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

05.25.10

Microsoft Attacks Linux Competition Using Lawsuits and Threats (With Software Patents), Pays Acacia/IP Innovation After Anti-Linux Lawsuit

Posted in Courtroom, Deception, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents, SCO at 7:42 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Microsoft retaliated against industry participants that supported DR-DOS. For example, when Z-Nix Inc. bundled DR-DOS 6.0 and Microsoft Windows 3.1, proclaiming no incompatibilities, Microsoft’s Brad Silverberg wrote: “look what znix is doing! cut those fuckers off.” Within three weeks, Microsoft demanded an audit of Z-Nix’s entire business and then commenced a copyright and trademark infringement action. Z-Nix was forced to file for bankruptcy in or around 1995″

Comes Petition [PDF]

Summary: “Microsoft is back to its old tactics,” claims Forbes Magazine as Microsoft not only sues Linux-using companies but also pays other companies that do so

MICROSOFT NEVER REALLY changed. Since its early days it has been threatening rivals and attacking them with lawsuits if they didn’t behave as Microsoft pleased. It still goes on today because Microsoft is in a litigious mood. Gone are the days of pretense.

Redefining “Open Source”

Microsoft says that it has embraced “Open Source”, but as the OSI put it this week, “To Microsoft, Open Source means ‘Windows Encumbered’”

One of the most interesting things to happen in the past couple of years, is Microsoft’s embrace of Open Source. This means different things to various people I’ve spoken with at Microsoft. Some seem genuinely sincere. Some seem less so. What hasn’t changed is Microsoft’s behavior to the Open Source community at large.

* They have not retracted their patent FUD against Linux.
* They (a founding member of the BSA) did not speak out against the BSA/IIPA’s attempt to have the US government equate Open Source with piracy and as anti-capitalist.
* They continue to attack, with legal action or threats, any open source that competes with any of their core products.
* They continue to hijack standards boards with “standards” that are encumbered by patent or platform constraints.

Microsoft’s version of Open Source Software (MSOSS) means software licensed under an Open Source License which is encumbered with a dependency on SharePoint, Microsoft Office, Microsoft SQL Server or Microsoft Windows (Azure or classic). This underscores something critical that we have all learned over the past few years while on our journey towards freer technology. That is that Open Source licenses are NOT enough to ensure (corporate or consumer) end-user empowerment. We also need Open Standards and Open Data.

Last week we wrote about Europe’s Digital Agenda, which got subverted by Microsoft lobbyists so as to accommodate software patents [1, 2].

Microsoft has been using R&D Magazine to push its agenda and it is doing it again, as it has been been doing for a long time now. Here is Microsoft expressing its acceptance of the Digital Agenda, which it shaped using lobbyists who pretend to represent other interests. That’s just appalling.

Microsoft welcomes the “Digital Agenda for Europe,” announced earlier this week by European Commission Vice-President for the Digital Agenda Neelie Kroes, as a bold roadmap for action. We share the Commission’s view that technology is an enabler for economic growth, job creation, sustainability and social inclusion. As a company, we are fully committed to working with the European Commission and governments to realize the potential of Europe’s digital future.

As we pointed out before, the Digital Agenda had been broken and it still needs to be fixed. It’s not too late.

Microsoft equates software patents with “openness”. How convenient.

Legal Attacks

Last month we showed how Microsoft was attacking the Linux-based Android (HTC being the latest example to have surrendered) and here we see yet again how Microsoft is distorting terms, mixing legal intimidation with “openness”. It’s like claiming to do someone a favour by shooting him/her. “We need to smile at Novell while we pull the trigger,” Microsoft’s Vice President Jim Allchin famously said.

(Update, 2:25 p.m. A Microsoft publicist provided a link to a March blog post by company vice president and deputy general counsel Horacio Gutierrez that essentially says that Apple’s suit is for everybody’s own good: “The smartphone market is still in a nascent state; much innovation still lies ahead in this field. In all nascent technology markets, there is a period early where IP rights will be sorted out.” Later on in the post, Gutierrez opines that “Open innovation is only possible through the licensing of third party IP rights,” which makes me wonder what he thinks of the open, innovative and patent-free World Wide Web.)

“Microsoft Deal With HTC Could Slow Android’s Adoption,” says this article. That’s just what Microsoft wanted because Linux/Android is technically superior and sells better.

Here is Steve Ballmer quoted as saying that “there’s nothing free about Android”:

When asked about Android giving away Android for free versus Microsoft, which charges smart phone carriers, Ballmer took issue with that assessment, stating, “And there’s nothing free about Android. I mean at the end of the day as we certainly have asserted in a number of cases you know there’s an intellectual property royalty due on that. Whether they happen to charge for their software or not is their business decision.”

One reader of ours says that Microsoft is trying to sell two messages here: 1) Android is fragmenting; 2) Android is violating our patents.

The former message is being pushed by Microsoft evangelist Michael Gartenberg [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11], who keeps saying he is no longer an employee of Microsoft, which makes it easier for him to trash Microsoft’s competitors with little suspicion being raised (no disclosure, ever).

“First,” said our reader about Microsoft’s FUD, “it’s nobody is using it, then when the market base increases, it’s fragmenting.”

Here is Pogson responding to Gartenberg’s former boss, Steve Ballmer.

Android Is Free, Steve

In an interview with Fortune Magazine, Steve Ballmer stated “There’s nothing free about Android.” Wrong, Steve. Android is Free:

* anyone can run the software,
* anyone can examine the source code,
* anyone can modify the source code, and
* anyone can distribute the code unmodified or modified under the same licence that comes with the code.

It is probably safe to say that Microsoft is grasping at straws, but its litigation tactics might as well land some of its executives in jail (SCO comes to mind). Is Microsoft really a friend of “Open Source”? Who are they kidding? It’s all PR.

Then there is the Salesforce lawsuit [1, 2]. Microsoft claims that its software patents are “crown jewel[s]” — whatever that actually means when it comes to monopolies, but even pro-Microsoft sites are disappointed by Microsoft’s behaviour.

A few months back, my Foolish colleague Rick Munarriz regaled you with the tale of how Microsoft bullied Amazon.com (Nasdaq: AMZN) into a cross-licensing agreement, presumably because the e-tailer trampled upon its IP rights in the course of using Linux to service its Kindle. Mr. Softie has made similar accusations, to good effect, against everyone from Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ) to Apple to Novell (Nasdaq: NOVL), receiving similar deals in each case.

Forbes Magazine summarised it as follows:

With its new patent lawsuit against Salesforce.com, Microsoft is back to its old tactics.

Another take says:

Instead of suing, why not just build better products? When customers use CRM they are looking to build an edge on their competition by improving relations. Microsoft should improve relations with all the time and money they spend suing their partners.

Microsoft also failed in advertising over the Web. No wonder it’s so fearful and jealous of companies like Google and Salesforce.

Three years after Microsoft agreed to buy Seattle-based digital advertising company aQuantive, the Redmond company’s ad revenues have barely budged, its online losses have soared, many of aQuantive’s top executives have left, and one of aQuantive’s biggest units has been sold.

It’s not the outcome once envisioned from the $6 billion acquisition, which remains the largest in Microsoft’s history.

We wrote about this last week as well.

History Rewritten by Recipient of Vista 7 Laptop

Here is Microsoft's friend Harry McCracken rewriting the past by saying “That history has surprisingly few examples of sustained competition between two giants, in part because one of the giants was so often Microsoft, who — back in the day — played hardball more ruthlessly than anyone, and usually against companies who made some truly boneheaded strategic missteps.”

“Boneheaded strategic missteps,” eh?

Why talk about Microsoft’s crimes that it was found guilty for? It’s so much easier to just blame others and pretend Microsoft was an innocent bystander. Comes vs Microsoft exhibits leave not a shadow of a doubt. McCracken also pretends it’s just part of the past and conveniently ignores Microsoft’s racketeering [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].

But on goes the PR campaign…

Microsoft also uses the “Open API” deception which their partner O’Reilly helps perpetuate.

Other Legal Cases

The firm called McKool Smith causes Microsoft quite a bit of agony. It’s one of those leeches in a system so flooded with patent litigation. Here it is bragging about its actions against Microsoft.

In naming McKool Smith as the top patent litigation firm in the southern U.S., the editors of MIP said the firm had “distinguished itself litigating patent infringement cases for companies like i4i and VirnetX Holdings. It has scored a number of wins against Microsoft, totaling nearly $400 million.”

Here is the latest article we found about the i4i case.

Microsoft is fighting a hard battle, but it is clear the courts and USPTO agree i4i’s patent for the XML feature is valid and Microsoft willingly infringed the patent. Microsoft apparently sees value in the XML feature and therefore should do one of three things:

1. create a work around and not use the XML feature

2. buy i4i outright

3. develop a partnership with i4i and pay them licensing fees for the technology.

There is also this update about the Microsoft vs. Alcatel-Lucent situation [1, 2, 3]:

Title: Microsoft v. Lucent Technologies
Docket: 09-1006
Issues: (1) Whether a jury verdict of patent infringement can stand when it is supported only by speculative evidence and lawyer argument, or whether the standards for entry of judgment as a matter of law that apply in all other federal cases should apply equally in patent cases; and (2) whether a new trial is required in a patent infringement case, as in all other cases, when the verdict is found to be contrary to the weight of the evidence.

* Opinion below (Federal Circuit)
* Petition for certiorari
* Brief in opposition
* Petitioner’s reply

Here is the latest from Acacia, which we all along suspected to have been paid by Microsoft:

Acacia Subsidiary Enters into License Agreement with Microsoft Corporation

Acacia Research Corporation announced today that its subsidiary, IP Innovation, LLC, has entered into a license agreement with Microsoft Corporation covering patents that apply to technology for enhancing image resolution. The agreement resolves a lawsuit that was pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

This also appeared here. Essentially, Microsoft is paying Acacia some money and Groklaw has an opinion on it, namely: “IP Innovation is the same entity that just lost when it sued Red Hat and Novell over alleged patent infringement. Coincidence, I’m sure, that without even having to actually go through any litigation to the end, they get a Microsoft payoff. Maybe Microsoft realized they were guilty of patent infringement. Who knows? But it does smell just a little funny to me. I mean, not saying this is what happened, but what if? Let’s just imagine for a moment. Let’s say you wanted to sue Linux over and over and just run a Linux company into the ground, as Michael Anderer said Microsoft wanted to have happen. If you recall, Microsoft announced in 2003 that Linux would face years of litigation. But then BayStar and Anderer let it slip that Microsoft folks had inspired investors to help SCO in its battle against Linux. So imagine you are Microsoft. How do you funnel money to the folks who are to sue Linux next after that, especially now that SCO has lost ignominiously and is bankrupt?

“Let’s say you wanted to sue Linux over and over and just run a Linux company into the ground, as Michael Anderer said Microsoft wanted to have happen.”
      –Groklaw
“Here’s how my imagination works, when I put my evil-think hat on: why couldn’t you have an entity like IP Innovation sue Linux vendors *and* Microsoft, and if they win, they get money from the Linux vendor, and if they lose, Microsoft agrees to settle? Would that not be slick? Again, I’m not applying this imaginary strategy to anything in real life, but if I were a defense lawyer dealing with a patent infringement case brought by anyone against Linux, I’d surely look for that in discovery. Just saying. — Update: I can’t find any litigation against Microsoft by IP Innovation on PACER or on Google. I see others by other subsidiaries of Acacia, but none listed or even announced by IP Innovation. Perhaps someone else can find it.”

