EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

06.03.07

Why Are We Waiting for Microsoft to Sue?

Posted in Action, Antitrust, Courtroom, Free/Libre Software, FUD, GNU/Linux, IBM, Intellectual Monopoly, Law, Microsoft, Novell, Patents, SUN at 7:43 am by Shane Coyle

Let’s Sue Each Other…

For the last few years, more so in the passing months it seems, much of the focus and energy of the Free Software community has been allocated towards discussions and preparations for Microsoft’s coming legal offensive against GNU/Linux and Open Source. Of course, many observers have some legitimate questions about the quality, or even legitimacy, of Microsoft’s patent portfolio.

With each passing week, and unfilfilled threat, it becomes more and more apparent that Microsoft’s intention is to keep the community focused on collective sandbag-piling and allow Microsoft to catch-up technologically, rather than risk testing their spurious software patents in a court of law.

I contend that we should not wait for Microsoft to (finally) file a software patent infringement case against a Free Software developer or user, I believe that one of us should sue a Free Software developer or user. No, I haven’t been drinking.

I have said before that I believe that software patents are invalid and that companies such as Microsoft, Novell, AT&T, IBM and Sun have a vested interest in the perpetuation of the software patent myth. I have also stated that I believe allowing the continued stockpiling and cross-licensing of these illegitimate patents is leading to the cartelization of the software industry.

In the few occasions where companies have been unable to reach amicable licensing terms (or, avoid court, at least), and tech industry giants do find themselves in court bickering over their software patents, they are usually very very careful to present the court with a very narrowly construed legal question rather than risk a ruling on the overall legality of software patents.

For instance, in MS v ATT the parties simply wanted the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the applicability of U.S. patents abroad, and stipulated that such activity would be infringing if within the U.S. to avoid the software patent legitimacy question – or, more accurately, the answer.

Despite this very narrow question before the Supreme Court, it seemed apparent that Justice Scalia was telegraphing to all interested parties just how things would go if he were ever to have the question of software patents before him…

MR. OLSON [For Microsoft]: The ‘580 patent is a program, as I understand it, that’s married to a computer, has to be married to a computer in order to be patented.
JUSTICE SCALIA: You can’t patent, you know, on-off, on-off code in the abstract, can you?
MR. OLSON: That’s correct, Justice Scalia.
JUSTICE SCALIA: There needs to be a device.
MR. OLSON: An idea or a principle, two plus two equals four can’t be patented. It has to be put together with a machine and made into a usable device.

So, my idea is simple – a Free Software developer or company with at least one software patent covered by the EDU-Nix Dual Mode CD sues me (be gentle, I’m broke), and we will pose the question directly to the court:

Are Software Patents Legal?

I, unlike Microsoft et al, am looking forward to the answer.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

10 Comments

  1. Roy Schestowitz said,

    June 3, 2007 at 10:38 am

    Gravatar

    As far as patents are concerned, I don’t think that it’s likely to end up in court. To Microsoft this would be like sticking a pie in their own face.

    As far as ‘predatory licences’ are concerned, it’s Microsoft and/or Novell that could strike preemptively, which is why I posted this item earlier today.

  2. John Drinkwater said,

    June 3, 2007 at 3:22 pm

    Gravatar

    That’s a cake, not a pie!

    Otherwise, keep it up.

  3. David Mohring (NZheretic) said,

    June 3, 2007 at 7:25 pm

    Gravatar

    What about the REAL relative risk for Microsoft’s own customers…

    Due to the amount of patent leverage from SUN and IBM, in reality there is little risk of Microsoft suing end users deploying open source, and that includes customers of RedHat and Canonical. But what of the risk to Microsoft’s own customers from continuing to use Microsoft’s demonstratably more insecure products.

    If a business or government body is not taking due care with the private information they hold on the public which could lead to identity theft then they are at risk of being sued.

