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


Microsoft Extorts Salesforce: Salesforce to Make Sales, Microsoft to Make the Money

Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents, Servers at 3:38 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Microsoft ripoff logo

Summary: Another timely lesson about the harms of software patents, which help Microsoft extort its rivals without ever taking them to court and having the patents tested

SOFTWARE patents are a nasty thing. In fact, over in Australia (and now in Slashdot) Ben Sturmfels works towards abolishment of software patents (for background see [1, 2, 3]). This is important because of precedence. In light of this heroic Australian action, OStatic brings up Sun’s Schwartz’ testimony about Microsoft extortion from Gates and Ballmer.

Schwartz goes on to detail a meeting he was in with Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer from Microsoft, in which Gates allegedly “skipped the small talk” and said: “Microsoft owns the office productivity market, and our patents read all over OpenOffice.”

The move by Australian software leaders to abolish patents seems a little over the top. Some ideas scream out for patents, and many software titans have been built on fairly patented software. Still, if anyone has any question that software patents get exploited, Schwartz’s post called “What I Couldn’t Say” is worth rereading.

Microsoft racketeering with software patents [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] recently hit Salesforce, which Microsoft sued with software patents for no apparent reason other than greed (it was sued by Salesforce in return). Salesforce uses GNU/Linux just about everywhere, at least on the server side. According to this press release from Microsoft, Salesforce allowed Microsoft to have itself extorted. Yes, Microsoft has once again successfully extorted using software patents and Mary Jo Foley says that ‘[w]hile the terms of the agreement aren’t being disclosed “Microsoft is being compensated by Salesforce.com”.’

The press calls it a “settlement”, but it doesn’t quite capture the fact that Microsoft is being paid a ‘patent tax’ by Salesforce (it’s the same with TomTom, which shows Microsoft becoming a Linux-sucking leech). From the Wall Street Journal:

Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) and Salesforce.com Inc. (CRM) announced Wednesday a settlement to their patent suits against one another, ending a three-month tussle the two software companies had over various software patents.

More on this racketeering:

In other news, a ‘company’ (patent troll) that sued Microsoft for patent violations didn’t get its way.

It is possible that Salesforce would have won against Microsoft in court, but litigation is expensive. By issuing threats/lawsuits Microsoft has managed to turn Salesforce into a cash cow, using just a few papers with the USPTO’s rubber stamp.

Software patents need to die because they destroy the software industry and only empower monopolies.

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


  1. Florian Mueller said,

    August 5, 2010 at 5:10 am


    My position on software patents is still the same, but concerning the way they are used, I think this here isn’t the worst-case scenario. In fact, it would be great news if the different companies against whom IBM holds certain mainframe-related IPRs could also get a license deal and then grow their business — but IBM, unlike Microsoft, doesn’t allow competitors to do that unless, hopefully, forced by regulators to grant licenses on FRAND terms.

    If IBM could content itself with being only what you, Roy, call a “leech”, that would be a fundamental improvement.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    IBM leeches a lot using patents. Last time I checked, they make about a billion dollars per year just from patent tax (and Phelps had a role in it).

    twitter Reply:

    RAND is not acceptable either, especially the way Microsoft wields it. In fact, RAND is a propaganda term that should be avoided.

    … It is true that these licenses do not discriminate against any specific person, but they do discriminate against the free software community, and that makes them unreasonable. Thus, half of the term “RAND” is deceptive and the other half is prejudiced. Standards bodies should recognize that these licenses are discriminatory, and drop the use of the term “reasonable and non-discriminatory” or “RAND” to describe them. Until they do so, writers who do not wish to join in the whitewashing would do well to reject that term. To accept and use it merely because patent-wielding companies have made it widespread is to let those companies dictate the views you express.

    If you care about your sanity, privacy, software freedom and other basic rights dependent on a free computer/network you might also replace Windows 7 with GNU/Linux or other free software. Either way, you should not pretend that there is anything fair or reasonable about software patents.

    twitter Reply:

    It is difficult to reconcile Florian’s thoughts. I just noticed where he says,

    I’d only be concerned if someone suspected me of supporting an agenda that is anticompetitive and harms innovation … [and] In particular, I don’t want software patents to hurt either category [free or non free]. More importantly, I want FOSS to put competitive pressure on everyone because that will ensure that I also get to buy high-quality proprietary software at reasonable prices. I believe in choice.

    The FSF has made a reasonable case that fee only licensing that Florian advocates as “RAND” always discriminates against free software. The news about Salesforce demonstrates that damage is also done to non free software, thereby reducing the “choice” Florian seem to value over his freedom. Florian’s “Focus” on IBM, Groklaw and other organizations on the Microsoft hit list is looking harder to justify in reasonable terms. An honest person with his goals has to conclude that software patents are always bad and work to eliminate them rather than selectively chase offenses.

    twitter Reply:

    ack bad formatting. the passage above should have Florian’s statement clearly quoted:

    “I’d only be concerned if someone suspected me of supporting an agenda that is anticompetitive and harms innovation … [and] In particular, I don’t want software patents to hurt either category [free or non free]. More importantly, I want FOSS to put competitive pressure on everyone because that will ensure that I also get to buy high-quality proprietary software at reasonable prices. I believe in choice.”

    This should be obvious to anyone who follows the link provided.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Well, Florian is against software patents, but I don’t agree with his approach (respectfully). It was earlier that I found this submission about Salesforce. He still uses Slashdot to slant stories and push his agenda. Florian is spreading FUD against GNU/Linux in this case, because the deal/settlement is not about Linux. the FFII called it “‘Linux tax’ troll post”, which is funny because the FFII is in some way a succession of Florian’s work (it just took his campaign a few years ago) and here it is labelling Florian’s submission “troll”.

    Florian Mueller Reply:

    For the sake of accuracy:

    The FFII started the fight against software patents long before me. I became aware of the problem in the EU because of the FFII. I later handed my NoSoftwarePatents campaign to them, but still, they’re not just a succession of my work.

    Concerning the fact that Salesforce recognized a need to pay royalties for patents that read on Linux, we discussed that on Twitter yesterday and I believe that my interpretation is right.

    It’s not about FUD.

    The FFII Twitter account is used by multiple people. The most likely one to say that kind of thing about me there is “arebenti”. He’s been against my work all along, going back to the year 2004.

    I’ve mentioned the Salesforce deal in my most recent blog posting (on Microsoft’s use of patents):

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Defending Microsoft’s patent extortion is delusional at best. I will post a quick rebuttal later.

    Notice that IBM did not sue anyone and it actually gives lists of patents when inquired (Microsoft didn’t when it comes to Linux, which it sued through companies).

    Florian Mueller Reply:

    @twitter I don’t have a hit list based on who competes with Microsoft but based on my priority focus on exclusionary use (and, as a #2 topic, hypocrisy).

    twitter Reply:

    Please do not misscharacterize what I say, Florian. I do not know if you have a hit list to match the lists of journalists and websites you publish to, but I can say Microsoft does. Microsoft email exposed in court show that Microsoft’s hit list is basically the rest of the world with resources focused on key areas through programs like EDGI, Comphot and many, specialized lobbying groups. Tim Bray, Peter Guttman, Peter Quinn, Richard Stallman and PJ can also tell you that Microsoft’s hit list can be very personal.

    In your latest blog post you summarize your strained defense of Microsoft’s patent extortion,

    Microsoft doesn’t use its patents in a destructive way. They don’t just sit on their patents without doing nothing, but they’re a cooperative right holder who doesn’t use them to shut out competition.

    This opinion is not supported by Microsoft’s private letters and public statements about their schemes to exclude and destroy free software.

    Confronted with facts, you and fellow patent supporters have turned to smears. You had the nerve to republish nonsense from Forbes claiming that Groklaw and the FSF are corporate stooges. You then attempt to smear Roy by linking to Dana’s article that makes fun of you calling PJ an IBM troll. Dana is also a patent supporter and his comparison of your charges and Roy’s do Roy a great disservice. Roy’s assertion that your efforts serve Microsoft’s interests is reasonable and well supported. People who defend the indefensible always dip to the personal level because the facts do not support what they would like to prove.

    The threat Microsoft poses to free software can not be judged one issue at a time any more than their actions occur in isolation. Microsoft’s legal, technical, and social attack on the rest of the world, particularly free software, must be judged as a whole. Together, these things make Microsoft the primary threat to free software outside of the general decline of democracy in the Western world. Microsoft is a failing company but it is still a dangerous one. It should be noted that Microsoft and partners are chief collaborators with Communist China and are happy to see network and software freedom removed elsewhere too.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    PJ has some questions for Florian now.

  2. twitter said,

    August 7, 2010 at 7:39 pm


    PJ also covers Eban Moglen’s keynot at LibrePlanet 2010, where he talks about forming alliances with companies that depend on and contribute to free software.

    We need to think about the grand strategy of our continued forceful campaigning for free as in freedom. But we also need to be extremely aware of the extent to which we can now capitalize upon the achievements we have already set up and the alliances with forces not necessarily concerned with freedom that our technological sophistication has brought to them. … Microsoft will continue to attempt to get paid for what we do, by forcing people — or quasi-forcing people through intimidatory conduct — to take patent licenses to run our software….If we are to quell this nuisance we can only do so in cooperation with others who see clearly that this is a threat to the welfare of their customers.

    This is quite a relevant topic. The trouble people some people are making for Microsoft competitors who are also natural free software allies is right in line with Microsoft’s usual divisive policies. I see above even some of the usual BSD vrs GPL trolls. None of us should surrender our software freedom to any company, but we can encourage companies like IBM, Google and others that are not outright hostile to software freedom to continue their genuine march toward software freedom. Convicted felon, Microsoft, should never be trusted or paid because they are the worst of the exploiters. I look forward to a company ranking page similar to the FSF software license explanation page.

What Else is New

  1. Željko Topić Tries to Do to EPO Staff What He Did in Croatia, Now Crushes Staff Assembly in The Hague

    Reminder to European Patent Office (EPO) staff that the EPO's management has a history of union-busting and serious violations of the rules; a call to join protests later today and later this week

  2. The Spanish EPO Scandal - Part I

    How García-Escudero Marquez, the sister of a Spanish Senate speaker, got controversially appointed to succeed the (now) EPO's Vice-President Alberto Casado Cerviño

  3. Media Alert: IAM 'Magazine' Does Not Protect Sources

    An important discussion regarding the role of IAM (Intellectual Asset Management) in the debate about EPO abuses

  4. Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen on the Microsoft-Red Hat Deal

    Founder of Free software and author of the GPL (respectively) comment on what Microsoft and Red Hat have done regarding patents

  5. Links 30/11/2015: Linux 4.4 RC3, Zaragoza Moving to FOSS

    Links for the day

  6. Public Protests by European Patent Office (EPO) Staff Weaken the EPO's Attacks on the Media

    Where things stand when it comes to the EPO's standoff against publications and why it's advisable for EPO staff to stage standoffs against their high-level management, which is behind a covert crackdown on independent media (while greasing up corporate media)

  7. Why the European Patent Office Cannot Really Sue and Why It's All -- More Likely Than Not -- Just SLAPP

    Legal analysis by various people explains why the EPO's attack dogs are all bark but no bite when it comes to threats against publishers

  8. How the EPO Twisted Defamation Law in a Failed Bid to Silence Techrights

    Using external legal firms (not the EPO's own lawyers), the EPO has been trying -- and failing -- to silence prominent critics

  9. East Texas and Its Cautionary Tale: Software Patents Lead to Patent Trolls

    Lessons from US media, which focuses on the dire situation in Texas courts, and how these relate to the practice of granting patents on software (the patent trolls' favourite weapon)

  10. The Latest EPO Spin: Staff Protesters Compared to 'Anti-Patent Campaigners' or 'Against UPC'

    Attempts to characterise legitimate complaints about the EPO's management as just an effort to derail the patent office itself, or even the patent system (spin courtesy of EPO and its media friends at IAM)

  11. The Serious Implication of Controversial FTI Consulting Contract: Every Press Article About EPO Could Have Been Paid for by EPO

    With nearly one million dollars dedicated in just one single year to reputation laundering, one can imagine that a lot of media coverage won't be objective, or just be synthetic EPO promotion, seeded by the EPO or its peripheral PR agents

  12. EPO: We Have Always Been at War With Europe (or Europeans)

    The European Patent Office (EPO) with its dubious attacks on free speech inside Europe further unveiled for the European public to see (as well as the international community, which oughtn't show any respect to the EPO, a de facto tyranny at the heart of Europe)