“On the same day that CA blasted SCO, Open Source evangelist Eric Raymond revealed a leaked email from SCO’s strategic consultant Mike Anderer to their management. The email details how, surprise surprise, Microsoft has arranged virtually all of SCO’s financing, hiding behind intermediaries like Baystar Capital.”

Bruce Perens

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

What Else is New


  1. Links 16/11/2018: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 Beta, Mesa 18.2.5, VirtualBox 6.0 Beta 2

    Links for the day



  2. Berkheimer or No Berkheimer, Software Patents Remain Mostly Unenforceable in the United States and the Supreme Court is Fine With That

    35 U.S.C. § 101, which is based on cases like Alice and Mayo, offers the 'perfect storm' against software patents; it doesn't look like any of that will change any time soon (if ever)



  3. Ignoring and Bashing Courts: Is This the Future of Patent Offices in the West?

    Andrei Iancu, who is trying to water down 35 U.S.C. § 101 while Trump ‘waters down’ SCOTUS (which delivered Alice), isn’t alone; António Campinos, the new President of the EPO, is constantly promoting software patents (which European courts reject, citing the EPC) and even Australia’s litigation ‘industry’ is dissenting against Australian courts that stubbornly reject software patents



  4. Patent Maximalists Are Still Trying to Figure Out How to Stop PTAB or Prevent US Patent Quality From Ever Improving

    Improvements are being made to US patents because of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which amends/culls/pro-actively rejects (at application phases) bad patents; but the likes of Andrei Iancu cannot stand that because they're patent maximalists, who personally gain from an over-saturation of patents



  5. Links 15/11/2018: Zentyal 6.0, Deepin 15.8, Thunderbird Project Hiring

    Links for the day



  6. A Question of Debt: António Campinos, Lexology, Law Gazette, and Sam Gyimah

    Ineptitude in the media which dominates if not monopolises UPC coverage means that laws detrimental to everyone but patent lawyers are nowadays being pushed even by ministers (not just those whose clandestine vote is used/bought to steal democracy overnight)



  7. Science Minister Sam Gyimah and the EPO Are Eager to Attack Science by Bringing Patent Trolls to Europe/European Union and the United Kingdom

    Team UPC has managed to indoctrinate or hijack key positions, causing those whose job is to promote science to actually promote patent trolls and litigation (suppressing science rather than advancing it)



  8. USF Revisits EPO Abuses, Highlighting an Urgent Need for Action

    “Staff Representation Disciplinary Cases” — a message circulated at the end of last week — reveals the persistence of union-busting agenda and injustice at the EPO



  9. Links 14/11/2018: KDevelop 5.3, Omarine 5.3, Canonical Not for Sale

    Links for the day



  10. Second Day of EPOPIC: Yet More Promotion of Software Patents in Europe in Defiance of Courts, EPC, Parliament and Common Sense

    Using bogus interpretations of the EPC — ones that courts have repeatedly rejected — the EPO continues to grant bogus/fake/bunk patents on abstract ideas, then justifies that practice (when the audience comes from the litigation ‘industry’)



  11. Allegations That António Campinos 'Bought' His Presidency and is Still Paying for it

    Rumours persist that after Battistelli had rigged the election in favour of his compatriot nefarious things related to that were still visible



  12. WIPO Corruption and Coverup Mirror EPO Tactics

    Suppression of staff representatives and whistleblowers carries on at WIPO and the EPO; people who speak out about abuses are themselves being treated like abusers



  13. Links 13/11/2018: HPC Domination (Top 500 All GNU/Linux) and OpenStack News

    Links for the day



  14. The USPTO and EPO Pretend to Care About Patent Quality by Mingling With the Terms “Patent” and “Quality”

    The whole "patent quality" propaganda from EPO and USPTO management continues unabated; they strive to maintain the fiction that quality rather than money is their prime motivator



  15. Yannis Skulikaris Promotes Software Patents at EPOPIC, Defending the Questionable Practice Under António Campinos

    The reckless advocacy for abstract patents on mere algorithms from a new and less familiar face; the EPO is definitely eager to grant software patents and it explains to stakeholders how to do it