    1) Demand the business or government body disclose copies of the anti virus logs for all of their desktops and laptops.
    2) Generate a list of all the malware that
    a) was cleaned up post infection ( the malware was actually executed and run ) AND
    b) exploited vulnerabilities in Microsoft applications and operating system prior to an update fix being made available by Microsoft.

    In comparison to MacOSX or Linux based desktop, Microsoft’s desktop operating systems and Microsoft’s desktop applications face a disproportionally higher risk of being “infected” with hostile malware. Just relying on third party Antivirus software to prop up Microsoft’s flagging security record in no way puts you any closer to the level of security that a switch to another vendors desktop platform can provide. ( Just updating to Vista is no guarantee of better security in comparison to another vendors platform )

    A business or government body is not taking due care with the private information they hold on the public if they continue to use Microsoft desktop OS environments or Microsoft desktop applications. That is your credit card data, banking details , health care info and social security information. If switching to Linux or MacOSX based desktops would greatly reduce the risk of further intrusion why should not organizations be “encouraged” to make the move.

    If anyones customers are at greater risk of being sued for using a product it is Microsoft’s own customers.

  4. Roy Schestowitz said,

    June 3, 2007 at 8:09 pm

    Gravatar

    David, on the subject of liability, I have some bit which could suggest the software vendor is liable when (knowingly) insecure software gets distributed, e.g.

    ‘Ah, from the horse’s mouth: Microsoft just might be held legally responsible for selling software that is insecure.’

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006112223522439

    Experts are calling for product liability for software

    “Product liability does not apply to software,” Gerald Spindler of the Faculty of Law of the University of Göttingen complained. “But what if a whole company comes to a standstill due to faulty software?” he mused.

    http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/86932/from/rss09

    It is worth adding that Microsoft was aware of security issues when it finalised Windows Vista. This, for example, is why they consider banning virtualisation altogether. But it takes us off topic…

  5. David Mohring (NZheretic) said,

    June 4, 2007 at 1:43 am

    Gravatar

    Roy, ever see the movie “fight club”?
    QUOTE
    Narrator: A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don’t do one.
    Business woman on plane: Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?
    Narrator: You wouldn’t believe.
    Business woman on plane: Which car company do you work for?
    Narrator: A major one.
    UNQUOTE

    See Our Data:an appeal – a “Plimsoll line” for apps
    http://itheresies.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_archive.html#112890721608678496
    “Bruce Schneier claimed that for change to occur the software industry must become libel for damages from “unsecure” software. However, historically this has not always been the case, since most businesses can insure against damages and pass the cost along to the consumer.”

  6. Roy Schestowitz said,

    June 4, 2007 at 2:05 am

    Gravatar

    I watched “Fight Club”, but I can’t recall that dialogue, which is both interesting and truthful.

    About Schneier, whose writings I follow regularly, well… he makes a fine point and more recently he took a somewhat controversial stance (even Alax Cox would seem to disagree with his assessment).

    http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6179500.html

    Schneier questions need for security industry

    “We shouldn’t have to come and find a company to secure our e-mail. E-mail should already be secure. We shouldn’t have to buy from somebody to secure our network or servers. Our networks and servers should already be secure.”

    http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2007/05/securitymatters_0503

    Do We Really Need a Security Industry?

    “Aftermarket security is actually a very inefficient way to spend our security dollars; it may compensate for insecure IT products, but doesn’t help improve their security. Additionally, as long as IT security is a separate industry, there will be companies making money based on insecurity — companies who will lose money if the internet becomes more secure.”

  7. Ian said,

    June 4, 2007 at 7:44 am

    Gravatar

    With each passing week, and unfilfilled threat, it becomes more and more apparent that Microsoft’s intention is to keep the community focused on collective sandbag-piling and allow Microsoft to catch-up technologically, rather than risk testing their spurious software patents in a court of law.

    Do you honestly think that a majority of the developer community is really paying a lot of attention to what Microsoft is doing in this aspect? While I’m certainly not going to defend Microsoft here, I don’t think its completely accurate to extrapolate the feelings and mission of the open source advocacy community onto the developer community.

    In my personal opinion, while some might be upset at the whole situation, development is most likely continuing as always.

  8. Shane Coyle said,

    June 4, 2007 at 7:48 am

    Gravatar

    At this point, MS is essentially asserting ownership and collecting royalties over many Free Software developers’ code, if they aren’t watching what MS is doing, I would be shocked.

  9. Roy Schestowitz said,

    June 4, 2007 at 8:30 am

    Gravatar

    To support Shane’s point, have a look at this one:

    http://boycottnovell.com/2007/06/02/coupons-portion/

    Microsoft confirmed what was said to us by Jeremy Allison months ago. Behind the scenes, Microsoft scares customers and collects money for ‘protection’ that covers Free software. This is inexcusable. Sadly, many of the developers of the tools for which money is being paid are still unaware of this. Microsoft keeps a low profile and as Jeremy said, they do this ‘off the record’. Essentially, they give software for free while Microsoft makes money from that software. How would you feel as a developer?

  10. Ian said,

    June 4, 2007 at 9:46 am

    Gravatar

    How would I feel? It’s hard to say. I probably wouldn’t be overly happy. But if I really cared about it, I’d probably say something.

What Else is New


  1. Red Hat's Freedom Reduced to Just Online Partner Enablement Network (OPEN) and Microsoft as a Close Partner; Canonical's Ubuntu Just an 'App' for Windows?

    Free software is being snapped up by proprietary software giants and patent bullies that treat it as little more than an 'add-on' for their proprietary offerings



  2. Linux Foundation Apparently Celebrates Sysadmin Day With a Microsoft Windows Site!

    The Linux Foundation shows ‘love’ to actual GNU/Linux (the real thing) by apparently rejecting it and badmouthing it



  3. EPO Looney Tunes – Part 3: The Legal Line-up for G 2/19

    The deck appears to have already been stacked for G 2/19, a decision on EPO judges' exile to Haar (veiled disciplinary action/collective punishment by those whom the judges are supposed to 'oversee')



  4. Links 17/7/2019: VirtualBox 6.0.10 and Mageia 7.1 Releases, Mint Betas

    Links for the day



  5. Links 16/7/2019: Btrfs Gets 'Cleaned Up', Clonezilla Live 2.6.2-15

    Links for the day



  6. EPO Looney Tunes - Part 2: The “Difficult Legacy” and Its Dark Historical Shadow

    Assuming that he was informed, then it seems fair to say that Battistell’s little “joke” at the expense of the Boards was in very bad taste



  7. EPO Noise Machine Turned On as Haar Hearing Kicks Off, Patrick Corcoran Defamed Again

    The EPO does not want people to hear about Haar; it just wants people to hear about how wonderful the EPO is and there are some who have just decided to slander Patrick Corcoran again



  8. Microsoft is 'Doing Kamikaze' (神風) on Linux

    An analogy for what the Linux (only in name!) Foundation and Microsoft mean to Linux — or by extension to GNU/Linux and Free software whose largest repository Microsoft took control of



  9. The 'New' Linux.com Sometimes Feels Like a Microsoft Promotion Site

    Anything that the ‘Linux’ Foundation touches seems to turn into its proprietors’ agenda; one of those proprietors is Microsoft, which has a "Jihad" against Linux



  10. IBM is a Threat to the Internet, Not Just to Software Development (Due to Software Patents Aggression)

    IBM continues its aggression against technology — a fact that’s even more distressing now that IBM calls the shots at Red Hat



  11. EPO Looney Tunes - Part 1: Is D-Day Approaching for Battistelli’s “Difficult Legacy”?

    European patent justice isn’t working within the premises of EPOnia; a bunch of ‘show trials’ may in fact turn out to be just that — a show



