MSFT: Linux, free software, infringe 235 of our patents

Observations: Patents are purchased from governments by those few who have the money to do so. All such sales are predicated upon the originality of an idea. If someone has displayed their work in public prior to obtaining a patent for it, they cannot sue anyone for violating the patent prior to their request of it. Ideas cannot be patented. (seems that was part of a case in Hollywood some time ago and also an explicit part of the USPTO patent application)

My preamble lays a foundation for the following facts:

1. Microsoft wants to break the FOSS ala Netscape
2. The moment Microsoft discloses the identity of those exact patents which it feels are infringed upon — developers will group together and create a better way to do what Microsoft has done so poorly
3. Once the inventors who replace the “infringed” code have released it to the public — no one can patent their idea and it will forever remain open sourced. This development will be faster than the court appeals process.
4. Microsoft will be faced with the bad publicity of suing for an issue which does not even exist — the “infringed” patents would not be germane as they would have been replaced by the newer and better code. FOSS pay retroactive royalties to Microsoft? Microsoft pay retroactive royalties to Apple etc?
5. How many of these 235 patents are still patented? 16 - 20 years is usually the limit!
6. Can this case be used as a window to investigate the actual origins of Microsoft’s product lines? How much negative publicity will be generated by the proof of how much software was pirated by Microsoft (Apple, Sun etc)? Proof of how many FOSS developed algorithms form part of Microsoft’s products? etc etc — Microsoft could be forced to answer some very nasty questions if it were to push the issue.

The entire issue is actually ridiculous anyway!

Software algorithms are scientific and logical equations. No one can patent 2+2=4. No one can patent dos y dos = quatro. No one can patent the translation from human english into human binary code to cause a computer to function when that is the only scientific way to cause that computer to function. (binary code was created sometime around 1960, 1940, 1920, Morse Code? That patent is way out of date!)

Patenting software is ridiculous! There will always be a market for accountants who can show you that 2+2=4. (and programmers who can program it)

As for the art aspect - yes! As an artist myself, I know that a painting of London Bridge done with Oils is completely different from a painting done by the same person of the same subject at the same time using Watercolor instead. Both languages (oil and watercolor) uniquely express the subject and are uniquely copyrightable in and of themselves. Similarly, a program written in BASIC is unique when compared with a program written in C++, COBOL, PHP, PYTHON etc. The fact that they all add 2+2=4 is little more than irrelevant!

In summation of my diatribe: Microsoft won’t tell the community the identity of those patents which it feels were infringed because it wants the anti-FOSS publicity. Conflict = Profit. The moment we know what those patents are - they will be made completely irrelevant. Additionally, the new code will be written in an original and creative way and the copyright holder will probably comply with the GNU/Linux agreements and make the source code available to everyone.

If Microsoft pushes - they may need to grow wings! The issue of software patenting may make the concept of patent obsolete. Consider, one cannot patent a mathematical formula then how can they patent a geometric construct? Pharmaceuticals are simply geometric constructs of elemental nature. Patenting the process to create the geometry - absolutely patentable. The geometry itself????? Microsoft may be opening Pandora’s Box!!

While this is all very interesting in an American context, the real action will happen elsewhere. Microsoft can win every patent action they like in the US, but it will only take an enlightened stance by a major international political player (examples EU, China) to recognise the benefits of patent-less software. As a Linux/FOSS supporter I personally would love to see the legal battleground leveled, but also see Microsoft pick up its game and be the genuine competitor we need to ensure continued innovation in software

It seems like Microsoft is trying to force every LAMP user to their system. If you can’t use Linux, Apache, MySQL, and PHP/Perl/Python/Ruby/Java or what-have-you then you must use a Microsoft product, right? Of course, if you think that there is no money to be had by Open Source programming, just do a job search for LAMP, Apache, MySQL, Linux, Perl, PHP, Python, or anything related. These are all things that most companies want out of people working with websites. There are a lot of people employed by this, and driving to work just fine in their car payed for by this same Open Source coding.
Just because something is open source doesn’t mean you can’t make any money using it, or coding it. It just means you have more resources available and it’s more likely that someone has already solved a similar problem that you can find a tweakable solution for. “With enough eyes all bugs are shallow.” Also, with enough eyes most problems you encounter when programming have already been solved for you. It just makes for more efficient programming and less burnt out programmers.
Python allows you to charge money for things written with their code, and a lot of the modules have the same kind of license. It’s not like money can’t be made by a lot of people just because they’re using open source software. It’s only the Stallman supporters who seem intent on taking money out of programming. This only works if the people involved don’t need money, and they’re comfortable. I think you get a lot more people collaborating on open source projects with Linus Torvald’s approach. You shouldn’t assume people will help you because they don’t need the money, and don’t want any money. You’re leaving out a whole bunch of potential programmers who can help you.

End reasoned rant.

I find it laughable that a man that stole code and ideas from his then best friend (Windows and Steve Jobs), sold an operating system to the then worlds most powerful computer company that he did not own (MS-DOS and IBM), packaged a piece of software with his operating system without the consent of the copyright owner (Java and SUN) and tried to (and eventually succeeded in a fashion) break a company providing a better web browser than his own (Netscape) would have the audacity and front to try to cripple a free society of software distribution that only benefits the community. I wonder how much open source code Gates has benefited from and who could take him to court for legal infringement. The simple fact is the FOSS community is doing it better. If Gates improved his own (expensive and well funded) product the FOSS community would not be making such head way into his market. I am currently running Ubuntu because I got tired of the drama I kept having to put up with from Windoze. While it is not without some issues I feel it does what it claims and is comparatively trouble free compared to the alternative. If you had never seen the other OS you would not hesitate to embrace this one! When he gave a demo of Win 95 and it crashed on stage (they had to wheel out another machine) a reporter questioned him and his reply was “let the buyer beware”. Well Mr Gates the buyer is becoming more aware. Fix your product and there will be no need to threaten FOSS with litigation they cannot afford to defend. As for patenting software you cannot patent a song, anyone can sing it as long as they make the necessary acknowledgments. However your version is your property as only you can do it a certain way. However that does not mean that someone else may not be perceived as doing it better. How many artists have had hits made from songs they wrote and performed originally by someone else who the community thought did a better job of utilizing the material. Or had someone else make enough supple changes to call it their own, there are only so many ways you can use notes or numbers somewhere there will always be a crossover be it intentional or not!

Also, if any company can prove that microsoft has violated any patent that they possess, than I deffinatley want to see microsoft pay for it. All patents must be respected! And all that steal without paying royalties to the patent holers must pay up! I’m sure MS has violated a few patents, too, and I hope they do get sued for each one of them. Because patent law should always be respected. If a company is so retarded that they can’t create there own software, and must steal patented software ilegally, especially a compnay like MS that so aggressively rebels against illegal pirating, then, they must be forced to feel the legal consequences of stealing patented software code.

HOLY S***!!!

Is anybody on this web site smart enough to realize what this actually is about?

I’m citing thie information that was written in the 3-page long article titled “Microsoft takes on the free world”

Ok, the famous Linus Torvalds says this about the ignorant organization called FSF “The Free Software Foundation [Stallman's group] simply doesn’t have goals that I can personally sign up to. For example, the FSF considers proprietary software to be something evil and immoral. Me, I just don’t care about proprietary software.”, I personally think Stallman is evil.

Moglen, the attorney for the FSF group said “The free world says that software is the embodiment of knowledge about technology, which needs to be free in the same way that mathematics is free”.

So, they are trying to say that since software is basically mathematical algorithyms, it shouldn’t be allowed to be patented. If it can’t be patented, then codes can be copied and pasted on anyones products from anyones products. What these evil retarded people fail to recognize is that software that has been patented is software that costed plenty of millions of dollars to create (or lots of money, regardless of amount (because there are small companies with lower budgets, but there software needs to be respected, too)). So the company that created the software indeffinately should have the right to make money off it, and be protected from theft of there patented software code, if this is not the case, than how can these companies make any form of proffit? If the software that they spent millions to create can freely and easilly be stolen, and proffited from by other companies selling competing products. This really is a topic effecting the US and international economies on a much bigger scale than you would think at first. You might think this might be a fight between Microsoft and Linux, and the battle of the OSes. Well, don’t be so short sited, patents must be respected, and enforced, or it can have SERIOUS consequences to the economies of all technological industries. Other than technological industries, this could effect all sorts of patents, maybe it will bring an end to creativity, why be creative if someones gonna steal your creativity and proffit from it, while you are left unnoticed for your work? Creativity is the main driving force behind ALL inovation.

That was my first point, then comes the fact that software is much more than just a simple algorithym, it’s like an art. You have to be creative to come up with new ways to do technoligy. Mathematicians are more known for there logical views not there creativity. Sure, one might argue that software is pure mathematical algorithym, but you can’t find some mathematical genius to make a competitor for Windows, Linux, Macs, Solaris, or whatever. You need a team of thousands of these “mathematicians”, but you can’t actually call these people mathematicians, even though there work involves coding of mathematical algorithyms, traditionally called “software”. These people are respectively called “developers”.

That brings up my most important point of all. I don’t care that much about Microsoft, Apple, Sun, Red Hat, IBM, or whatever, what matters even more than these stable companies that help the economy stay strong is the develepors. Yes, I said it! The developers. What is Stallman really trying to suggest? What it sounds like to me is that he doesn’t think that developers (the individuals doing the coding) shouldn’t be paid a penny for there work, or should be paid extremely small amounts of money. Why would I say this? Well, with the current system, these huge companies are spending stockpiles of millions of dollars to create new software. Where does this money go to? It obviously goes to the developers who write the code. Since these huge corporations are spending so much on these developers to develop there products, it keeps the salaries of developers high, because if a huge corporation is willing to pay say, 60 bucks an hour (for example, look I don’t know what they actually get paid, I’m just saying a number), then the smaller companies too must pay a nice amount to there development teams, since they’re smaller they might not be able to pay as much as the bigger companies, but still a good amount like, say 2 thirds that of a big corporation, like in the case of my example, that’d be 40 bucks an hour.

That right there is the moral argument, the developers must be respected, not treated like slaves, trust me, computer work can be an extremely boring job, and it deserves good pay.

What would happen if software patents become not respected in a court of law is much more dangerous than you think. The true ramifications of this is that companies will stop developing new software, because anything they create can legally be stolen from them, resulting in millions of dollars thrown away only to have your competition steal it. Software developers all over the world will loose there jobs. Companies will be stealing from eachother left right and center. The only people that will create unique new software will be hobeyists, who don’t expect to be paid, either way. The rate of new software innovation will slow to a hault. Don’t beleive me? These corporations have development teams of thousands of developers, many of which are really good at doing what they do, and since they’re getting paid for it, they put in plenty of time for the creation of this new software, they can do that because they’re getting paid for it. Hobbeyists on the other hand, are just like anyone else, they do need a real source of income to support there lives, or become a bum on the street, with no computer, if they can’t pay the bills. Since hobbeyists have jobs, they cannot afford to use lots of time to develop software, so obviously the rate of new software will drastically slow down.

What might alternatively happen is an adjustment in the way the software industry works, instead of having development teams with secured developers, developers and hobbeyists might just become rogue people selling there stuff to companies that bid for it, but it still wouldn’t provide much income to the developers, because the companies investing in this would still know that that there technology will be stolen, so they can’t afford paying too much for any of it. Effectively turning development resources into a form of slave resources.

Either way the world will change for the worst if patents aren’t respected.

It`s deffinatley Stallmen, his retarded lawyer, and his retarded supporters that are the evil ones. I don`t need to explain any further.

Microsoft are behaving like bullies and certainly here in Europe business and government are slowly turning against them.

Linux has many friends here and it would be a brave court of law that found for Microsoft on the issue of patents in Europe.

The latst nail in Microsoft’s monopoly coffin is Vista.

Unloved and unwanted, Vista is being forced down the throats of every new PC buyer. We will not stand for it - I burnt the last copy I was forced to buy and I run Ubuntu. Come on MS - sue me!

Stop buying the trash MS calls software.It’s time the Feds start coming down on them for Sherman AntiTrust. But NO, too many paid lobbists.

Microsoft’s implicit demand here is that companies should figure out which Microsoft patents they’re violating and negotiate a licensing settlement. Industry experts believe that is unrealistic. In fact, there are many reasons a software company might wish to avoid checking existing patents for infringement:

1. There are too many patents to effectively search them all.
2. Patents are complicated and opaque and hence difficult to determine infringement.
3. Researching patents can actually open a company to additional liability and damages.
4. Microsoft doesn’t do it.

http://www.devtopics.com/are-software-patent-self-exams-realistic/

Anyone can file a request for reexamination of these patents - there does NOT first have to be a threat of litigation. All that is needed is prior art that was not considered during prosection of the patent that raises a “substantial new question of patentability.” PTO fees for reexamination are about 3k per patent. The folks who developed Linux are perfectly placed to identify any prior art that renders these MS patents invalid (i.e.anticipated or obvious). The community needs to organize and combine (1) technical folks finding prior art (2) patent folks willing to donate time to prepare the filings (yes, there are some, I’m one and see also http://www.pubpat.org), and (3) some funding from the companies now being shaken down to cover the USPTO filing fees. Let’s get those three elements together and FIGHT BACK!