  16. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is Working for Patent Trolls and Patent Maximalists

    The patent trolls' propagandists are joining forces and pushing for a patent system that is hostile to science, technology, and innovation in general (so as to enable a bunch of aggressive law firms to tax everybody)



  17. Team UPC, Fronting for Patent Trolls From the US, is Calling Facts “Resistance”

    The tactics of Team UPC have gotten so tastelessly bad and its motivation so shallow (extortion in Europe) that one begins to wonder why these people are willing to tarnish everything that's left of their reputation



  18. The Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) Will Spread the Berkheimer Lie While Legal Certainty Associated With Patents Remains Low and Few Lawsuits Filed

    New figures regarding patent litigation in the United States (number of lawsuits) show a decrease by about a tenth in just one year; there's still no sign of software patents making any kind of return/rebound in the United States, contrary to lies told by the litigation 'industry' (those who profit from frivolous lawsuits/threats)



  19. Links 12/11/2018: Linux 4.20 RC2, Denuvo DRM Defeated Again

    Links for the day



  20. Automation of Searches Will Not Solve the Legitimacy Problem Caused by Patents Lust

    The false belief that better searches and so-called 'AI' can miraculously assess patents will simply drive/motivate bad decisions and already steers bad management towards patent maximalism (presumption of examination/validation where none actually exists)



  21. The Federal Circuit and PTAB Are Not Slowing Down; Patent Maximalists Claim It's 'Harassment' to Question a Patent's Validity

    There’s no sign of stopping when it comes to harassment of judges and courts; those who make a living from patent threats and litigation do anything conceivable to stop the ‘bloodbath’ of US patents which were never supposed to have been granted in the first place



  22. Patent Maximalists Will Latch Onto Return Mail v US Postal Service in an Effort to Weaken or Limit Post-Grant Reviews of US Patents

    An upcoming case, dealing with what governments can and cannot do with/to patents (specifically the US government and US patents), interests the litigation 'industry' because it loathes reviews of low-quality and/or controversial patents (these reviews discourage litigation or stop lawsuits early on in the cycle)



  23. Guest Post: EPO Spins Censorship of Staff Representation

    Another concrete example of Campinos' cynical story-telling



  24. Andrei Iancu and Laura Peter Are Two Proponents of Patent Trolls at the Top of the USPTO

    Patent offices do not seem to care about the law, about the courts, about judges and so on; all they care about is money (and litigation costs) and that’s a very major problem



  25. The Patent 'Industry' Wants Incitations and Feuds, Not Innovation and Collaboration

    The litigation giants and their drones keep insisting that they're interested in helping scientists; but sooner or later the real (productive) industry learns to kick them to the curb and work together instead of suing



  26. EPO 'Outsourcing' Rumours

    The EPO advertises jobs in Prague and Lisbon; this leads to speculations less than a year after António Campinos sent EU-IPO jobs to India (for cost reduction)



  27. Links 11/11/2018: Bison 3.2.1 and FreeBSD 12.0 Beta 4

    Links for the day



  28. Pro-Litigation Front Groups Like CIPA and Team UPC Control the EPO, Which Shamelessly Grants Software Patents

    With buzzwords and hype like "insurtech", "fintech", "blockchains" and "AI" the EPO (and to some degree the USPTO as well) looks to allow a very wide range of software patents; the sole goal is to grant millions of low-quality patents, creating unnecessary litigation in Europe



  29. Latest Loophole: To Get Software Patents From the EPO One Can Just Claim That They're 'on a Car'

    The EPO has a new 'study' (accompanied by an extensive media/PR campaign) that paints software as "SDV" if it runs on a car, celebrating growth of such software patents



  30. The Huge Cost of Wrongly-Granted European Patents, Recklessly Granted by the European Patent Office (EPO)

    It took 4 years for many thousands of people to have just one patent of Monsanto/Bayer revoked; what does that say about the impact of erroneous patent awards?


CoPilotCo

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

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts