But when i read article on slashdot, I felt it was much targeted to corporation using open source and open systems. they haven't yet shown what copyright they were talking about. according to article it says
"*One opinion on why Microsoft won't reveal these 235 alleged IP infringements to the public is that they're afraid of having the claims debunked <http://lmaugustin.typepad.com/lma/2007/05/its_time_for_mi.html> or challenged so instead they're waiting until the OS community comes to the bargaining table. But a more optimistic thought is that Microsoft may be afraid to list these supposed violations because it knows the patents can be worked around<http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/microsoft-linux-patent-violations/>by the open source community, leaving Microsoft high and dry without any leverage at all."* On 5/15/07, Subir Pradhanang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > Here's an article (pretty long) from CNN: > > > http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/index.htm > > --- > > 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. > > By Roger Parloff, Fortune senior editor > May 14 2007: 9:35 AM EDT > > (Fortune Magazine) -- Free software is great, and corporate America > loves it. It's often high-quality stuff that can be downloaded free > off the Internet and then copied at will. It's versatile - it can be > customized to perform almost any large-scale computing task - and it's > blessedly crash-resistant. > > A broad community of developers, from individuals to large companies > like IBM, is constantly working to improve it and introduce new > features. No wonder the business world has embraced it so > enthusiastically: More than half the companies in the Fortune 500 are > thought to be using the free operating system Linux in their data > centers. > > But now there's a shadow hanging over Linux and other free software, > and it's being cast by Microsoft (Charts, Fortune 500). The Redmond > behemoth asserts that one reason free software is of such high quality > is that it violates more than 200 of Microsoft's patents. And as a > mature company facing unfavorable market trends and fearsome > competitors like Google (Charts, Fortune 500), Microsoft is pulling no > punches: It wants royalties. If the company gets its way, free > software won't be free anymore. > > The conflict pits Microsoft and its dogged CEO, Steve Ballmer, against > the "free world" - people who believe software is pure knowledge. The > leader of that faction is Richard Matthew Stallman, a computer > visionary with the look and the intransigence of an Old Testament > prophet. > > Supreme Court eases patent standards > > Caught in the middle are big corporate Linux users like Wal-Mart, AIG, > and Goldman Sachs. Free-worlders say that if Microsoft prevails, the > whole quirky ecosystem that produced Linux and other free and > open-source software (FOSS) will be undermined. > > Microsoft counters that it is a matter of principle. "We live in a > world where we honor, and support the honoring of, intellectual > property," says Ballmer in an interview. FOSS patrons are going to > have to "play by the same rules as the rest of the business," he > insists. "What's fair is fair." > > Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith and licensing chief Horacio > Gutierrez sat down with Fortune recently to map out their strategy for > getting FOSS users to pay royalties. Revealing the precise figure for > the first time, they state that FOSS infringes on no fewer than 235 > Microsoft patents. > > It's a breathtaking number. (By comparison, for instance, Verizon's > (Charts, Fortune 500) patent suit against Vonage (Charts), which now > threatens to bankrupt the latter, was based on just seven patents, of > which only three were found to be infringing.) "This is not a case of > some accidental, unknowing infringement," Gutierrez asserts. "There is > an overwhelming number of patents being infringed." > > The free world appears to be uncowed by Microsoft's claims. Its master > legal strategist is Eben Moglen, longtime counsel to the Free Software > Foundation and the head of the Software Freedom Law Center, which > counsels FOSS projects on how to protect themselves from patent > aggression. (He's also a professor on leave from Columbia Law School, > where he teaches cyberlaw and the history of political economy.) > > Moglen contends that software is a mathematical algorithm and, as > such, not patentable. (The Supreme Court has never expressly ruled on > the question.) In any case, the fact that Microsoft might possess many > relevant patents doesn't impress him. "Numbers aren't where the action > is," he says. "The action is in very tight qualitative analysis of > individual situations." Patents can be invalidated in court on > numerous grounds, he observes. Others can easily be "invented around." > Still others might be valid, yet not infringed under the particular > circumstances. > > Moglen's hand got stronger just last month when the Supreme Court > stated in a unanimous opinion that patents have been issued too > readily for the past two decades, and lots are probably invalid. For a > variety of technical reasons, many dispassionate observers suspect > that software patents are especially vulnerable to court challenge. > > Furthermore, FOSS has powerful corporate patrons and allies. In 2005, > six of them - IBM (Charts, Fortune 500), Sony, Philips, Novell, Red > Hat (Charts) and NEC - set up the Open Invention Network to acquire a > portfolio of patents that might pose problems for companies like > Microsoft, which are known to pose a patent threat to Linux. > > So if Microsoft ever sued Linux distributor Red Hat for patent > infringement, for instance, OIN might sue Microsoft in retaliation, > trying to enjoin distribution of Windows. 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. > > "It's a tinderbox," Moglen says. "As the commercial confrontation > between [free software] and software-that's-a-product becomes more > fierce, patent law's going to be the terrain on which a big piece of > the war's going to be fought. Waterloo is here somewhere." > > Party crasher > > Brad Smith, 48, became Microsoft's senior vice president and general > counsel in 2002, the year the company settled most of its U.S. > antitrust litigation. A strawberry-blond Princeton graduate with a law > degree from Columbia, Smith is a polished, thoughtful and credible > advocate whom some have described as the face of the kinder, gentler, > post-monopoly Microsoft. But that's not really an apt description of > Smith; he projects intensity, determination, a hint of Ivy League > hauteur, and ambition. > > We're sitting at a circular table in Smith's office in Building 34 on > the Redmond campus, with a view of rolling green lawns splashed with > pink-blossomed plum trees. In the 1970s and 1980s, Smith recounts, > software companies relied mainly on "trade secrets" doctrine and > copyright law to protect their products. Patents weren't a big factor, > since most lawyers assumed that software wasn't patentable. > > But in the 1990s, all that changed. Courts were interpreting copyright > law to provide less protection to software than companies had hoped, > while trade-secrets doctrine was becoming unworkable because the > demands of a networked world required that "the secret" - the > program's source code - be revealed to ever more sets of eyes. > Microsoft, Teleflex patently successful in high court > > At the same time courts began signaling that software could be > patented after all. (A copyright is typically obtained on an entire > computer program. It prohibits exact duplication of the code but may > not bar less literal copying. Patents are obtained on innovative ways > of doing things, and thus a single program might implicate hundreds of > them.) > > In response, companies began stocking up on software patents, with > traditional hardware outfits like IBM leading the way, since they > already had staffs of patent attorneys working at their engineers' > elbows. Microsoft lagged far behind. > > As with the Internet, though, Microsoft came late to the party, then > crashed it with a vengeance. In 2002, the year Smith became general > counsel, the company applied for 1,411 patents. By 2004 it had more > than doubled that number, submitting 3,780. > > In 2003, Microsoft executives sat down to assess what the company > should do with all those patents. There were three choices. First, it > could do nothing, effectively donating them to the development > community. Obviously that "wasn't very attractive in terms of our > shareholders," Smith says. > > Alternatively, it could start suing other companies to stop them from > using its patents. That was a nonstarter too, Smith says: "It was > going to get in the way of everything we were trying to accomplish in > terms of [improving] our connections with other companies, the > promotion of interoperability, the desires of customers." > > So Microsoft took the third choice, which was to begin licensing its > patents to other companies in exchange for either royalties or access > to their patents (a "cross-licensing" deal). In December 2003, > Microsoft's new licensing unit opened for business, and soon the > company had signed cross-licensing pacts with such tech firms as Sun, > Toshiba, SAP and Siemens. > > At the same time, Smith was having Microsoft's lawyers figure out how > many of its patents were being infringed by free and open-source > software. Gutierrez refuses to identify specific patents or explain > how they're being infringed, lest FOSS advocates start filing > challenges to them. > > 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. > > Now that Microsoft had identified the infringements, it could try to > seek royalties. But from whom? FOSS isn't made by a company but by a > loose-knit community of hundreds of individuals and companies. One > possibility was to approach the big commercial Linux distributors like > Red Hat and Novell that give away the software but sell subscription > support services. However, distributors were prohibited from paying > patent royalties by something whose very existence may surprise many > readers: FOSS's own licensing terms. > > Contd...Follow the above link. > > --- > > Cheers, > Subir > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ FOSS Nepal mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/foss-nepal Community website: http://www.fossnepal.org/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
