Microsoft Won't Assert Web Services Patents 155
Andy Updegrove writes, "Microsoft has just posted the text of a new promise not to assert its patents with respect to 35 listed Web Services standards. The promise is similar to the covenant not to assert patents that it issued last year with respect to its Office 2003 XML Reference Schema, with two important improvements intended to make it more clearly compatible with open source licensing. Those changes are to add an explicit promise not to assert any relevant patents against anyone in the distribution chain of a product, from the original vendor through to the end user; and to clarify that the promise covers a partial as well as a full implementation of a standard. It's all part of a recent wave of such pledges made by companies such as IBM, Nokia, and Oracle, and a significant shift in how Microsoft is dealing with open standards."
Lets be sure to praise em for doing good (Score:5, Insightful)
Yea Microsoft!
See, my tongue didn't burst into flames or anything.
Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
As much as software patents may be a horrible idea, and as much as people here generally hate Microsoft, maybe this is a *good* step? The company has pledged publicly that they won't actually assert their patent rights... and since these are patents we're talking about, it means that noone else can either.
Maybe it's just the sort of protection that the open source movement needs so that we *can* innovate without having to jump through a bunch of hoops or worry about facing legal action?
Good, positive attitude (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a positive step, because it shows they can act rationally, having had their share of trouble from software patents. It also goes to show that, if software patents are bad for Microsoft, they should be considered generally as a Bad Thing for the software business in general.
There is a general attitude in Washington, sponsored by the ??AA, that any law that creates more "intellectual property" is good for business. Microsoft is sending a message that it ain't necessarily so.
Re:motivation behind this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Notice that the pledge includes the standard defensive measure - if you sue Microsoft for infringing one of your patents, it's void. But it was carefully crafted so that only Microsoft code used to directly implement one of the specifications is covered by the defensive clause - not all of Windows and MS Office for example. That's perhaps the most impressive part of the pledge.
Re:Lets be sure to praise em for doing good (Score:5, Insightful)
The question of whether it raises an estoppel (presumably, here, a promissory estoppel) depends on, among other things, the degree to which the reliance by the unlicensed user of the patent on the pledge to not enforce the patent is "reasonable", as well as consideration of whether injustice can be avoided by any other means than enforcing the promise.
As a statement of the law this is spot on, but it would have been more helpful to the person asking the question if you had applied it to a sample set of facts.
Note the requirement for reliance - this means you must at least have been aware of the promise. You (or at a minimum somebody you claim through) must have then acted, in reliance on the promise, in such a way that you would suffer a detriment if Microsoft resiled from the promise.
If, being aware of the promise, you produce any non-trivial amount of work depending on the patents, chances are that a court is going to be willing to impose a promissory estoppel. In the case of GPL software, somebody, somewhere is going to rely on this promise, and a consequence of this is there will be GPL software out there that effectively gives you something that should support an estoppel. It's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, for Microsoft to renege on this.
It is fairly safe* to take them at their word here.
* - usual disclaimers apply.
Re:Dialog (Score:2, Insightful)
Sometimes I think the only reason Sun Solaris is open is because they'd be dead if not. I also think the only reason OpenOffice is open is because Microsoft Office isn't.
Protection against patent suits (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft normally doesn't sue over patents, but they're the biggest target for these patent-specialist companies (since MS has the most money, and potential suers think MS would be more likely to settle since they can do it without missing the cash), so they patent their stuff for their own protection.
Is this not just marketing? (Score:2, Insightful)