  13. What Everyone Needs to Know About the EPO's New War on Journalism

    A detailed list of facts or observations regarding the EPO's newfound love for censorship, even imposed on outside entities, including bloggers (part one of several to come)

  14. EPO Did Not Want to Take Down One Techrights Article, It Wanted to Take Down Many Articles Using Intimidation, SLAPPing, and Psychological Manipulation Late on a Friday Night

    Recalling the dirty tactics by which the European Patent Office sought to remove criticism of its dirty secret deals with large corporations, for whom it made available and was increasingly offering preferential treatment

  15. The European Private Office: What Was Once a Public Service is Now Crony Capitalism With Private Contractors

    The increasing privatisation of the European Patent Office (EPO), resembling what happens in the UK to the NHS, shows that the real goal is to crush the quality of the service and instead serve a bunch of rich and powerful interests, in defiance of the original goals of this well-funded (by taxpayers) organisation

  16. Microsoft Once Again Disregards People's Settings and Abuses Them, Again Pretends It's Just an Accident

    A conceited corporation, Microsoft, shows not only that it exploits its botnet to forcibly download massive binaries without consent but also that it vainly overrides people's privacy settings to spy on these people, sometimes with help from malicious hardware vendors such as Dell or Lenovo

  17. When the EPO Liaised With Capone (Literally) to Silence Bloggers, Delete Articles

    A dissection of the EPO's current media strategy, which involves not only funneling money into the media but also actively silencing opposing views

  18. Blogger Who Wrote About the EPO's Abuses Retires

    Bloggers' independent rebuttal capability against a media apparatus that is deep in the EPO's pocket is greatly diminished as Jeremy Phillips suddenly retires

  19. Leaked: EPO Award of €880,000 “in Order to Address the Media Presence of the EPO” (Reputation Laundering)

    The European Patent Office, a public body, wastes extravagant amounts of money on public relations (for 'damage control', like FIFA's) in an effort to undermine critics, not only among staff (internally) but also among the media (externally)

  20. Links 27/11/2015: KDE Plasma 5.5 Plans, Oracle Linux 7.2

    Links for the day

  21. Documents Needed: Contract or Information About EPO PR/Media Campaign to Mislead the World

    Rumour that the EPO spends almost as much as a million US dollars “with some selected press agencies to refurbish the image of the EPO”

  22. Guest Post: The EPO, EPC, Unitary Patent and the Money Issue

    Remarks on the Unitary Patent (UP) and the lesser-known aspects of the EPO and EPC, where the “real issue is money, about which very little is discussed in public...”

  23. Saving the Integrity of the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Some timely perspective on what's needed at the European Patent Office, which was detabilised by 'virtue' of making tyrants its official figureheads

  24. A Call for Bloggers and Journalists: Did EPO Intimidate and Threaten You Too? Please Speak Out.

    An effort to discover just how many people out there have been subjected to censorship and/or self-censorship by EPO aggression against the media

  25. European Patent Office (EPO) a “Kingdom Above the EU Countries, a Tyranny With ZERO Accountability”

    Criticism of the EPO's thuggish behaviour and endless efforts to crush dissenting voices by all means available, even when these means are in clear violation of international or European laws

  26. Links 26/11/2015: The $5 Raspberry Pi Zero, Running Sans Systemd Gets Hard

    Links for the day

  27. EPO Management Needs to Finally Recognise That It Itself is the Issue, Not the Staff or the Unions

    A showing of dissent even from the representatives whom the EPO tightly controls and why the latest union-busting goes a lot further than most people realise

  28. Even the EPO Central Staff Committee is Unhappy With EPO Management

    The questions asked by the Central Staff Committee shared for the public to see that not only a single union is concerned about the management's behaviour

  29. The Broken Window Economics of Patent Trolls Are Already Coming to Europe

    The plague which is widely known as patent trolls (non-practicing entities that prey on practicing companies) is being spread to Europe, owing in part to misguided policies and patent maximalists

  30. Debunking the EPO's Latest Marketing Nonsense From Les Échos and More on Benoît Battistelli's Nastygram to French Politician

    Our detailed remarks about French brainwash from the EPO's media partner (with Benoît Battistelli extensively quoted) and the concerns increasingly raised by French politicians, who urge for national or even continental intervention


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