Everyone knew it was coming, despite Microsoft's claims to the contrary. . . .
In the past, resorting to seeking revenue through patent infringement against consumers is a sign a company is going under or getting desperate. It is only when a company is losing customers at a very fast rate do they resort to assaulting consumers directly. I guess Microsoft has finally realized they are becoming irrelevant and loosing the battle to open source.
According to Bloomberg news, Microsoft "wants makers of [open source] software to pay royalties." Now InformationWeek is stating that instead of litigating or just demanding royalties, "Microsoft wants to create more arrangements that mirror the company's deal with Linux distributor Novell." But my question is what if they don't want to enter such a deal? Then does Microsoft litigate?
Contrary to popular belief, trademarks are the only intellectual property that in unenforced is lost. So you are not compelled to enforce a patent. If you were then most of the patents Microsoft owns, as well as most of the other software patents out there, would be invalidated.
Microsoft claims they only want to reach licensing agreements, but I want to know how are those arrangements that much different then the arrangement provided by the GPL (which essentially provides a reciprocal license of code in exchange for use of the combined result.) If Microsoft wants to use and contribute to Linux then they would in effect be in that kind of arrangement with every other user and contributor of Linux. That is what the GPL does.
First of all, I think they should explicitly cite the patents and the infringement, which they refuse to do. Their refusal to do that reminds me of SCO and their fishing for people to charge royalties.
Now I am a big fan of capitalism, and companies making money - that is where many jobs come from, including mine.
What Microsoft is threatening to undertake is similar to what the RIAA, SCO, and other "intellectual property holding companies" have done in the past. These companies realize that their best source of revenue is to attack consumers. It is amazing that Microsoft has decided they are in that position.
Patent law actually allows a patent holder to attack the user of an unlicensed patent. This is different then trademark or copyright law. So the fact that Microsoft "wants makers of such software to pay royalties" is an indication that they want to go after consumers. Sure they are dressing it up with "license over litigation" claims, but the fact remains they are going after consumers.
Now I am sure you are about to say "Wait, they say they are going after makers, not consumers! This is just like Apple vs. Microsoft, etc." That is where the issue of open source comes into play. Open source (specifically the GPL) is a license where by the user is allowed a license in exchange for their contributions to the code. Interestingly this license arrangement is pretty much explicitly allowed for in the US Tax law. So by saying they are going after makers of open source they are actually going after consumers, and leaving it open to go after pretty much anyone involved. I know I have contributed to some open source projects. Have any of you made your code available for the use of others? If so, then your code may have been incorporated into one of these monstrosities that are robing poor Microsoft of their revenue and they may come after you!
Since they won't tell anyone exactly what parts are infringing, and with what patents, it is obvious they would rather extract a toll then work something out. The open source community, especially Linux, has specifically said if anyone pointed out where and how they were unknowingly infringing they would be glad to correct the situation.
Technorati Tags: [Programming] [Software] [GPL] [Licenses] [Microsoft] [Open Source] [Patents]
1 comment:
sigh.
I guess Microsoft has finally realized they are becoming irrelevant and loosing the battle to open source.
First, a pet peeve: it's "losing", not "loosing". "Loosing" is what happens to a jar lid when you twist it. "Losing" is what the Nets are doing right now with the Cavs.
Whether Microsoft is winning or losing depends on the conditions of success. What's the battle? It looks like MS is doing very well financially, and I don't see Ubuntu running on my parent's PC anytime soon.
Microsoft claims they only want to reach licensing agreements, but I want to know how are those arrangements that much different then the arrangement provided by the GPL (which essentially provides a reciprocal license of code in exchange for use of the combined result.) If Microsoft wants to use and contribute to Linux then they would in effect be in that kind of arrangement with every other user and contributor of Linux. That is what the GPL does.
The difference? Microsoft wants licensing for their patents. GPL is a copyright license for source code. patent != copyright
Assuming the patents are valid, the law says it's up to Microsoft to decide what to do with that intellectual property. If they don't want it contributed to Linux because it helps the competition, that's their prerogative. If MS wants to charge for it, that's their prerogative too. That's the way it works in our legal system of intellectual property. (Is this a good system for the software industry? Personally I don't think so, but those are the rules we all play by today.)
I totally agree with you though; MS needs to provide specifics on the alleged patent infringements or they're just talking FUD.
Open source (specifically the GPL) is a license where by the user is allowed a license in exchange for their contributions to the code. Interestingly this license arrangement is pretty much explicitly allowed for in the US Tax law.
You misunderstand the GPL and other open source licenses, apparently. There's nothing in the GPL that says a user needs to contribute to the code in order to use it. And I'm not sure what you're talking about with US Tax law... it's copyright law that make licenses like the GPL binding.
Anyway, user != developer, and patent != copyright. You do know that the RIAA lawsuits are about copyrights, right? Similar thing with SCO (mostly copyright and breach of contract claims, not patents). Directly comparing them to the patent issue with Microsoft is misleading.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of this situation either. I would much rather see Microsoft use their leadership position to work towards patent reform (which they are doing to some extent)... don't forget that Microsoft's been burnt more than once by questionable patents in the past (like Eolas). It's not productive and it hinders innovation more than it helps, in my opinion.
Post a Comment