this would have been unthinkable. Now it is real. This is really a major change in the way Microsoft deals with the open-source community," said Gerald Beuchelt, a Web services architect working in the Business Alliances Group in Sun Microsystems' chief technologist's office.

Microsoft has never sued anyone for patent infringement related to Web services. But its pledge not to assert the patents alleviates lingering concerns among developers who feared potential legal action if they incorporate Web services into their code, said analysts and software company executives.

Open-source developers, for example, should have fewer worries about writing open-source Web services products. Also, other software companies could create non-Windows products that interoperate with Microsoft code via Web services.

(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch-cnet.com.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Computers/Internet
KEYWORDS: microsoft; opensource
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

1 posted on 09/15/2006 9:59:51 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

ping.


2 posted on 09/15/2006 10:00:28 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3; chance33_98; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; Bush2000; PenguinWry; GodGunsandGuts; CyberCowboy777; ...

3 posted on 09/15/2006 10:03:36 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

IOW, we won't enforce patents that shouldn't have been granted in the first place.

Still, great to hear this from Microsoft. Even the perpetually Microsoft-bashing owner of Groklaw is saying good things.


4 posted on 09/15/2006 10:25:57 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

With Microsoft,....trust but verify....


5 posted on 09/15/2006 10:38:04 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
People are all gushing with excitement at this, but there are some troubling aspects that I have not seen mentioned elsewhere.

To clarify, “Microsoft Necessary Claims” are those claims of Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to implement only the required portions of the Covered Specification that are described in detail and not merely referenced in such Specification.

The above is interesting in that it limits the pledge to the required portions that are described in detail. Does this mean that something optional is not covered? Microsoft has been known to embrace and extend a specification or two. If, in extending the specification, they use a patented method/system, then open source is not free and clear to simply go off and develop/deploy that extension.

This promise applies to all existing versions of the following specifications. Many of these specifications are currently undergoing further standardization in certain standards organizations. To the extent that Microsoft is participating in those efforts, this promise will apply to the specifications that result from those activities (as well as the existing versions).

The above is intersting for several reasons. Microsoft may have a patent or two that impact an upcoming specification. What if Microsoft does not participate in that specification?

It is interesting that Microsoft also held back on a few specifications published by W3C. Also, the list (in entirity) is not necessarily all new stuff. Many of the web service specifications already include disclaimers.

SOAP 1.1 Binding for MTOM 1.0 IBM, Microsoft, Oracle and SAP (collectively, the “Authors”) each agree to grant you a license, under royalty-free and otherwise reasonable, non-discriminatory terms and conditions, to their respective essential patent claims that they deem necessary to implement the Specification.

SOAP over UDP BEA, Lexmark, Microsoft, and Ricoh (collectively, the "Co-Developers") each agree to grant you a license, under royalty-free and otherwise reasonable, non-discriminatory terms and conditions, to their respective essential patent claims that they deem necessary to implement the Specification.

6 posted on 09/15/2006 11:28:30 AM PDT by rit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Microsoft has never sued anyone for patent infringement related to Web services.

sounds like a bunch a paranoid people running around, think if MS was as bad as the movie/music industry.

7 posted on 09/15/2006 1:45:06 PM PDT by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; ShadowAce; rit; Echo Talon
> With Microsoft,....trust but verify....

Remain alert. Here's the fundamental problem with Microsoft's otherwise praise-worthy announcement.

Any right that can be granted, can also be taken away.
The U.S. Constitution does not say the federal government "grants" rights to the people and the states. It says those rights are inherent, and that the government exists to guarantee those inherent rights. Why? Because any right that can be granted, can also be taken away.

Microsoft says they won't sue, in other words they imply that they are granting a right to other developers to use the software specifications. Well, whoop-de-doo.

Compare this with the GPL, which explicitly says the rights to use the software are inherent and the GPL guarantees those rights.

The analogy should be obvious. Any right-thinking American should immediately see that while Microsoft is doing a nice thing in this instance (granting an implied right), they are not doing the correct thing, which would be to state explicitly that the right to use is inherent, and that they will guarantee it.

Nevertheless, good for Microsoft. Given where they were only a few years ago, we should be pleased. They've taken one small step away from doing intentional harm.

8 posted on 09/15/2006 9:24:14 PM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dayglored

You make some excellent points....


9 posted on 09/15/2006 9:35:09 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon; Ernest_at_the_Beach
> sounds like a bunch a paranoid people running around, think if MS was as bad as the movie/music industry.

What makes you think they're not worse?

Microsoft has sued (often into the ground) many more companies and individuals, and put many more people out of work, and caused many more suicides, than all of the movie/music industry put together. By (I'd guess) a factor between 2 and 10.

You must not know any individuals whose lives were ruined because Microsoft lied outright, broke their promises, stole their products, and ran them into the ground. You must not know any company that has been drop-kicked by a Microsoft software audit, and forced to layoff a lot of people, or fold. Well, I do.

