Microsoft: Free and open source software violates 235 Microsoft patents

[rkr1958]

Microsoft finally has thrown down the gauntlet and is claiming publicly that free and open-source software (FOSS) violates 235 Microsoft patents.

That tally comes from a newly published article in Fortune. In that article, Microsoft licensing chief Horacio Gutierrez wouldn't talk specifics. He declined to specify which Microsoft patents are being violated or how "lest FOSS advocates start filing challenges to them," according to the Fortune article.
...

Full Story

[JerryB]

hi,
it not that surprising that M$ puts out this kind of statement.. M$ and various large companies will routinely do this to firghten competitors into submission...

in addition, i have seen this over the years, M$ even if they don't have a valid case, will sue and as result of the process the the defendent has to give up because they run out of money or bankrupts!!!!!! .... which demonstrates the injustice of the system...!!

it very suspcious that M$ doesn't say what is being infrenged, since normally they'll say specifically what the case is... and here they don't so I can only think that this is a meathod to subdue compitition or there trying run the competotrs out of money to fight....

a example that backfired on M$... was lindows... a program that allowed windows native programs to run on linux machines...., M$ didn't like that program at all!! smile, M$ tried to sue them for copyright infrngment and asking for hundreds of millsion of dollars in compensation..... that would have driven lindows out of business... but it backfired on M$ when lindows countered that windows is not a propert logo!!! smmile..... M$ immediatelly settle out court.. that was one thing they didn't want tested is if windows is a proper legal logo!! ...

Microsoft finally has thrown down the gauntlet and is claiming publicly that free and open-source software (FOSS) violates 235 Microsoft patents.

That tally comes from a newly published article in Fortune. In that article, Microsoft licensing chief Horacio Gutierrez wouldn't talk specifics. He declined to specify which Microsoft patents are being violated or how "lest FOSS advocates start filing challenges to them," according to the Fortune article.
...

Full Story

[BJ_M]

lindows... a program that allowed windows native programs to run on linux machines

MS did not sue them for this reason - in fact the company abandoned this approach pretty early in their life..

when lindows countered that windows is not a propert logo

lindows did not use this defense - the judge in the trial made this inference indirectly

M$ immediatelly settle out court.

well it was two years later - but MS did have to pay an estimated $20 million, and Lindows, Inc. transferred the Lindows trademark to Microsoft and changed its name to Linspire, Inc -- the primary reason was as you stated ..

................................


as for this current MS suits/claims - they are prob. correct in a lot of them ...which more than anything points out the problems and issues with a lot of patents ..... it also makes MS look like a bully

[tekkieman]

This is really nothing new. The last article published had the count at... somewhere around 183. As linux eats further into their market share in the enterprise, expect the number to continue rising. Next one will probably claim over 400.

As BJ_M stated, there is some merit to the claim as so called intellectual property patents makes it impossible to write a single line of code without potentially infringing 100's of patents. Of course, there is little MS will do about this. The distributed development model of linux makes it difficult to find someone to actually sue (at least someone with deep enough pockets), and they risk the immediate retaliation of Sun, Red Hat, Novell, and Sun. While Red Hat doesn't frighten MS, the combination of the group leads to mutually assured destruction.

Of course MS will continue to avoid naming any specific patent as they are well aware if it were proved, it would be immediately engineered out of linux, and their claim would have no further merit. MS does this for one reason only. As long as they continue to install fear in the point-haired bosses, the PHBs will always think at least twice about linux in their workplace. While it proves tha MS is very afraid of linux, and cannot seem to compete on merits of their products, the technique itself is remarkable effective.

[BJ_M]

it is not to hard a stretch to see the back story on this when in the two - three days before MS announced this - that:

"Japanese Schools May Switch to Linux"
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=348867&rel_no=1

and

"The Japanese government looks to go open source" http://www.linuxworld.com/newsletters/linux/2007/0507linux2.html

and

"Seventy-one percent of 400 executives viewed open-source software as "important" or "very important" for consolidating IT infrastructure. In addition, 57% of respondents characterized open source as important or very important for facilitating the migration to a SOA. At the core of these responses is SOA's ability to extend the life of legacy applications. Forrester also said that 78% of respondents were favorably disposed toward open source software because of its open standards, which is a major factor driving their view of its value for SOA next-generation enterprise architectures."
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Gardner/?p=2462

[JerryB]

hi,
I agree with your last paragraph M$ ended up paying money and lindows did change it name...

however.. the whole bases of the lawsuite was that lindow sounded to similar to Windows and M$ was suing on copyright logo infringment.... that where the the questions of Windows being a copywritable logo came into it... and lindows was making that defense!! that windows it self was just a generic name!!! and M$ did not want that tested in the euorpean courts!! ...

now I really believe the real main issue was that M$ was trying to get rid of lindows and make them go into backruptsy....

i was following the various european news papers on this... here in the US... they weren't saying anything about.. smile.. but there was a lot of coverage in europe on this..... and they quoted a lot of statements from the lindo people...

as a result of that lawsuite M$ no longer just says windows.. they put a lot of enphases on the xp or vista and that be true with future versions..... so that if windows logo is ever debated..

it like when Intell lost there copy right logo infringment case against
amd for the "486" after that... lost Intell started giving the new chip unique names....

It very nice discussion.... it also nice to get into a discussion where people can have different views don't get nasty... so many time people will start to make thing personal and not respect the other views..... glad to be talking with you...

lindows... a program that allowed windows native programs to run on linux machines

MS did not sue them for this reason - in fact the company abandoned this approach pretty early in their life..

when lindows countered that windows is not a propert logo

lindows did not use this defense - the judge in the trial made this inference indirectly

M$ immediatelly settle out court.

well it was two years later - but MS did have to pay an estimated $20 million, and Lindows, Inc. transferred the Lindows trademark to Microsoft and changed its name to Linspire, Inc -- the primary reason was as you stated ..

................................


as for this current MS suits/claims - they are prob. correct in a lot of them ...which more than anything points out the problems and issues with a lot of patents ..... it also makes MS look like a bully

[tgm4883]

This is really nothing new. The last article published had the count at... somewhere around 183. As linux eats further into their market share in the enterprise, expect the number to continue rising. Next one will probably claim over 400.

As BJ_M stated, there is some merit to the claim as so called intellectual property patents makes it impossible to write a single line of code without potentially infringing 100's of patents. Of course, there is little MS will do about this. The distributed development model of linux makes it difficult to find someone to actually sue (at least someone with deep enough pockets), and they risk the immediate retaliation of Sun, Red Hat, Novell, and Sun. While Red Hat doesn't frighten MS, the combination of the group leads to mutually assured destruction.

Of course MS will continue to avoid naming any specific patent as they are well aware if it were proved, it would be immediately engineered out of linux, and their claim would have no further merit. MS does this for one reason only. As long as they continue to install fear in the point-haired bosses, the PHBs will always think at least twice about linux in their workplace. While it proves tha MS is very afraid of linux, and cannot seem to compete on merits of their products, the technique itself is remarkable effective.

Wow, don't mess with Sun, they will come after you twice. :P I just wanted to know if there was a fourth that wasn't mentioned. Also, didn't Novell just get into some agreement with MS?

[BJ_M]

ibm is a fourth

[oldandinthe way]

After recent supreme court decisions, every patent holder should be and certainly Microsoft IS, reevaluating their approach to enforcing their patents.

The job of proving a patent is valid has become more difficult.

Any article written even a month ago (typical for many magazines) should be regarded as OUT OF DATE.

[tekkieman]

IBM was the intended first Sun. Let's also not forget HP.

[ahhaa]

I don't know where to find it, I think it was distrowatch... but I read a while back that Windows itself uses hundreds of open source bits of code- and of course they've never reverse engineered any browsers or anything either!:]

[adam]

The title of this article is misleading. It makes it sound like Linux is allegedly violating the patents because the software is free and open source. The fact that the software is open source is irrellevant, its the techology itself that is alleged to be infringing. Whether someone charges money for their technology or not has nothing to do with whether or not it infringes upon a patent.

[rkr1958]

Open-Source Users Scoff at Microsoft Threats
Open-source supporters are not worried by Microsoft's promise to seek royalties on 235 patents it holds.
Elizabeth Montalbano, IDG News

....

"Microsoft is certainly not the only owner of patents in this area, and perhaps not even the owner of the largest number of patents in these areas," he said. "Microsoft will need to be careful what it starts, given that it cannot know where this will end."

...

Full Story

[AlecWest]

Whether someone charges money for their technology or not has nothing to do with whether or not it infringes upon a patent.

True. But what really matters is whether the patent being infringed upon is a "valid" patent. Last month, the Supreme Court issued an unanimous opinion ... that most software patents over the last two decades are likely invalid and unenforceable. Couple that with the fact that over 50% of all Fortune 500 companies have already jumped ship to Linux and Microsoft may find itself in deep feces. Legal departments for these companies will respond vigourously to any threat to their bottom lines.

Hitler found that his army could not sustain a two-front war. Can Microsoft defend itself on at least 250 fronts - especially when the court of last resort is unanimously jaundiced against the majority of software patents? If I were a Microsoft stockholder, I probably wouldn't sell off all my stock just yet ... but I would think about diversifying my tech portfolio to a broader investment base.

[buttzilla]

Most open source programs are just clones of actual windows based and even mac based software. Just because you copy something and call it open source doesn't mean you havent infringed on someones patent's. If windows sucks so much why is everone trying to make programs that mimic windows programs? What that saying? Oh yeah...Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Microsoft is not seeing it that way though.

[Cornucopia]

Most open source programs are just clones of actual windows based and even mac based software. Just because you copy something and call it open source doesn't mean you havent infringed on someones patent's. If windows sucks so much why is everone trying to make programs that mimic windows programs? What that saying? Oh yeah...Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Microsoft is not seeing it that way though.

I don't know what OpenSource apps you're thinking of, but all the ones I can think of are quite unique, built from the ground up, with NO copying to speak of. And OFTEN better than many commercial counterparts.
People make O.S. apps for Windows--because--Windows is the largest OS and they want their apps to be used alot. But being O.S. allows them to be fairly easily ported to Linux/MacOS too.

Scott

[fritzi93]

"Microsoft's vice president of intellectual property and licensing, compared the deal with Novell as a model for how Microsoft wants to settle patent-infringement differences."

There's the nub of it. They don't want it to go to litigation, ideally the targets will fold under the pressure. A nice side benefit would be scaring potential customers away from alternatives to Windows.

This part is interesting:

"Some users suggested that the same threat of patent litigation Microsoft is holding over open-source users' heads could be turned on the software giant, which itself has used open-source or freely available technology to develop its own commercial products. In fact, there is just as much potential patent infringement in Windows than there is in open source, said Jim Zemlin, executive director of the Linux Foundation, a San Francisco-based nonprofit consortium aimed at promoting the use of the open-source OS."

"Microsoft is certainly not the only owner of patents in this area, and perhaps not even the owner of the largest number of patents in these areas," he said. "Microsoft will need to be careful what it starts, given that it cannot know where this will end."

One can only hope.

[JerryB]

hi,
It seems like M$ released a few more details but there still pretty vaque.. smile...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070515/ap_on_hi_te/microsoft_open_source;_ylt=Ak3sz2A7AnZ...D1ndltBkvMWM0F

what interesting that about 60 or so.... are the look and feel type infrignment... smile... well apple tried to sue M$ a few years ago on that and lost... plus.. as far as look and feel... both apple and M$ sort of stole that idea from xerox back in the early 80's.. smile...

in addition, and this something else that the above article brought out, is that the open source community/consortium also has a lot of patents... althought programers are allowed to uses them freely.... however... I imagine M$ has been using them also so.. if M$ not carefull she may have a full blown copyright war... because it not a matter of a few companies that can't fight back but there some heavy hitters that support open source and they wouldn't mind getting into a nice war with M$.... lol....

Microsoft finally has thrown down the gauntlet and is claiming publicly that free and open-source software (FOSS) violates 235 Microsoft patents.

That tally comes from a newly published article in Fortune. In that article, Microsoft licensing chief Horacio Gutierrez wouldn't talk specifics. He declined to specify which Microsoft patents are being violated or how "lest FOSS advocates start filing challenges to them," according to the Fortune article.
...

Full Story

[thecoalman]

Most open source programs are just clones of actual windows based and even mac based software.

What I find humorous about that statement is you posted it on a phpBB forum which uses PHP for processing with a MySQL database on an Apache/Nix server all of which are open source.

[tekkieman]

Most open source programs are just clones of actual windows based and even mac based software.

What I find humorous about that statement is you posted it on a phpBB forum which uses PHP for processing with a MySQL database on an Apache/Nix server all of which are open source.

Humorous, but also somewhat mistaken. In many cases, the open source programs are the original, and the Windows/Mac versions are the clones. While not open source, Star Office is the basis for Open Office.Star Office came out in 1986. Microsoft Office did not come out until 1989. If you want to give MS a little credit, Works came out in 1987.

MS filed for patents on tabbed browsing. Yup, open source apps (like Firefox) sure copied from MS there. Two years before IE ever had tabs.

MS has very little in the way of anything resembling "intellect" in their Intellectual Property. They have also stated as much saying that they refused to identify the patents in question for fear of them being challenged. As soon as the challenges start, their 253 patents become worthless. Then what will they use to bully their customers and competitors into submission?

[ahhaa]

somebody please list all the things that were originated by M$:

DOS no
icons no
mouse no
external drivers no
hard drive no
browser no
spreadsheet no
desktop publishing no
email no
chat no
VoIP no
mp3 no

???

[buttzilla]

And how many of the above things were created by Linux. Most of the above were created by commercial companys. DOS probably being the only exception.

[oldandinthe way]

All of the above were created by commercial for profit companies some with the help of academia, but most without. Some with the support of government, most without.

What is most interesting is that most of these items were the work of a single individual within a for profit instituation or a small group.

Neither Microsoft nor many areas of the open source movement have the same individual accomplishment level. (Note I said many areas - there are exceptions).

Curiously most of the original companies which introduced these products are either out of business or out of the computer business.

[BJ_M]

or bought up and disappeared or obsorbed

[gerryc]

If I recall wasn't MS-DOS a knockoff of CP/M.

[ahhaa]

QDOS function calls were based on the dominant CP/M-80 operating system, written by Digital Research, but it used a different file system. In a sequence of events that would later inspire much folklore, Microsoft negotiated a license for QDOS from SCP in December 1980 for $25,000, then re-licensed QDOS to IBM. Microsoft then acquired all rights to QDOS for only $50,000 from SCP in July, 1981, shortly before the PC's release.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS

This was a quick and messy affair (the variant MS-DOS, sometimes colloquially referred to as Messy DOS, was developed from QDOS, which literally meant "Quick and Dirty Operating System").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOS

[betamaxman]

IMO these SOFTWARE patents should all be abolished. It is akin to me patenting these four letters (arti) and stating that anyone using them in any word, sentence, paragraph, or whatever has infringed on my patent an there fore owes me a stipend. Yes this is written language and is not applicable. But then too is code. Only the finished product holds any patent merit but then this is covered in the Eula or license. At least IMO.

[tekkieman]

Although at the least, the finished product is covered by copyright.

As a software developer, the chance of writing a single line of code that doesn't infringe on somebody's "intellectual property" is pretty slim. The big problem, is that if two developers are presented with the same problem, chances are that while their approaches may be different, and their code will very likely be different, all one has to do is patent "the process of", and everybody else is screwed. The whole point was that it couldn't even be patented if someone of reasonable skill in the field would look at it and go "DUH!".

I'm all for everybody getting their "due" for real innovation, but the current patent process is seriously broken.

[Dv8ted2]

Does this remind anyone of the SCO case? It seems familiar to me. SCO has yet to provide any proof that there was any infringing code. It seems that M$soft is going down the same path to try and derail Linux.

[nwo]

somebody please list all the things that were originated by M$:

DOS no
icons no
mouse no
external drivers no
hard drive no
browser no
spreadsheet no
desktop publishing no
email no
chat no
VoIP no
mp3 no

???

Crashing yes