On Microsoft's patent claims
To begin, these claims are not exactly new. Consider what the BBC was reporting in November, 2004:
So this is not the first time we have heard this sort of charge from Microsoft; perhaps the only real difference is that we have somehow managed to find another seven patents to infringe upon in the last 2-1/2 years. The possibility exists that we may not hear any more about this "violation" for another two years or so - but one shouldn't necessarily count on that.
As companies go, Microsoft is relatively uninclined to pursue patent infringement suits. There was an interesting quote from the Open Source Think Tank report (covered here last week):
Microsoft has, indeed, spent more time being the victim of patent trolls than a patent aggressor itself - and it has lost vast amounts of money to patent judgments in the process. This company has little to gain by heating up the patent litigation scene even more. That said, one should see the remainder of the quote above:
Even if we believe that Microsoft will take a relatively enlightened approach as a result of its time at the defendant's table, we should not lose track of an important fact: companies whose core business goes away have a disturbing tendency to turn to their "intellectual property" portfolios as a way to keep the revenue flowing. Should Microsoft someday decide that Linux world domination really is inevitable, it could react in any of a number of unpleasant ways.
The SCO Group's attack on Linux holds a number of lessons which can be
applied to any future Microsoft attack - but those lessons only go so far.
There is no doubt that interesting things will happen if you anger our
community, especially if you attempt to lay claim to our work. There would
be a massive outcry, publicity campaigns, boycotts, and an extended effort
to invalidate as many of the patents as possible. Microsoft clearly fears
the capabilities of the wider community; the Fortune article notes that
Microsoft is not disclosing its specific patents "lest FOSS advocates
start filing challenges to them
". But invalidating even a single
patent is hard; invalidating 235 would certainly tax even the capabilities
of our extended community.
On the other hand, Microsoft would have to name specific patents in any legal action, and, presumably, it would not base a suit on all 235 patents. There is also the unknown effect of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in KSR International v. Teleflex; this ruling has raised the bar on the amount of innovation a patent must contain. Some have speculated that this ruling could lead to the end of software patents altogether. That seems like wishful thinking, but it should help those who seek to invalidate many of the software patents currently on the books.
In the SCO case, a weak and incompetent company took on the strongest target it could find, and that target chose to stand its ground. There are no guarantees that things would go the same way this time around. Microsoft is strong financially and has a large, seasoned legal operation. It may well choose to attack smaller companies which cannot afford to put up an extended fight. In theory, a patent attack against Linux should evoke a strong response from the companies working with Linux, many of which hold considerable patent portfolios of their own. In practice, we will never know who would jump into that fight until they make their move. In particular, a defense which challenges the validity of software patents in general could be seen by a number of potential allies as being against their interests.
We should, at least, be able to count on the intervention of the Open Invention Network, which was formed for just this purpose. If OIN's patents are as strong as some believe, the resulting fireworks should be worth watching - from a safe distance.
There are a few other interesting things to keep in mind. Software patents are a U.S. problem, primarily; a successful patent attack against Linux could have the effect of driving its developers and users out of the country. Linux is now sufficiently firmly entrenched that attacking its users or developers could cause extended chaos - it might even upset more people than threatening to shut down the Blackberry network. That, in turn, could inspire more thought on the true costs and benefits of the current patent regime in the U.S. Some people believe that, by selling Novell's coupons, Microsoft has become a Linux distributor and is now subject to the terms of the GPL. Any serious attempt by Microsoft to bring down Linux would bring renewed attention from the world's anti-trust authorities.
Clearly, there are quite a few unknowns here.
What it all comes down to is that, sooner or later, this may well be a
battle we cannot avoid fighting. Once it hits, there is no telling where
things will go. About the only guarantee is that it is certain to be
interesting.
Posted May 17, 2007 9:28 UTC (Thu)
by NRArnot (subscriber, #3033)
[Link] (1 responses)
(And of course, the patent would have to stand up to legal scrutiny as well as be a fundamental roadblock).
I wonder whether when Microsoft says "Linux" it may actually mean the software suites that compete with Microsoft: Linux + Openoffice + xxxSQL + Apache .... There's probably more danger that Openoffice is a target than the Linux kernel, and I believe that Microsoft makes a lot more money selling Office than Windows. Who knows, they might even attack Openoffice at the same time that they ship MS Office for Linux!
Posted May 17, 2007 11:51 UTC (Thu)
by djpig (guest, #18768)
[Link]
From the article:
"But he does break down the total number allegedly violated - 235 - into categories. He says that the Linux kernel - the deepest layer of the free operating system, which interacts most directly with the computer hardware - violates 42 Microsoft patents. The Linux graphical user interfaces - essentially, the way design elements like menus and toolbars are set up - run afoul of another 65, he claims. The Open Office suite of programs, which is analogous to Microsoft Office, infringes 45 more. E-mail programs infringe 15, while other assorted FOSS programs allegedly transgress 68."
Posted May 17, 2007 9:38 UTC (Thu)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link] (2 responses)
Several years ago you reviewed OIN. At that time you mentioned the number of patents in their portfolio. There are fewer patents now. Where did the others go? I am assuming that their owner withdrew them. Doesn't that present some unpleasant implications regarding OIN? Thanks Bruce
Posted May 17, 2007 12:44 UTC (Thu)
by wookey (guest, #5501)
[Link]
Posted May 22, 2007 19:52 UTC (Tue)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
IANAL and this should be verified independently, while talking with Red Hat legal what I understood from the discussion was that patents are not licensed but "donated" to OIN and it wouldn't be possible for the patent owners to take it back or even license it to other parties.
Posted May 17, 2007 11:16 UTC (Thu)
by NRArnot (subscriber, #3033)
[Link] (2 responses)
Some (many? ) patents are trivial to bust, or at least to find the ammunition that lawyers can use to do so. It just takes one item of prior art to demolish a patent on that prior art. If one can ask millions of programmers "can you remember anything published before <date> describing <whatever> ?", it's likely that if such a publication exists, at least one of them will remember it. End of patent.
If you can't ask millions of programmers (or motivate them to bother to reply) it's far harder to find the killer publication.
By the way, it's common that if business X sues business Y over a patent and business Y discovers it can bust the patent, the end result is that X grants Y a free license, the terms of which Y endeavours to keep secret. No point in either of them helping their other competitors, is there?
Posted May 17, 2007 23:26 UTC (Thu)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link] (1 responses)
The Texans won.
Posted May 18, 2007 3:33 UTC (Fri)
by pr1268 (guest, #24648)
[Link]
That's a crying shame. What a miscarriage of justice! I personally can't stand it when the "good ol' boy" effect prevalent in Texas defines laws and justice (making a gross generalization here). And I'm from Texas! Veering off-topic: The current American president hails from Texas (and it goes to show). But fortunately, not all Texans are proud of that fact.
Posted May 17, 2007 11:29 UTC (Thu)
by jengelh (guest, #33263)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted May 17, 2007 13:06 UTC (Thu)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted May 17, 2007 16:06 UTC (Thu)
by tjc (guest, #137)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 17, 2007 16:09 UTC (Thu)
by jengelh (guest, #33263)
[Link]
I don't read Fortune (you just gave a very good reason).
Posted May 17, 2007 13:47 UTC (Thu)
by i3839 (guest, #31386)
[Link] (2 responses)
So it's just FUD, as usual, especially this one is nasty:
> Mr Ballmer said countries using Linux which entered the World Trade
Its only purpose is to discourage Linux adoption.
So the whole thing is already rotten even if it would be true. Throw in prior art and trivial "inventions", and the whole thing falls apart.
All in all I think it's misleading to say that it's unclear where it would go when MS decides to sue: It won't. If it does, it will be quite embarrassing for them. MS only tries to slow down Linux adoption by waving this patent uncertainty around.
Posted May 17, 2007 17:39 UTC (Thu)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link] (1 responses)
On the other hand, it is very frequent that when a patent holder sues someone for infringement, the patent itself gets thrown out.
Posted May 17, 2007 18:06 UTC (Thu)
by AJWM (guest, #15888)
[Link]
Actually there is, but the limit kicks in starting when the patent holder knows about the infringement. If he doesn't do anything about it for a given amount of time (I believe it's six years), then his inaction can be taken as an implicit license. (See also "doctrine of laches".)
Posted May 17, 2007 17:55 UTC (Thu)
by mikov (guest, #33179)
[Link]
IANAL, but the repeated claim that none of these patents are "court validated" seems stupid to me. A patent doesn't have to be court validated in order to be effective ! Patents are effective and valid until proven otherwise, and proving it is extremely expensive and time consuming process, the recent KSR ruling notwithstanding.
At least in the US legal system, in trade secret and patent lawsuits, the defendant is presumed guilty until proven innocent.
I am very fortunate to have firsthand experience with that as a defendant. It is a life lesson you never forget - "justice doesn't exist if you cannot afford to pay $100,000 a month for legal fees" :-)
Posted May 17, 2007 21:11 UTC (Thu)
by ronaldcole (guest, #1462)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted May 17, 2007 21:20 UTC (Thu)
by lordsutch (guest, #53)
[Link] (5 responses)
I'm not going to sit here and defend software patents, but some (perhaps even most) patents outside of software are important to fostering innovation, and inventors don't often have access to the capital needed to develop their innovations into marketable products. Hence the need for royalties and the right to sell patents.
Posted May 18, 2007 12:40 UTC (Fri)
by JohnNilsson (guest, #41242)
[Link]
but some (perhaps even most) patents outside of software are important to fostering innovation
Do you have som research to back that up?
Posted May 18, 2007 22:15 UTC (Fri)
by ronaldcole (guest, #1462)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted May 19, 2007 0:06 UTC (Sat)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted May 21, 2007 11:16 UTC (Mon)
by aigarius (subscriber, #7329)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 21, 2007 15:49 UTC (Mon)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
I don't think you've adequately considered the economic effect of a rule that patents can't be sold. It stifles invention, because it means that an inventor must also be a financier and patent enforcer. Financing is an essential part of the invention system because inventions tend to pay off over a long time, and many don't pay off at all. It takes a company with lots of capital, lots of patents, and marketing skills to do it. Similarly, it takes legal and marketing skills to get people to use a patent and to pay royalties if they do. It's hard to find all that, plus the technical skill to invent, in a single company. The system we have today allows the perfect division of labor to occur naturally.
It isn't possible today, because there is an open market for patents. If there is a chance of suing people into oblivion, the patent's price is high. Like in any competitive industry, patent trolls tend to break even. The amount they get in royalties, whether paid voluntarily or by court order, just covers the price of the patent and the cost of enforcing it, on the average. Naturally, some hit the jackpot and come out way ahead.
Posted May 18, 2007 23:14 UTC (Fri)
by BackSeat (guest, #1886)
[Link] (1 responses)
As the intelligent reader will have worked out, I am not a lawyer (the abbreviation always reads, to me, as if the author is anal) and I'm not American. Maybe that colu^Hrs my judgement.
Posted May 19, 2007 0:49 UTC (Sat)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
Microsoft has made it clear it's response would be, "no thanks."
Microsoft's general counsel says in the Fortune article he doesn't want to reveal what the patents are because if he does, people will begin filing challenges and Microsoft will have to spend money to respond. Since Microsoft has nothing to gain from revealing, it might as well wait to cross that bridge.
Since Linux is made by a huge unconnected group of people, the only way Linux could "get its house in order" is if Microsoft makes the list public.
Incidentally, I know some will compare this to the SCO case and point out that the longer Microsoft keeps the list a secret, the more infringing use will occur and Microsoft can soak those unintentional infringers for royalties. While wringing money out of IP was SCO's goal, there's no indication that's what Microsoft wants. What Microsoft wants is for Linux to stop competing with Windows, and if patent-protected capabilities are removed from Linux so only Windows has them, that satisfies Microsoft.
Surely the biggest defense is that as soon as Microsoft names a patent, the community will be able to start rewriting the code to bypass the patent. I wonder how many patents Microsoft has on things so fundamental that such a rewrite would be a serious problem for Linux? On Microsoft's patent claims
On Microsoft's patent claims
Jon,
Some of our patents are missing
Perhaps more likely they expired/weren't renewed. An awful lot of patents don't run for the full 20 yrs, as every year costs money.Some of our patents are missing
Some of our patents are missing
"invalidating even a single patent is hard; invalidating 235 would certainly tax even the capabilities of our extended community"On Microsoft's patent claims
My PhD advisor was once involved in a patent case. Though the facts were on the defendant's side, it required detailed technical understanding to comprehend this. But the trial was held in Bumf*ck, Texas, the plaintiff company was Texas-based, the defendant company was from Cambridge, Mass, and my prof was from UC Berkeley. Everyone who'd graduated high school was tossed from the jury, and my advisor, the expert witness, was hardly able to get a word in edgewise as the plaintiff's lawyer put Communist Cambridge and Berkeley on trail for trying to rob good Texans of what was rightfully theirs.