  12. Links 16/7/2019: LXD 3.15, Q4OS 3.8 and D9VK 0.13f

    Links for the day



  13. Links 15/7/2019: Vulkan 1.1.115 and Facebook Openwashing

    Links for the day



  14. Microsoft Office 360 Banned

    OpenDocument Format (ODF, a real standard everyone can implement) and Free/libre software should be taught in schools; it's not supposed to be just a matter of privacy



  15. Microsoft, in Its Own Words...

    Sociopathy, incompetence and intolerance of the rule of law, as demonstrated by Microsoft's top managers



  16. Microsoft's WSL is Designed to Weaken GNU/Linux (on the Desktop/Laptop) and Strengthen Vista 10

    What Microsoft does to GNU/Linux on the desktop (and/or laptop) bears much resemblance to what Microsoft did to Java a couple of decades ago



  17. Links 14/7/2019: Linux 5.2.1, Unreal Engine 4.23 Preview, Linux Mint 19.2 Beta

    Links for the day



  18. 25,500 Blog Posts and Pages

    With our thirteenth anniversary just a few months away we're at a pace of about 2,000 posts per year



  19. With WSL Microsoft is Doing to GNU/Linux What It Did to Netscape

    Embrace, extend, extinguish. Some things never really change even if they become an old and repetitive accusation.



  20. Allowing Bad Guests to Become the Hosts

    Why the so-called 'Linux Foundation', a nonprofit that acts more like a PAC controlled by proprietary software companies and people who don't even use Linux, is increasingly becoming a Linux-hostile front group



  21. Honesty and Collaboration Make Free Software Stronger, Microsoft is Inherently a Misfit

    In spite of all the lies Microsoft and its Web sites spew out on a daily basis, nothing has really changed and Microsoft is still attacking Software Freedom (mostly from the inside nowadays, helped by FUD proxies such as WhiteSource and Snyk)



  22. Patent Certainty Waning, But That's Still OK for Patent Trolls

    Patent maximalism remains a threat to everyone but patent lawyers (and patent office chiefs who measure their own performance only by the number of patents granted); best served are the patent trolls who extrajudicially attack already-impoverished parties behind closed doors



  23. GitHub is Microsoft's Proprietary Software and Centralised (Monopoly) Platform, But When Canonical's Account There Gets Compromised Suddenly It's Ubuntu's Fault?

    Typical media distortions and signs that Microsoft already uses GitHub for censorship of Free/Open Source software that does not fit Microsoft's interests



  24. Canonical is Turning Ubuntu Into a More Proprietary Deviant of GNU/Linux

    Ubuntu is becoming more 'Ubinary'; binaries without their source code available are packed up and cooked up for (or baked into) the ISO; this may be good for widespread adoption, but it's not an advancement of freedom, a capitulation rather



  25. Links 13/7/2019: Librem 5 July Update, Project Trident 19.07, KDE Frameworks 5.60.0

    Links for the day



  26. The Problem Isn't Women or Minorities in Free Software But Particular Corporations That Exploit or Steer or Hijack Their Agenda

    If technical issues are being disguised using colours and genders (among other things), then it's important to highlight who's behind it (what company/ies) rather than fling back insults at people because it makes things worse



  27. There's No Such Thing as Cloud Computing, Serverless and All That Other Nonsense

    Buzzwords. Confronted.



  28. Linux is Doing 'Well' Only for Those Who Dislike Software Freedom and Love Control Over Users

    Linux, the kernel, has become a corporate playground or a sandbox that's used to upsell proprietary software, including surveillance; freedom in Linux is gradually being diminished if not completely obliterated and it does not worry the foundations entrusted to guard against it



  29. Consultation About Direction and Future Focus for Techrights

    We invite ideas and recommendations for the future of the site, notably which topics and aspects are worth covering as a matter of higher priority



  30. European Media Continues to Ignore the EPO Crisis While Law Firms and EPO Management Cover Things Up

    The EPO crisis silently deepens because serious problems are lied about, not acknowledged, and the legitimacy of European Patents is greatly diminished, not to mention the EPO's ability to attract talent


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts