SHOW US THE CODE Microsoft... On 5/15/07, Ankur Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 foss-nepal@googlegroups.com http://groups.google.com/group/foss-nepal Community website: http://www.fossnepal.org/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
