| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Another day another Microsoft patent dealAnother day another Microsoft patent dealPosted Jun 7, 2007 15:17 UTC (Thu) by mikov (subscriber, #33179)Parent article: Another day another Microsoft patent deal
I fear that the tide may be turning (for the worse). In the mind of big business it is gradually becoming acceptable, not to mention an established practice, to pay Microsoft protection money for Linux, or to sign patent deals. Of course for LG this is not a problem - they have both the money and I presume their own not insignificant patent portfolio to trade with.
Not everybody is in the same boat though. I won't be surprised if soon (couple of years) it becomes "impractical" for smaller businesses to rely on Linux. Of course I sincerely hope that I am wrong. Pessimism has never failed me before, though :-)
Is it time to start looking very closely at OpenSolaris (or FreeBSD)???
I wonder whether deals like this could change Linus'es mind about relicensing the kernel with GPL3 (assuming the GPL3 can help). I presume that he (and most kernel hackers) do care whether only "big business" can use Linux.
(Log in to post comments)
Things are rosier than that Posted Jun 7, 2007 15:39 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] The facts are more positive.
Novell, Xandros, and LGE have made deals with MS. The free software movement has never depended on any of these companies. These companies will not be allowed to distribute GPLv3'd code while using the protection of these deals, but there is a clause in GPLv3 that allows them to distribute GPLv3'd code if they explicitly disclaim the application of those deals.
So they can distribute GPLv3'd software if they say "The patent protection included in our MS deal does not apply to this software". Of course, they won't write it like that. The will say "According to our research, this software does not infringe any of MS's patents, and therefore the deal we have with them could not apply to this software".
So when they realise the worthlessness of these deals, we will get some nice public statements about how legally clean GNU+Linux is.
The only way MS could counter that would be to actually say what patents are being infringed, at which point we can remove that feature, or take it to court as being invalid (and even in the most problematic country, the USA, a recent court ruling indicates that most patents have been wrongly granted - so we're legally in a strong position in court), and as a third option we have our own patents, such as those in the Open Invention Network which we might be able to use for a couter-suit.
Moving to FreeBSD or OpenBSD would be "security by obscurity". Those operating systems are no less technically advanced than GNU+Linux and they will infringe just as many of MS's (debateably valid) patents.
Things are rosier than that Posted Jun 7, 2007 16:47 UTC (Thu) by dwalters (guest, #4207) [Link] Very well said!
I think the more patent deals Microsoft gets into, the more egg will end up on their face when these deals are eventually rendered worthless in due course of time (by the GPL 3).
Things are rosier than that Posted Jun 7, 2007 20:26 UTC (Thu) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] Somehow I suspect this is exactly what Microsoft hopes people think.
All I can say is that I hope people start taking this threat a lot more seriously. Because this strategy by Microsoft combined with a GPL v3 that would prevent something like Linspire from existing is pretty much Microsoft's fondest dream come true I suspect.
I often fail to care for Microsoft's approach to doing business but I don't for a second think they are stupid or anything close to it. They want to eliminate Linux as a threat. I'm starting to think they've finally come up with a way to do that. With some kindly help from the GPL v3 potentially.
Things are rosier than that Posted Jun 7, 2007 20:57 UTC (Thu) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] I often fail to care for Microsoft's approach to doing business but I don't for a second think they are stupid or anything close to it. Do you remember when Bill Gates tried to present, in court, a rigged demo as evidence of how Windows would not function without IE installed? And how quickly this was discovered? I would not be so generous towards them.
I think this is being taken seriously Posted Jun 7, 2007 21:27 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Before last November, there were no MS patent deals. After GPLv3, there will be no new patent deals and the existing ones will have to be declared non-applicable by Xandros, LGE etc. when they realise that they can't stay in the free software market without upgrading their software. So we'll be back where we were.
That MS is trying to ink these deals quickly, just before GPLv3 comes into usage, could indicate that they don't see much of a post-GPLv3 future for this particular FUD campaign.
I'm not being dismissive. MS have put a nine or ten figure sum into this FUD campaign, and they wouldn't have done that without the go ahead from their top-class teams of lawyers and market analysts.
The option of not preventing these deals would mean that in a year's time, every GNU+Linux distro will be paying MS for the privilage of distributing free software and MS will be setting the terms under which GNU+Linux users' protection exists. MS could, for example, require that each release of a distro agrees to include DRM, and they could say that people's patent protection is void if they modify the software.
If Microsoft is allowed to control free software through patent threats, then GNU+Linux is just another proprietary, user-screwing alternative OS, like Windows, like Mac.
Microsoft's coming FUD campaign is going to hurt. GPLv3, can't prevent that, but it can prevent the Microsoft-controlled future scenario, and so it will ensure free software's long term sustainability.
It can't spread that far. Posted Jun 8, 2007 7:44 UTC (Fri) by dark (✭ supporter ✭, #8483) [Link] Every distribution? I deeply doubt that Debian would ever sign up forthis :)
Also, users can keep moving to unencumbered distributions. It's not like
Microsoft can't affect "every distro" until it actually puts its patents
It can't spread that far. Posted Jun 8, 2007 8:48 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] "users can keep moving to unencumbered distributions" This is true for a shrinking definition of "users" :-) Today, users are students, hobbyists, small businesses, universities, public administration, large businesses, and data centres. If GNU+Linux is labelled as illegal, the definition of users will shrink in approximately the reverse order that I listed the current categories in. So I'll be ok. I'll always have GNU+Linux on my machine(s), but universities and university computer users should have freedom, public administration must have freedom, and it's useful (for us) for businesses to have freedom (since they'll become contributors). You're right that there will be pockets of resistence no matter what, but our goal is served better by being the norm.
It can't spread that far. Posted Jun 8, 2007 20:09 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Linux is not going to be rendered illegal.
This is something you just don't have to worry about. The worst, the absolute WORST you could every expect to happen is that Linux developers would have to halt development for a period to work around some patented paticular.
Even that is very unlikely.
Linux is a multi-billion dollar industry now. We are getting close to 10 billion dollar annual server sales alone. And it's only showing signs of growing in all segments of the computer industry.
Microsoft isn't going to gain any legal clout by letting Linux grow and going "na-na-na we have all these patents". The more games it plays like this the weaker it's position is.
Another day another Microsoft patent deal Posted Jun 7, 2007 19:19 UTC (Thu) by marduk (subscriber, #3831) [Link] I don't see 3 data points really being enough to categorize something as "established practice". OTOH there are a few companies that are well respected in the community that I don't think will ever follow this "trend": Red Hat (unless Microsoft *really* gets them in a tight grip), IBM (who probably has no need to) and Ubuntu.
I know personally this doesn't even come close to making me think about jumping off the Linux boat. People were saying the same things at the dawn of the SCO fiasco. I started using Linux long before it became cool/popular and will continue to use it long after so long as the developers/community are there.
Another day another Microsoft patent deal Posted Jun 9, 2007 17:12 UTC (Sat) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link] I started using Linux long before it became cool/popular and will continue to use it long after so long as the developers/community are there. Sadly, using Linux is not a personal choice. Personal loyalty is unimportant except for a hobby. It doesn't matter if you or I continue using Linux on our home computers. It must be accepted and used by businesses and if most businesses start to consider it too risky or expensive, it is as good as dead. Of course that hasn't happened yet but I can see how it could happen gradually. I work for a small company. If one of our customers seeing the patent deals being inked with Microsoft asks us about the risks of running Linux, what should I tell them ? "Don't worry, if there is trouble IBM or RedHat will hopefully intervene and save us". That is an absurd position. If the customers perceive a risk, then the risk exists. The question is do they or will they ?
Another day another Microsoft patent deal Posted Jun 9, 2007 17:48 UTC (Sat) by marduk (subscriber, #3831) [Link] Yeah I know this has to do with businesses, and this might affect Linux adoption in business, but whether it succeeds or fails in the business sector does not determine, IMO, whether it is "as good as dead". If that were the case Linux would have been DOA 16 years ago.
15 years ago there was a law suit against BSD. Some people consider this to be a major factor why *BSD has enjoyed relatively small commercial success (others argue that Linux simply has better technology/better license). Regardless, I don't think the *BSD people then or now consider BSD to be "as good as dead". Rather some would say that BSD is going ahead strong because the developers and community stood behind it.
But again, people were saying the same thing when companies started buying SCO licenses. And again even earlier than that when some idiot decided to trademark "Linux" and demand royalties from Linux companies (yes, there *were* people saying that would be the end of Linux in the commercial world). But in spite of both situations Linux has continue to survive and even thrive in industry. Even in that sense it's way too early at this point to start playing Chicken Little.
Another day another Microsoft patent deal Posted Jun 9, 2007 18:19 UTC (Sat) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link] Yeah I know this has to do with businesses, and this might affect Linux adoption in business, but whether it succeeds or fails in the business sector does not determine, IMO, whether it is "as good as dead". If that were the case Linux would have been DOA 16 years ago. I agree that "as good as dead" is much too strong - but you know what I mean. 15 years ago there was a law suit against BSD. Some people consider this to be a major factor why *BSD has enjoyed relatively small commercial success (others argue that Linux simply has better technology/better license). Regardless, I don't think the *BSD people then or now consider BSD to be "as good as dead". Rather some would say that BSD is going ahead strong because the developers and community stood behind it. I don't think that we can draw parallels - positive or otherwise - with the BSD lawsuits 15 years ago. The OS and computing landscape was very different then. That said, objectively speaking *BSD currently is close to being "as good as dead". It also enjoys the benefit of flying under the legal radar so to speak, but any serious legal thread would kill it because there would be no Red Hat or IBM or Novell to come to the rescue. (Perhaps Yahoo could - I think they are the only major user of FreeBSD ?) Don't get me wrong though - I have nothing against *BSD - I just don't see how any of its variants currently have a chance of going anywhere. But again, people were saying the same thing when companies started buying SCO licenses. And again even earlier than that when some idiot decided to trademark "Linux" and demand royalties from Linux companies (yes, there *were* people saying that would be the end of Linux in the commercial world). But in spite of both situations Linux has continue to survive and even thrive in industry. Even in that sense it's way too early at this point to start playing Chicken Little. I remember that big Linux companies indemnified their customers at that time. Obviously their customers needed that assurance. A smaller business however could never afford to do that. So, what is its choice - lose customers or avoid the risk and not use Linux ? Bottom line, if it ever turns out that in order to use Linux you must buy it from a big company which can afford to either offer indemnification or sign deals with patent holders, then at that exact moment Linux is effectively dead. At least in the US. Hopefully the rest of the world will keep their IP laws a bit saner. Are you convinced that such a scenario is completely unlikely ?
Another day another Microsoft patent deal Posted Jun 9, 2007 18:57 UTC (Sat) by marduk (subscriber, #3831) [Link] You know there is a big difference between the current situation and the BSD, trademark, and SCO incidents. In those situations there were actually lawsuits. Here, at least right now, we have no law suits. In 16 years I don't know of any Linux user/company that has been sued for patent infringement.
Fact: A lot of companies are giving away their patents to OSS for *free*. Yet stuff like this somehow doesn't get as much press as "Oh you violate 235 of our patents but I'm not going to tell you what they are, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to sue you either."
Fact: Microsoft made a quick-motion PR move and (so far) 3 companies flinched. That's all I see right now. The very few companies that signed deals with SCO were victims of the same circumstance. And any threaten-to-sue based revenue model is certain to get you a little business with very little investment. Unfortunately companies in the U.S. (tech or otherwise) do it all the time. IBM did it to Sun (using patents), got some cash, and moved on to the next victim. But it didn't kill Sun and it didn't kill Unix (Linux & Windows are to blame for that ;-)
Fact: Companies like Microsoft, Sony, Research in Motion, et. al. get sued all the time regarding patent infringement, yet no one is crying over them. Compare the number of lawsuits WRT closed-source software vs. OSS: DivisionByZero.
But seriously, are we letting the cart get ahead of the horse? Right now a vast majority of Linux users & distributors are feeling nothing but a little warm air (I wouldn't even go so far as to call it hot air). It's PR, FUD, what have you. Right now all you can do is some reverse PR. You can't counter sue because there's no lawsuit. Some people are just letting a few spoken words get out of hand. I'm not saying any situation is completely unlikely. I'm saying look at things at face value. So far we have no disclosed patent infringements, no lawsuits, a *tiny* percentage of companies that use Linux signing deals with Microsoft, and a sh*t load of PR/press and a lot of dog wagging. So who is the *real* victim here?
Another day another Microsoft patent deal Posted Jun 9, 2007 21:17 UTC (Sat) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link] What can I say ... Although I am not fully convinced yet, there is no denying that what you are saying makes sense. I really really hope that you are right :-)
Another day another Microsoft patent deal Posted Jun 14, 2007 22:26 UTC (Thu) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link] BTW, a 4th company has apparently joined on the MSFT deal:http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070614085735536
Lets hope it is the last one, although I somehow doubt it.
Another day another Microsoft patent deal Posted Jun 14, 2007 8:16 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] For your customers there's no option. If they buy software they stand to be sued for patent infringement.
For example, you might buy Windows XP for a large company, and then a few months later you receive a letter explaining that you owe five million dollars to a company which holds a patent on some spurious audio processing technique. Your options are to hire expensive lawyers to defend you, or call Microsoft and ask them to defend you. Microsoft loses and spends a few billion dollars on patent licenses for all its past and future customers, and that puts up the price of your next copy of Windows. Not a hypothetical, that's more or less what /already happens/
If you buy from one of the major commercial Linux distributors, you can expect the same experience. There is a small chance of being sued, and if you are sued because of their software, not something your sysadmins installed from a dodgy third party repository, then they'll come to your aid in court on more or less the same basis as Microsoft.
Microsoft has already predicted that this eventually means the end of the software industry. They're just planning to be the last man standing. The patent system is hopelessly corrupt, it strongly resists attempts to reform it, and those with their snouts in the trough will do everything possible to keep it that way.
|
|
||||||||||||