Microsoft to seek royalties from open-source software distributors & users

#1

This might affect all of us

From an article on computerworld.com
Analysis: Microsoft patent claims hint at internal issues
The company wants to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt, say IP lawyers

The issue came to light today with the publication of a Fortune article that quoted Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer saying, “We live in a world where we honor, and support the honoring of, intellectual property,” and adding that users of free and open-source software have to “play by the same rules as the rest of the business. What’s fair is fair.” The article included comments from additional Microsoft executives detailing plans to seek the infringement claims, and just as it was posted online, Microsoft sent e-mails to other journalists about the issue.

One of the operations targeted, OpenOffice.org, quickly fired back, saying Microsoft’s claims are a desperate move.

The next few years will be very interesting…

Edit-
Fround this on CNN.com

This guys serious…

Microsoft takes on the free world

Microsoft claims that free software like Linux, which runs a big chunk of corporate America, violates 235 of its patents. It wants royalties from distributors and users. Users like you, maybe. Fortune’s Roger Parloff reports.

#2

Only 235?

As much as people can like Linux, they can’t deny the fact that OpenSource is just a copy of commercial software. Open Office is identical copy of Office 2k1/2k3 (and they will loose miserabily if MS would decide to move).

And it’s not only about MS, I’m sure that neither Adobe is happy about Gimp (limited Photoshop copy with random implemented function).

Patend are stupid? Maybe, but then explane me why opensource can’t came with something original and useful (and easy to use).

#3

Yep, it’s going to take years for this event to fully play out. It’s another SCO vs everyone situation.

The thing is, Open Source developers are generally very mindful of intellectual property. Unlike closed-source software where you can hide the code and many IP infringements, open source code is out there for anyone to look at. So there is no way to hide IP infringements. As a result, open source developers try to keep everything clean and unencumbered by other people’s intellectual property and patents.

The problem is that the US Patent Office has been granting a bunch of patents that they shouldn’t have because the “invention” was either trivial or covered by prior art or just overly broad. Even the US Supreme Court has recently ruled that the Patent Office has gotten out of hand over the past 20 years.

So it is very likely that most of the patents that Microsoft claims Linux infringes on shouldn’t have been issued in the first place. And of those patents which are valid, the Open Source community is very eager to code around them because the community wants code unencumbered by IP. But of course Microsoft isn’t telling which patents it feels are infringed upon, or what code is infringing, because they want to just use the fear of lawsuits to get more companies to buy patent protection from them, reguardless of whether the patents are valid or not. This is the same tactic SCO tried, and it blew up in their face. No doubt Microsoft wants to avoid revealing any definite info on the patents for as long as they can avoid it, so they can continue the FUD-driven extortion approach they are currently on as far as Linux and Open Source software is concerned.

Sorry for the minor rant, but this issue is very important to me since I use Linux and Open Source software for my production pipeline, and I plan to release some of my DCC related code to the community once it is ready for use. Software patents are the bane of sofware developers, because any non-trivial program will intrude upon software patents that should have never been issued in the first place.

Cheers,
Michael Duffy

#4

Lots of software is similar to other software. Many open source applications are similar to proprietary applications. Many proprietary applications are similar to other proprietary applications. After all, there are only so many ways you can write a word processor with the functionality that customers demand. But ideas aren’t patentable; implementations are.

Actually, Adobe probably doesn’t care about Gimp at all, since Gimp doesn’t have near the functionality or useabliity of Photoshop. And all Adobe needs to do is port their application to Linux and nearly every serious Linux artist would buy a copy (I know I would).

Open source software copies many closed source commercial apps because that functionality is desired, or we need a way in Linux to work with file types that are in common use (PSD, PDF, DOC, AVI, MOV, JPG, GIF, HTML, etc.) To even use and create these files requires an application with some feature overlap of the commercial applications that use these formats. If an instant messenger program on Linux has to interoperate with Yahoo Messenger, MSN Messenger, ICQ, and AIM on Windows, then inevitably the Linux program will have to adopt features of its Window program counterparts.

But Linux also has a LOT of software that is unique and original. Scripting language support is unrivaled in Linux, Unix, and BSD. Command line tools are much better than in the Windows world, and make navigation and automation much easier and faster. Security and permissions are more robust and stable. Many server-side applications were pioneered on Unix, Linux, and BSD.

There is plenty of innovation in the Open Source community. There is plenty of copying too. Same can be said of closed source software as well. But building off of other people’s ideas and not re-inventing the wheel each time is how science, literature, software, and other industries move forward overall, instead of doing the same thing over and over and never going anywhere.

Cheers,
Michael Duffy

#5

dang your stupid , read some books before you try to think.

#6

Come to think of it, how many ideas Microsoft takes from internet community for granted? Microsoft CEO shouldn’t speak of honor in anyway.

#7

Sounds like a scare tactic to me. If anything it proves how viable an alternative open source applications are becomming to Windows and Office if Microsoft is concerned enough about them to make threats. If they could innovate and create a better product than what is available for free they wouldn’t be paying any mind to these Open Source developers.

It will be interesting to see what happens. With the Democrats in charge in Congress there is once again talk of patent reform.

#8

Well doesn’t it make you think that except for HTML none of this formats came from OpenSource? So why do you need these formats? Why don’t they come up with their own better ones? That’s the question they should be asking and not running behind the sausage like a stray dog without any direction.

#9

FUD:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD

#10

What are you smoking? Go read up on what a patent is. If what you said is true, then there would be a monopoly on every single application out there. You do know there are 1000’s of different word processors out there? Many came out long before M$ office. Same with Photoshop. There were many image editors that came long before it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_office_suites

BTW, just to help with your fact finding. Openoffice is based off a commercial product called Staroffice that first came out in 1986. It was opensourced after Sun aquired it in 1999.

#11

Well, this is pretty much bullshit and this is what we hear about Microsofts Management decisions. Vista is probably in a bit of a trouble, so now you hear people switching every day (even though that’s still idiotic, the OS market still IS Microsoft, even though it’s nice that shops like Dell now start to put Linux onto their machines) and Microsoft certainly wants to keep their biggest market.

Pointing your finger at open-source, saying that they’re the ‘bad guys’ that just copy Microsoft is bullspizzle. I dunno how many ideas, workflows and implementations Microsoft ripped straight off other OSs in Vista, including OSX and Linux. So this is just a lot of bullshit, very unproductive and kinda embarrassing to fight out something like that in the public.

The only way Microsoft can clear things up is with developing a good, new OS that actually holds its promises and becomes the OS everyone wants to use. They have the money and the talent, now they have to be really smart about management decisions. No matter how big MS is or how much money they have, if their market share for OSs starts to decline, they’ll be pissed and do all sorts of incredibly stupid things. So we’ll see. I hope ‘Vienna’ will be the best freaking Microsoft OS that’s ever been released, cause Vista is not an option right now for a lot of people. Competition is good. Go Ozzie! :wink:

#12

Yes this has been expected for quite some time… There is quite a bit of evidence to put Microsoft as the Sugar Muma behind SCO… With the recent deal with Novell Microsoft has been lining itself up to scare the market into using only officially sanctioned versions of linux… IE ones that give a nice big kickback to Microsoft for standing over them with a big stick…

Until microsoft actually names the patents this is just sabre rattling to get companies to play it safe.

If microsoft does come to the party. I would expect a goodly proportion of those patents to have prior art. Be too broad or just absurdly obvious solutions to problems…

If microsoft actually has patents that will stand up in a court of law. Then it will probably have to face off the patent portfolios of linux using companies including IBM. Not only that but the Open Invention Network was specifically set up to protect the
opensource community from this sort of attack. Quite a few patents are being held on behalf of the opensource community and Microsoft definately violates some of them.

This is extortion plain and simple - Mafia style.

#13

The problem is that Microsoft can’t sue anyone here. They could - but this stuff is already open-source, if they sue the people behind this or that project, what the hell will happen? Some other team will adapt the same code or do the same things again. This is a losing battle that Microsoft can’t win. It’s a free world. And the moment something spreads in the internet, you can’t capture it anymore.

So what’s Microsofts only chance? To deliver quality work. Instead of whining about other people copying them, they should embrace the notion that being copied is good. And that there’s probably a reason why people are copying them. And that they should strive for being copied in the future again.

Crying won’t help. Staying on top of everyone else by doing quality work will.

#14

I don’t think Microsoft would pull an MPAA and try to sue users; there’s no money there. The problem (for them) is that big businesses and governments are switching to Linux which means hundreds or thousands of seats and millions or billions in potential lost sales. It’s already happened in markets they have no control over.

Related to this, I’ve been listening to alot of the TED talks online and this morning I came across this one on collaborative creativity. Charles Leadbeater discusses the open source movement, how and why it’s more condusive to innovation then big businesses and how businesses try to prevent that competition through drumroll please patents. It’s an interesting listen and only 20 minutes or so.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/63

#15

Not to mention if they lost the OEM market, or even a chunk of it (like Dell putting Linux onto their machines), that would put a serious hurt on them. Consider how many copies of any given operating system that Dell (for example) installs/sells in a given year, compared to the number of copies sold through Best Buy or Office Depot?

And I think that point, and the one quoted above, are at the heart of the matter. They’re not going to send me a bill because I have open source software on every computer I’ve ever owned… they’re trying to bluff/scare/terrorize companies like IBM and Dell into paying them money… they’re running scared.

Apparently, the heart of the issue is that piracy is the reason that Vista isn’t selling well, according to Steve Ballmer. Gosh, and here I was thinking it was because it’s unnecessary, is buggy, doesn’t support hardware people have, is bloated, and requires a brand new, shiny, expensive computer to run it. But apparently, sales are poor because people are pirating it. :rolleyes:

Yeah… they’re just rattling people’s cages… I just hope some things don’t get rattled away in the process, like Open Office… when Microsoft comes knocking at the door, everyone doesn’t have the time/resources/guts to stand up to them.

#16

Yeah, but you’d be surprised when the main site for an application decides to pack it up and call it a day. Anyone remember FreeCraft? (which has, 4 years later, morphed into other things, but still…) When the main people in a project stop all involvement in that project, it hurts the project. Open Source doesn’t go much of anywhere without a champion behind a project, guiding and directing the flow of traffic, like Ton for Blender. If someone doesn’t have an idea of where the app should go and see it 2 or 3 versions down the road and help everybody else catch that vision, it just sort of flounders around and mutates, like any other software project. Microsoft is going to target companies that can impact their bottom line (like Dell taking money away from them by offering Linux), companies they can sue (like IBM), and open source developers/programs that don’t have the resources to stand up to them. And yes, places like the Free Software Foundation will do what they can, but if Microsoft starts sending threatening letters to open source developers, some of them are likely to fold and projects will be hurt…

#17

We all have the time to arouse suspicion and curiosity about what MS is doing. Just like we are doing here.

An informed populous is well off.

#18

I guess those recent Vista revenue figures can’t keep them afloat, maybe they need to consider other revenue sources. :rolleyes:

#19

Yes, like cashing in on their innovations, inventions, properties, and patents.

The horror!

#20

That’ll be why they’re not disclosing which patents for fear that some of them might be invalidated. If that’s not an admission that at least some of the patents are a crock then I don’t know what is. Besides, if you can’t build your business on using other people’s ideas then cry foul when someone else does the same then what kind of crazy world are we living in? :rolleyes:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070513234519615
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2129663,00.asp
http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html