It isn't always that simple
It isn't always that simple
Mh, Microsoft vs OIN seems like Cold War.On Microsoft's patent claims
Lol, yeah, that's what I thought... This whole thing is pretty cold-war On Microsoft's patent claims
like. I'm really looking forward to how this unfolds. I don't feel like I
should be really worried, so it might be fun.
From the Fortune article:
On Microsoft's patent claims
It's a cold war, and what keeps the peace is the threat of mutually assured destruction: patent Armageddon - an unending series of suits and countersuits that would hobble the industry and its customers.
I didn't make it past page one. I loaded page two, but this big blob of Javascript-powered advertising floated over the article while I was reading it, so I decided to return to the plain text sanity of LWN. :-)
Or mutually assured nondestruction.On Microsoft's patent claims
I don't see how MS could have any chance in court when it knows for years that their patents are infringed (according to them), and only years later complains about it. Thinking that someone stole something from you but refusing to say what it is doesn't make your case very strong, years after the fact.On Microsoft's patent claims
> Organisation would be at risk.
Patents aren't like trademarks. For trademarks, you can lose it if you don't enforce it. With patents, there isn't a time limit.
On Microsoft's patent claims
> With patents, there isn't a time limit.On Microsoft's patent claims
I think the community may be misinterpreting the full seriousness of this threat. Some articles which have appeared (but notably NOT this one! - our editor as always is doing an excellent job), including PJ's posting http://web.archive.org/web/20210118074154/http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070517083516872, seem to me dangerously like wishful thinking. Court validated patents
Since patents are meant to protect the inventor, when an inventor sells his invention it should then lose it's patent protection (since the inventor will have realized all the profit from the invention that he figures he can). That would stop the insane building of patent portfolios by "non-inventors" as if they were weapons of mass destruction and thereby advance the creative commons.On reasonable patent reform
Ah, but if the invention loses its patent when the patent rights are sold, then patent rights would become worthless--nobody would buy them.On reasonable patent reform
On reasonable patent reform
Did you read what I wrote? The patent right would not be worthless to it's inventor, the person for whom patents were invented to protect in the first place. But under my scenario, they would be worthless to acquire by society's "non-inventing" patent leeches; which is a desirable thing, IMO.On reasonable patent reform
You lost me. Are you saying the inventor should lose all his patent rights after he sells the patent? If so, you got your wish. That's how it works today. Or are you saying the buyer of the patent should end up with no patent rights? If so, why would he buy it? And if he wouldn't buy it, how would the inventor sell it?
On reasonable patent reform
Exactly the point. There should not be the ability to sell a patent, only a limited licence to use such patent.On reasonable patent reform
The idea being that only the inventors should be able to get any income from the patent. It should not be possible for a patent troll to buy a patent for peanuts and then sue people to oblivion.
OTOH, if an inventor himself is able to make a product out of his patent, then he would still have the ability to enforce his government-granted monopoly.
It is an interesting compromise, but eventually the patent system will fall as the basis of it (limited information about a product) has disappeared long time ago already.
On reasonable patent reform
It should not be possible for a patent troll to buy a patent for peanuts and then sue people to oblivion.
Maybe I'm naive (in which case I will sleep soundly in the knowledge that someone will confirm that fact), but what would be the problem with a representative of the Linux community approaching Microsoft and saying, "We're concerned about these alleged patent infringements. Please tell us more so that we can put our house in order." Microsoft would have to either tell us - in which case, hopefully, we can work around the majority if not all of them - or it would refuse. I would like to think (there's that naivety again) that a judge in a subsequent patent infringement case against Linux would look favourably upon our attempts to right a wrong.On Microsoft's patent claims
On Microsoft's patent claims
but what would be the problem with a representative of the Linux community approaching Microsoft and saying, "We're concerned about these alleged patent infringements. Please tell us more so that we can put our house in order."