Microsoft SQL Server developers face huge royalty bills. How many, how much?

The Register ^ | February 20, 2003

[DallasMike]

Bump for more thorough read at work tomorrow....

[Michael Barnes]

Agreed

[stainlessbanner]

The company reckons that some SQL Server developers

Bonus for using "reckon" in a sentence

[Michael Barnes]

Pinging ya..I dunno about the intellectual property thing...still have to re-read this again..Something don't smell right here.

[montag813]

Does this apply to SQL 2000 or just 7.0? As I understand there there was significant recoding for 2000.

[DarthFuzball]

I agree, something here is scoring a D- on the smell test. I just can't seem to put my finger on it yet.

[elbucko]

Some attorneys are very happy. Which side? Why both sides, of course.

[Gee Wally]

Sounds like Microsoft engaged in some of its legendary innovating.

[D-fendr]

Yeppers:

"But, in hindsight and even though Timeline won the litigation, we must admit Microsoft's approach apparently worked for it. … Microsoft effectively froze Timeline out of leveraging its patent-protected niche in the SQL Server market for over 3 1/2 years. "

That's the patented Microsoft technology innovation.

[Bush2000]

I think what they're saying is that if you, as a developer, create a product (which you sell and/or license to one or more customers) that uses SQL Server and does some kind of data warehousing operation, you could have to pay royalties to Timeline, since MS isn't entitled to sublicense Timeline's intellectual property. It does not appear that this will affect the average SQL Server customer. But this is just my interpretation.

[ImaGraftedBranch]

Over the last 20 years, I've been a software engineer, systems analyst, OS Developer, assembler geek, mainframe performance specialist, and BAM/BSM/BPPM consultant, and I STILL have no idea what this article said.

Hmmmph.

[HAL9000]

"I think what they're saying is that if you, as a developer, create a product (which you sell and/or license to one or more customers) that uses SQL Server... It does not appear that this will affect the average SQL Server customer".

The Timeline patent coverage memo refers to "third parties" - that is, anyone who is not Timeline or Microsoft - then also refers to the "user, licensee, licensor, or manufacturer". So the SQL Server customer would be liable if they purchased an infringing application from an independent developer -

This memorandum is intended to help third parties analyze potential patent infringement(s) as it relates to their own product offerings.  It is Timeline's position that any party on notice of the existence of the '511 patents has a legal duty to investigate and form a reasoned opinion on infringement.  That is not Timeline's duty.  And, if a party forms an opinion that there is infringement, then its duty is to procure a patent license, or modify its products to "design around" an infringement, or cease any further use, license, maintenance, etc. of the product.  Otherwise, the users, manufacturers, and distributors are subject to statutory claims for treble damages for willful infringement similar to those embodied in RICO, Anti-trust and Consumer Fraud statutes. 

The ''511 patents can apply to stand alone software products or combinations of software products.  Of particular focus at this time are products used in conjunction with Microsoft SQL Server 7.0 or after.  All Microsoft products stand-alone are licensed.  But whether a combination of products infringes all the elements of a valid claim of a Timeline patent must be examined.  If so, then whether the non-Microsoft code or product provides at least one of the material steps in such infringement must be determined.  In that case, the step(s) provided by the third party product or code is not covered by Microsoft's license.  The user, licensee, licensor, or manufacturer must secure its own license or stop any further use. 

It's not clear whether it would also apply to companies that directly employ developers to create data marts/data warehouses, but Timeline seems to making some pretty broad claims - so that is another possible infringement method.

[TechJunkYard]

Microsoft effectively froze Timeline out of leveraging its patent-protected niche in the SQL Server market for over 3 1/2 years.

While making misleading statements to customers, and growing SQL Server in the market. Perhaps with an expectation that Timeline would eventually run out of money and go away.

Nah. Not Microsoft! /sarcasm

[Bush2000]

Regardless, it's likely that this affects a very small number of customers.

[Dominic Harr]

Hmmmm.

But -- what could this possibly mean for .NET web developers?

Hmmmm.

[Dominic Harr]

What do you think of this? Can this be true?

If this is true, wouldn't that pretty much be the death knell for .NET web development?

[Dominic Harr]

Unless I'm very much mistaken, this is a *very* important issue for .NET web developers . . .

Ping.

[Starwind]

Regardless, it's likely that this affects a very small number of customers.

From the article:

The trial court, ironically, found Microsoft's witnesses more credible than Timeline's on this issue; specifically the potential impact of the patents on users of SQL Server.

"...every Microsoft customer, including ISVs, VARs, and corporate end users, who wished to customize SQL Server by adding code or product to meet the specific needs of users would have been required to purchase a license from Timeline to do so. Given the basic design and intended purpose and use of SQL Server ... the potential economic benefit to Timeline would have been staggering. ...(That economic benefit would be) from the future sale of licenses to essentially all of Microsoft's SQL Server customers."

The number of SQL Server users who ultimately need a patent license from Timeline may be none, some (as Timeline assumes), or essentially all users as Microsoft led the court to believe.

It affects more than direct customers of MS who may customize their own datamart apps. Minimally it further affects the customers of every 3rd party product, ISV, VAR, SI, etc that used SQL Server to create a datamart in an infringing way, which infringment seems likely given the patent scope.

[Bush2000]

I wouldn't jump to any conclusions. As the article says, "the number of SQL Server users who ultimately need a patent license from Timeline may be none..."