The movie/music industry is a bunch of pikers compared to Microsoft. MS did not gain their reputation of being evil for no good reason. I'm pleased they're improving, of course. And I look forward to a happier day when Microsoft decides to cooperate and play well with others.

But it's not paranoia to still distrust them.

10 posted on 09/15/2006 9:36:20 PM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
> You make some excellent points....

Thanks. I guess I'm an old fart, software-wise. I was writing software for years before Bill Gates whined about hobbyists who were making improvements on his BASIC by making copies and porting it to their homebrew systems -- just like everybody did with every other piece of software in existence at the time. I remember that it was Bill Gates who invented commercial "closed-source".

And I'm still writing software. So I take the long view. And I see parallels to politics and government.

In the long run, it's better for all, to strike a balance between sharing and greed. Microsoft is learning they need to temper their greed with a little sharing. Cool.

11 posted on 09/15/2006 9:45:31 PM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dayglored

You do anything with the 360?


12 posted on 09/15/2006 10:03:24 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
> You do anything with the 360?

Alas, no.

My first programs were written for a Burroughs 5500 system. FORTRAN engineering sims and PCAP circuit analysis, punch cards. 1970, in college. And while I was aware of the 360, it was only by reputation, not experience.

By 1973 I was working on PDP-12 and PDP-8 boxes, then switched over to micros in 1976, and since I didn't get into business apps, I never really revisited the big iron.

You?

13 posted on 09/16/2006 8:09:34 AM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dayglored
Microsoft has sued (often into the ground) many more companies and individuals, and put many more people out of work, and caused many more suicides, than all of the movie/music industry put together.

People who lose their lawsuits are usually wrong. And the RIAA has sued thousands more this year alone than Microsoft ever will.

14 posted on 09/18/2006 8:06:53 PM PDT by Golden Eagle (Buy American. While you still can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dayglored
I remember that it was Bill Gates who invented commercial "closed-source".

Which ended up making him the richest man in the world. What an idiot! /sarcasm

15 posted on 09/18/2006 8:09:39 PM PDT by Golden Eagle (Buy American. While you still can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
> People who lose their lawsuits are usually wrong.

Or their pockets are not as deep as Microsoft's, and they have to fold, regardless of the cards in their hands.

> And the RIAA has sued thousands more this year alone than Microsoft ever will.

You're probably right; I spaced and forgot that the RIAA was now up in the thousands.

16 posted on 09/18/2006 11:02:00 PM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
>> I remember that it was Bill Gates who invented commercial "closed-source".

> Which ended up making him the richest man in the world. What an idiot! /sarcasm

On the contrary.

Bill Gates is surely not an idiot, and I've always said he was/is brilliant in business. He's a pretty smart fellow technically as well. I have no problem with him being rich. I estimate his worth at about a million times mine, good for him. I certainly have no problem with him doing whatever he damn pleases with his money.

His mid-70's idea that software should be secret and cost lots of money (as opposed to shared and low-cost) was revolutionary at the time. Like most revolutionaries he was both revered and hated for his ideas.

I have never had a problem with him pursuing his goal of a world with only commercial closed-source software, sold by Microsoft to a willing market, even though I disagree with it philosophically. It's a free country and a mostly free market, and his idea clearly had merit as you point out.

I do have a problem with his predatory business practices, which created a company culture of insecurity and greed, which then did incalculable harm to other businesses and individuals. Microsoft has never wanted to "play well with others" -- they want to own the software world. They've said it, and they act like it, and whenever they can, they do it. That's not good for anyone but Microsoft, hence I'm glad they're showing some signs of mellowing out a little bit.

17 posted on 09/18/2006 11:16:31 PM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dayglored
You're probably right Thanks for admitting your mistake.
18 posted on 09/19/2006 4:50:53 AM PDT by Golden Eagle (Buy American. While you still can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
You're probably right

Thanks for admitting your mistake. We all make them, as I just did with that last post.

19 posted on 09/19/2006 4:52:58 AM PDT by Golden Eagle (Buy American. While you still can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dayglored
Like most revolutionaries he was both revered and hated for his ideas.

Well said.

I do have a problem with his predatory business practices

No different than IBM, who needed and got a staunch competitor from Microsoft. And they have paid a price, in court, when they went too far, while IBM always seems to skate. This "opensource" resurgence was a calculated move by IBM to bring in foreign IP and use it as leverage against their competitors who were nearly pure American companies, like Microsoft/Oracle/Sun, and one that lowered the value of American IP tangibles such as patents. Obviously I see International Business Machines as a much greater danger to the American way of life than Microsoft, for doing the same things you accuse Microsoft of, but for longer.

20 posted on 09/19/2006 5:14:34 AM PDT by Golden Eagle (Buy American. While you still can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson