Microsoft Stoking the IP Fire 99
gokulpod writes to tell us the Financial Express is reporting that Microsoft is heating up the IP battle once again with warnings about IP indemnifications issues. From the article: "Analysts believe that the core issue at stake is whether open source software increases litigation risks. Open source advocates are quick to point out the IP litigation faced by Microsoft itself. Ubuntu founder and leader Mark Shuttleworth says, 'Linux is growing fast and whenever there is a new way of doing things, people will raise all kind of issues.'"
The New Global Economy (Score:5, Funny)
Those who can't, sue.
Re:The New Global Economy (Score:5, Funny)
"Ubuntu (open source software being used by Google)"
which clearly is the most accurate and informative definition of Ubuntu
Lesson learnt: those who don't know shit about technology, try to explain everything in relation to Google. I guess keyboard is a "device used by Google engineers to input data into computers" from now on.
A point for perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
1) How many of us would have wished for big G to be the gravitational force around which tech revolved over M$ four years ago?
2) I bet Ubuntu would not be too dissapointed in this, for the same reason that Duracell touts they they are the 'only battery trusted by some reandom adventurers'.
3) This is a financial website. Let's not forget that your typical /.'er isn't a typical computer user, let alone even close to being a normal human being. They do awknoledge Linux as a viable alternativ
Re:The New Global Economy (Score:5, Interesting)
It looks like they picked on the wrong guy with IBM though, the groklaw headline reads IBM Subpoenas Microsoft! Sun! Baystar and HP! [groklaw.net].
Imagine the cockroaches that are going to crawl out when those documents hit the court. Presuming of course that those documents haven't been lost, shredded or otherwise just become unavailable.
I wouldn't be surprised if IBM sued MS after the sco trial is over just to get their money back from the lawsuit. You know MS is going to settle, they tend to pay up pretty quickly when slapped with lawsuits.
Destroying evidence (Score:4, Informative)
While I can't comment on whether that is or isn't technically illegal, it does show bad faith, contempt for the laws of the country (and by extension for the country itself), and a lack of ethics. But we knew those last parts already.
MS relies heavily on delay tactics anyway, so this method for destruction of evidence supplments them.
Re:Destroying evidence (Score:2)
Re:The New Global Economy (Score:2)
Re:The New Global Economy (Score:3, Funny)
"If Necessity is the mother of Invention, then Ownership is the mother of Innovation" Horatio Longbottom, 2005
I'm speculating that there is an obvious correlation between the amount we sue, and how innovative we are as a society (aka the research investment argument).
Ultimately we will be so innovative that we will just spend all our time suing others.
Is it possible to have a sustainable economic system in which the only good or service manufactured is the legal pursuit of another entity for de
Re:The New Global Economy (Score:1)
"schlong" as derived from the german word "Schlange" (meaning "snake")
"snake" according to Jung, is symbolic of the conflict between conscious attitudes and instincts.
So Anonymous Coward, unlike you I do not have gut reactions to IP issues but I have a conscious attitude towards them.
Schlongbottom is apt, as is anonymous coward
Everyones helping out (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Everyones helping out (Score:2)
Re:Everyones helping out (Score:2)
Re:Everyones helping out (Score:1)
MS say they will fight for end users (Score:3, Interesting)
Read the fine print. Microsoft is screwing you. (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft provide protection only for code they write. If the code in patented is part of what you provide or from a third party, even down to the enterprise glue code, Microsoft is not liable, even if it is based on calling Microsoft's API ( see the Timeline case ). You have to agree to let Microsoft take over your legal defence and if Microsoft prejudge that you are at all at fault then you have to agree to pay ALL damages and costs.
Re:Read the fine print. Microsoft is screwing you. (Score:2)
Read about the Timeline INC case. (Score:5, Informative)
Timeline Inc has won a US Washington Court of Appeal judgment against Microsoft [archive.org] for the right to sue Microsoft's customers, and subsequently sued Cognos. On February 13, 2004, Cognos settled at cost to Cognos totaling $1.75 million [timeline.com]
Re:Read about the Timeline INC case. (Score:1)
The treble damages is pretty rough as well. It's unfortunate that customers who took Microsoft at their word can't even hold them liable for the misrepresentation of the product. (Or so I read the "good faith" portion of Timeline's press release. Then again, a press release isn't exactly legal counse
Case notes and GIF patents (Score:3, Informative)
It should be noted that Microsoft took out the same type of licen
And how they fight -- until it costs money (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft is full of it when they claim they'll provide indemnification. They roll over and pass along the expenses to end customers like a lot of other companies.
Indemnification is advertising speak for "we're as screwed by the patent system as anyone, but our PR people figured out how to put a positive spin on it."
Re:MS say they will fight for end users (Score:1)
It boggles the mind that complete BS from an anonymous source can be modded insightful and interesting. I guess there are still people that trust everything they read on the internet.
Re:MS say they will fight for end users (Score:2)
I think your over dramitizing Microsoft's position. Actually what they will do is whatever is necessary to mitigate the situation, go to court, license the technology, or develop a work around for their customers.
For open source software the licensing may not be an option, however, they will go to court if necessary and developing around IP issues is something that has already
Surely a new product (Score:3, Insightful)
that has a list of open source software etc that it will protect.
If you ever have a problem, then come in spinner.....
Re:Surely a new product (Score:3, Informative)
Good idea, but Lloyd's of London [slashdot.org] are way ahead of you...
Fat Tony's software insurance (Score:2)
If you distribute, why wouldn't you be liable? (Score:5, Insightful)
What if it were Microsoft incorporating Linux code into Windows? Wouldn't you want them to be held accountable? Aside from the obvious double standard, why would you think that OSS projects and distributors not be held liable as well?
It's a little disingenuous for Microsoft to claim that as a benefit, though. It's only because they don't grant you any rights that you have that protection.
Re:If you distribute, why wouldn't you be liable? (Score:3, Insightful)
Both of these scenarios are the same for Open Source as a user. So how do I gain anything when using closed source. I don't become a magical distributor of software either just by using Open Source. Very few people
Re:If you distribute, why wouldn't you be liable? (Score:1)
If you use a product which is found to be violating another's patent, the maker of the product is held liable. Where do you get the idea that a customer would be held liable for patent royalties? It is the author of the offending product who is at risk of litigation, not the users. There may be a case in certain fringe cases where the offending product is actually middleware upon which a customer may have
Re:If you distribute, why wouldn't you be liable? (Score:2, Informative)
From patent law, you may want to read up on patent litigation [theregister.co.uk] before commenting further!
Re:If you distribute, why wouldn't you be liable? (Score:1)
Costly and annoying? Sure, but it's not a situation many people will ever encounter.
Re:If you distribute, why wouldn't you be liable? (Score:1)
Re:If you distribute, why wouldn't you be liable? (Score:2)
Most times companies figure it isn't worth the time, effort, expense, and bad publicity to go after the customers of someone else. They DO have the right to do so, however. And it HAS happened (though quite rarely).
Also, unlike trademark violations, you are allowed to choose which patent violations you will prosecute, and which you will ignore. With trademarks you are legally obligated to defe
Re:If you distribute, why wouldn't you be liable? (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I
MS: Protector From IP Infringements - NOT! (Score:3, Insightful)
If Microsoft imatated a function from Open Source, I would consider it an act of flattery. If they copied the code, the labor of coders who chose the GPL license, then Microsoft would be sued accordingly.
Open source doesn't "Copy" code from Microsoft. We imitate function in different ways.
Microsoft is certianly not offering the Patent protection that they sai
IP Battle? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:IP Battle? (Score:1)
Re:IP Battle? (Score:1)
Re:IP Battle? (Score:4, Funny)
You're going to regret posting that out in the open!
Re:IP Battle? (Score:2)
Re:IP Battle? (Score:2)
You win this round, but I'll be back!
Re:IP Battle? (Score:1)
Your only solution is going to be even MORE aggressive than he's being. It's a sure win every time.
Re:IP Battle? (Score:2)
Great features you don't see anywhere else (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft claims to provide "uncapped protection for legal costs associated with a patent, copyright, trademark or trade secret claim alleging infringement by their product". Open source majors like Red Hat also provide assurance programmes to protect their customers.
What has the world of patents and copyrights come to? We have product manufacturers offering to protect their customers from being sued for using their products!!! This is a feature?
Imagine Honda offering "uncapped protection" for their car users against being sued for driving them? Or Adidas offering the same for their shoes(they were recently sued by Nike for violating some "Air" patents)
I think I miss the vapourware days. Even if the features were imaginary, they at least sounded useful.
Re:Great features you don't see anywhere else (Score:2)
Microsoft has run out of real reasons for customers to use their software, so now Microsoft needs to use FUD to create false reasons for customers to use their software.
Microsoft Users not protected from patent claims. (Score:5, Interesting)
For example - if you use functioanlity covered by the excel patent case [theregister.co.uk] microsoft lost recently, then your business will suffer.
Gartner recommends [gartner.com] the following: So... MS loses a patent case, you're liable to clean up the mess.
Furthermore, if the functionality is essential to you, and you avoid installing the service pack, you could be sued [blogspot.com]
MS is no different to Open Source.
First the vendor is sued, if the litigation is successful, they remove or work around the patent-protected functionality, then if the user continues using the disputed code, the user is liable.
Not to mention how much does it cost to "upgrade" (Score:1)
Re:Microsoft Users not protected from patent claim (Score:1)
How long needed RedHat to act upon SCO accusations? There is a difference.
M$ whether likes it or not cannot risk aggravating vast user base. It will be one way or another on the case with its customer(s).
And RedHat waited almost year to launch its case against SCO. It was obvious from the beginning that SCO is fliring with legal system, yet RH waited, leaving many user open to anxiety. (*)
If you personally would ever have even a single customer, you would easily fee
Re:Microsoft Users not protected from patent claim (Score:2)
You're confusing the issue. There is no difference, if the patent-challenger wins. But the difference is that with Microsoft or other vendors with software assurance, they'll at least eat the cost of fighting that battle, and if they win, you're in the clear at no cost to you. With open source, you have to pay for the suit yourself, and even if you win, you've had to spend a fortune on the case (the practical result being that most users would settle rather than litigat
Re:Microsoft Users not protected from patent claim (Score:2)
Sorry - but
Re:Microsoft Users not protected from patent claim (Score:2)
I realize this, but this is the minority because it costs money. How many users outside of large enterprises really buy software assurance from open-source vendors? So I think it's a fair point - the majority of the installed userbase of OSS is not indemnified.
There is nothing special about proprietary software that means you cannot be sued by an IP holder for using it.
True, though I never claimed otherwise. What is special (at least with Micros
Re:Microsoft Users not protected from patent claim (Score:2)
1) Who outside of the enterprise cares about IP litigation?
2) The majority of the installed userbase of proprietary software is not indemnified either - as they've pirated the software (additionally, many with legitimate software will also not have pr
Ok, and how is this a Microsoft vs Linux Issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure the article meant this in more of an illustrative measure, but this is a very bad way to present the issue.
Sure companies are going to protect users from legal issues, this is a part of business. It is also a measure of success with a lot of companies, as some do include protections for their customers and are willing to front any legal blows.
Now if Joe Blow compiles Linux and straps on some tools and you use it in your business and you get sued over stuff it contains, what else would expect to happen?
But this is true of any piece of software or OS, why make this a MS vs Linux specific issue? Buzz, get Slashdot attention, make Microsoft out to be something they are not (good or bad)?
If RedHat is offering or trying to offer a level of abstract between their users and lawsuits as Microsoft is, how could this be Linux vs Microsoft? The last I looked Redhat pretty much only shipped Linux.
This is a common business concept and sure there are reasons when you have a lot at stake to go with the better protection. You could also buy insurance to protect your company as well.
Is this not news to just me?
Your are right - seen this? at Groklaw (Score:1)
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060221
"
IBM Subpoenas Microsoft! Sun! Baystar and HP!
Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 10:02 PM EST
Hold on to your hats! IBM has subpoenaed Microsoft! And Sun! "
Re:Ok, and how is this a Microsoft vs Linux Issue? (Score:1)
Ok, and how is this a Microsoft vs Linux Issue?
Well, not just a Microsoft vs Linux issue, but a Microsoft vs Open Source Issue as well.
Microsoft is saying (by implication) that open source is riddle with plagiarism filched from others' IP.
I mean, if it's free, they must've got it from somewhere, right?
So, sooner or later, I guess, the real owner is going to sue the end user for theft.
From TFA:
Customers understand the value proposition of open source. They are smart enough to understand that ru
Re:Right, MONO users beware (Score:2)
Where have you been? If this were true, it would be more of a buy Microsoft or Redhat. Redhat will gain from this type of information making press as it is providing this legality protection for its customers. So Redhat has more to gain than Microsoft in establishing itself as the new Linux Standard of choice.
If Redhat and other OS venders didn't provide protections, then I would be
Risk to USERS of open source from patent claims? (Score:5, Interesting)
2) Any patent lawsuit costs the suing party at least several hundred thousand dollars.
3) Any patent put before the courts is at very great risk of being destroyed by prior art.
4) Any payout awarded from a single end user has to be in proportion to value of the patented technology. The value of a single instance will could only be measured in hundreds of dollars, not coming close to covering the costs of suing
5) Patent lawsuits take six years to over a decade to work it's way though appeals.
6) Developers will release new software using a method that circumvents the patent in question within two months. This will be quickly adopted and by the time the first patent case is resolved there will be no further customers for the patent holder to sue.
7) The outrage generated in taking out a case against any open source will result in Groklaw [groklaw.net] and other groups putting the suing party and their lawyers under the closest scrutiny. You will not believe the level of bad publicity, let alone the the amount of prior art, dirty business practices, and legal suspect practices and even violation of statutes [rcn.com] that will be uncovered.
Lastly to quote Pulp Fiction, and then "we are going to get medieval on your ass."
Any IP case against users of open source pute the attacker at a far greater risk.Re:Risk to USERS of open source from patent claims (Score:3, Insightful)
Most organisations I have worked for have, at some point, permitted the priacy of software, or encour
shuttleworth (Score:2)
well there's a little mistatement, or at least exageration about google + ubuntu...
anyhow, not a judgement call on it, but does it seem M Shuttleworth seems to be becoming the talking head for Linux stuff nowadays, simalar to ESR before (as in the go to guy for the press, not in the raving, neo-con who's "not conservative", gun nut, wacko type sense...)
Goobuntu is Google internal desktop distribution. (Score:2)
Re:shuttleworth (Score:3, Informative)
I am sorry, but I don't understand why that is a mis-statement or exaggeration.
Google has confirmed that they do in fact use Ubuntu internally (see link below) and Ubuntu is a collection of open source software (which is in fact, an understatement, if anything).
link: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060131-6087 .html [arstechnica.com]
From the article:
Re:shuttleworth (Score:2)
even as to the latter, unless google has changed, and they may very well have, I thought that in house people there had various preferences as to what their distro of choice to use was. I didn't think there w
gotta love the hypocrisy... (Score:1)
I'm surprised people believe MS will protect them. (Score:4, Interesting)
According to Techweb (and many other sites), 25% of Office users will suffer the pain of having to alter apps because Microsoft didn't own some of the technology it shipped.
http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/179100683 [techweb.com] Users are currently infringing patents now. But come the next update apparently MS will disable these features.
Thus your applications will go bang. I see that as bad.
Recall how MS issued the WMF vulnerability patch by remotely rebooting people's machines, including servers ?
If you buy an MP3 or DVD player which breaks someone's patent, it's hard to care if the manufacturer gets sued. But if you look at the Blackberry debacle, we see that a patent holder can reach into a user's equipment and disable it.
RIM is not a trivial firm, albeit smaller than MS, it has fought hard, but is losing.
MS lost it's case, and recall all the fights over tech in IE ?
Perhaps this is the real reason the MS is pandering to the copyright holders in the MPAA and RIAA for Vista ?
Thus we have both a legal and technical framework by which you can be shafted. MS can't protect you.
Like with viruses, it's very size makes it more vulnerable, and a more attractive target.
If you were a SCOlike entity would you rather extort $1 from every copy of Windows or Gentoo Linux ?
There are (I guess) >50,000 patentable things in Microsoft's product line. Most of which are of course prior art, or a few licenced or owned. But MS cannot afford even to buy off all the patent holders who might come after it.
Thus MS protection is very limited.
Part of my education was during the Cold War about the role of the British nuclear deterrent, which was a distant 3rd after Russia & the US. It couldn't destroy Russia, but could make an awful mess.
To me it points to what the open source movement should be moving towards with future versions of GPL etc.
By patenting a slew of s/w features, MS, Oracle et al now have something to fear.
The gangs of lawyers on contingency unleashed if MS tries to screw the O/S user base have the same deterrence as as the UK nukes. Not the end of the world, but the end of your world, which is good enough.
Since the lawyers are being used weapons, not as revenue generators, you can cut a deal where they get to keep all the money.
This means they will be more effective than the SCO gang, because their goal is to make a profit, not mutually assured destruction.
DCFC the Pimp. http://pauldominic.com/ [pauldominic.com]
User responsible on their own? (Score:2, Interesting)
But in today's patent-happy legal minefield, do they really expect that no-one would stand up for Linux users? It's a matter of precede
Some people really love their IP (Score:1, Insightful)
So, will Microsoft's IP (patent in this case) FUD work?
Enlist the War Elephant (Score:2)
We need to get IBM to issue a statement in response to this. Their attempt at stockpiling patents/IP regarding Linux has been documented in the past, as well as their commitment to refrain from legal action against anyone who wants to use it.
IBM are a very fortunate ally for the Linux community to have where the likes of Microsoft are concerned...especially considering that IBM probably have justifiable
MS /should/ offer some indemnification! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a red herring. Microsoft wants us to beleive that they are "going the extra mile" to protect us from something that is really unlikely, but in truth, if you are using Microsoft products, you are already using work that has taken IP-protected material from other sources without permission or right. And several courts have already said so. But Microsoft doesn't want you to hear that.
If you are using Linux, Microsoft
So, between Microsoft and Linux, who
IP Laws (Score:2)
Droping software patents seems to be the best solution to this ?problem?
Re:IP Laws (Score:1)
In fact, Microsoft has, though implicitly, argued that it's risky to use Linux in EU because of software patents: EU-only Get-The-Facts ads have referred to Total-Cost-of-Ownership studies that rely heavily on risks for patent infringement.
If only M$ was like the Party. (Score:1)
1984 mis quote
And if all others accepted the ip which the Company imposed--
if all records told the same lie--
then the ip passed into history and became profit.
In west, capitalist throws chair at invisible competitor.
In communist East Germany state chair factory sue you.
How to burn the house down (Score:4, Interesting)
I much prefer the approach taken by the government of Brazil. They decided to put in some support for open source, and when Microsoft objected they told Microsoft to go sling their hook. There was no chair-throwing or calling down of world war three, at least in public. Microsoft swallowed hard and started to behave themselves. Good to see that standing up to bullies can work.
Re:How to burn the house down (Score:1)
From the WTF department (Score:1)
Microsoft smoking pie fire.
Which makes absolutely no sense, but did cause me to think, 'Well, the fanbois will be all over that one.'
I'm beginning to suspect that my wife may have secretly replaced my normal coffee beans with decaffinated coffee beans. I keep turning around to see if there's a grey haired old man with a microphone waiting to ask me what I think.
--
Sig arrêt
"IP litigation faced by Microsoft itself" (Score:4, Insightful)
Just as freedom of the press was once said to be for people who could own one, justice is now the exclusive privilege of those who can spend the most on lawyers. You don't cut off your legal competition's air supply, you let the cost of litigating drain their lifeblood.
Alternate perspective (Score:2)
duplicate: posted as MS and OSS (Score:1)
well done.
How does MS explain its EULA? (Score:2)
Holier than thou? (Score:1)
Whatever.
Microsoft Stoking the IP Fire (Score:4, Informative)
For a company that warns off others against using Open Source because of litigation concerns they do seem to spend an inordinant amount of time in court defending itself against accusations of violating/stealing other peoples IP.
"As an industry leader, we are committed to spreading awareness on the issue among the Indian CIOs so they can make the best software decision that will best meet their business needs while at the same time balancing the risks involved,''
As a convicted monopolist, we are committed to spreading as much fud amoung CIOs so as we can scare them off buying anything other thing MS as well as forcing up the cost of Open Source through the use of bogus IP litigation concerns.(end translation)
Most people have little to fear as you're not big enough to go after. Unlike Apple, Amazon or Blackberry for instance. Good times ahead for the lawyers I guess. The root cause of the current IP racket is the US Patent Office and its predilection to grant nonsensical patents. We need less IP law not more. Lets see where doing business with a 'legimite' software company gets you:
A List of Microsoft Litigation [groklaw.net]
Microsoft Litigation
If you have money, you are going to get sued... (Score:4, Interesting)
The unfortunatly thing is that all these lawsuits make it prohibitivly expensive for the little guys (who can't afford an army of lawyers), and give big corporations the advantage - and at the same time that this is handing the world over to big corporations, we have to listen to people tell us that if it wasn't for this lawsuits "we would be taken advantage of by big corporations". *sigh*
there's na FOSS marketing issue here (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, take a look at the ridiculous and downright insulting terms of sale that have been associated with proprietary software over the past few years: We've seen EULA terms that boil down to, "we own your computer, we're just letting you use it," spyware, rootkits, data tagging, terms of sale that demand holes in network security so the software can call home to snitch on you, and the occasional ABA software license compliance audit.
Frankly, in objective terms, buying proprietary software puts the user in a lousy legal position.
FOSS, on the other hand, lacks the power to impose any of that nonsense on consumers. You get a nonexclusive right to use the software, and the freedom to bypass or remove any pieces you dislike. You don't have to agree to bend over and lube up just to install the stuff.
This whole 'indemnity' issue is misdirection. Micorosoft wants to keep people so busy worring about the (overall very good) legal status of FOSS that they ignore the (overall rotten) legal status of Microsoft's own products.
This is a big-ass hint, gang.. Microsoft is telling us what it fears. It fears a world where corporate lawyers shoot down potential deals with Microsoft because the legal encumbrances on the software are unacceptable.
We need to counter this FUD by making lots of noise about how good the FOSS legal package is. We need to see Microsoft's:
"if you use FOSS, you MIGHT get sued"
and raise it with:
"if you use proprietary software, you WILL get EULA terms roughly equivalent to a full body-cavity search, you'll PROBABLY get spyware, you COULD get a rootkit, and you MIGHT get a software audit from the ABA. (and by the way: the number of ABA audits every year is larger than the number of lawsuits against FOSS)"
Loudly. And frequently.