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

The Register ^ | February 20, 2003

[Bush2000]

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

Wrong. ADO.NET works with any ODBC database.

[Starwind]

You seem to be arguing the exact opposite impact that Microsoft itself argued. Why didn't MS argue the impact would be 'none'?

Further, if no MS SQL server users were impacted, significant material damages would not exist and this case would not have gone to trial; but the court apparently agreed otherwise.

[Dominic Harr]

Wrong. ADO.NET works with any ODBC database.

.NET's odbc is sold as being primarily designed to be tightly integrated with IIS and SQLServer. Something around 2/3rds of all .NET work now is using that architecture.

Now this would appear to be a *serious* problem for all those developers.

N'est pas?

[Fractal Trader]

This is one way I read it: One cannot run or use ANY code against the TimeLine DataWarehouse executables. Theoretically, any SQL code would be forbidded. More specifically, reporting tools such as Crystal Reports, Brio, and Cognos (and MS Access and OLAP server) are verboten from running their executables against the Time Line executables, or those companies will get sued as well.

Game, set and match to Timeline. Massive royalty payments, interest and penalties to plaintiff. Kind of reminds me of a few years back when Microsoft stole advanced mouse features for the MS Mouse hardware from a Spokane company. They did not even have a single engineering document or diagram that they could produce which predated their relationship with the company. Massive, instantaneous settlement, with full non-disclosure agreement. Or, if one can remember further back, the disk compression utility from Stac -- instantaneous payout to plaintiff.

The one thing I can give Microsoft credit for was that, until recently, they refused to file most patents because they didn't feel that most software could or should be patented. The downside has been a blatant disregard for intellectual property rights of their competitors and partners.

The latest one to watch out for is the dispute against the Orange telephone, where the UK comany is in a Texas court (noted for its fast prosecutions of corporate crimes) alleging that Microsoft stole its firmware patents and trade secrets, tried to bankrupt the company to regain the IP rights, and gave away the IP to Taiwanese cell phone makers who are now marketing devices *remarkably* similar to Oranges.

If you believe in patents and intellectual property protection -- my father settled after 20 years a dispute with a large company which had refused to honor his patents, so I am quite familiar with such situations; my grandfather lost his patents to another large company after the judge admitted, in a private correspondence, that to protect his family's well being, he had to find for the defendant -- then you have to feel that Microsoft's abuse of intellectual property is abhorent, disgraceful, and downright reckless.

[Bush2000]

NET's odbc is sold as being primarily designed to be tightly integrated with IIS and SQLServer. Something around 2/3rds of all .NET work now is using that architecture.

My point stands: .NET works with any ODBC database. Therefore, your point about .NET being "dead" as a result of this case is yet more ABMer crap. As usual.

[Bush2000]

The funny thing is ... Timeline now has to determine who, if anybody, is using its code. They simply don't know.

[Dominic Harr]

Yes, that Sendo case is certainly another lovely example of the Microsoft definition of 'innovation'.

I believe that case is a clear-cut example of the economic equivilant of assault and murder, altho many people get nervous at my putting it so plainly.

Do you think it is possible that this will apply to the fellows at work who have an internal SQLServer db fed by custom apps spitting out Crystal Reports reports? Are they likely to be presented with an unexpected bill?

Or is it more likely that MS will just fork over the required cash to pay for the upgraded, developers-use-all license they were offered in the first place?

Certainly this should give pause to anyone who is using or was considering using .NET/IIS/SQLServer for a project.

[Dominic Harr]

My point stands: .NET works with any ODBC database.

And my point stands, too: Anyone using .NET/IIS/SQLServer as their architecture just might have a nasty surprise in store for them.

And those people *certainly* were defrauded by MS.

You don't think they are a significant portion of the .NET community? I'm sure they'd be thrilled to hear MS flunkies say *that*!

[general_re]

Why didn't MS argue the impact would be 'none'?

"You can't rule against us, judge - the sky would fall in, the earth would cease rotating, and the sun would burn out!" Variations of this argument are presented by virtually every defendant in virtually every civil case ever heard. ;)

If you say the impact is "none", then the judge might take it into his head to rule for the other guy, on the theory that ruling against you doesn't really cost you anything....

[Bush2000]

Try to understand this simple concept:

SQL Server != .NET

.NET is a managed code framework. Like Java, it interacts with any ODBC-compliant database. Including Oracle. Including mySQL. Your attempts to lump .NET into SQL Server are simply wrong.