Microsoft seems to be blowing it all out into the open, nothing left to the imagination here. if they fail in in there attemps at these new world order law suits (witch they will) it will leave the door open for all of there allies in competition in turn to come feeding back on them like vultures on a wounded animal out in the desert. you have to remember the economy also, dell is not selling the amount of computers that they were back in pre-9/11. (hell pre-bush for that matter) nor are a lot of the other pc manufacturers. so microsoft is getting desperate for more revenue on there high maintainance business model that they built in a healthier economy. wall street up-dated there pc’s long ago, but the average homeowner and renter across the nation cant afford too under this economy. so congradulations, wall street once again cash’s out the economy (with the help of a false war) and nobody can afford there software (microsoft) and then in turn they go after the little guy (free/linux/unix) ahahahahaaaa

Listen to Security Now Episode # 93
http://www.grc.com/SecurityNow.htm#93
Microsoft Patent Wars

Leo and I tackle the past, present and future of software patents. Our discussion of this non-security topic was triggered by Microsoft�s recent declaration that since free and open source software (FOSS) was infringing at least 235 of their software patents, someone ought to be paying them.

I don’t think he really answered the question. So he notes that IBM, HP, and Fujitsu doesn’t list infringements - but do these companies claim Linux infringes, and imply that users are liable? Didn’t think so.

The only real reason he mentioned is that people will challenge the patents. I can understand that worries him, since Microsoft is liable to lose.

The real answer is of course that if the patents are identified, free software will quickly be rewritten to not be infringing - and this is the last thing Microsoft wants.

Is anyone else reminded (at least somewhat) of the movies “Hackers” and “Anti-Trust”? I can’t help but notice the similarities abound in all 3 situations.

Let me get this straight… Microsoft, who stomped Apple on the look and feel issue 20 years ago, is now alleging that because Linux uses a graphic interface that it infringes on Microsoft??? Perhaps Apple should reopen their issue against Microsoft. Also, how can a Linux kernel infringe on anything Microsoft publishes since the Linux kernel was derived from Unix and Minix both of which predate DOS???

Wesley,

I like the Joseph MCarthy implication about secret lists. Supposedly, the people on McCarthy’s list were a secret, but in fact, the list was previously published by the Secretary of State in 1946. But, still a good analogy, one that rings well with those reading this article.

And, of course, anyone who violates a software patent myst be a Commie. Look at Stallworth, a Socialist if I ever saw one!

“On 9th February, 1950, at a meeting of the Republican Women’s Club in Wheeling, West Virginia, McCarthy claimed that he had a list of 205 people in the State Department that were known to be members of the American Communist Party”.

RE: Keith Humm… somewhere near the start, and various others. Are you lot 14 and using your computers in your bedrooms? You compare Open Office to MS Word… Are you even aware that once upon a time there was an application called Wordperfect, which apparently had the word processor market all stitched up in its day. With all this talk about patents I notice that no one has even mentioned the granddaddy of computer IP, Xerox. Xerox PARC developed so much of what companies like MS are claiming as their IP… years before MS came along and started behaving like a bully in the playground. When you wonder why no one is bothering to push this through the courts, think on this, if someone takes MS to court over this and the court decides that software is not actually patentable the company who took MS to court also loses as their own patent profile becomes worthless. So, I will ignore all this talk of patent infringement. who cares?

” Why doesn’t Microsoft identify the specific patents and explain what specific aspects of free software infringe them. I did ask Gutierrez that question, and here was his answer: “We do. But in private conversations in the process of licensing discussions with companies that are looking in good faith for ways of resolving the situation.” ”

There are actually two issues here; one I tried to raise in a comment which wasn’t posted, and one in the nature of the patent itself.

My unposted comment had to do with the nature of the Free/Libre and Open Source Software community, which prizes openness above many other values. Ie, if you allege a bug, and refuse to get specific, you get the scorn and comtempt of even those unconnected with the program you are alleging a bug in. So if Microsoft (in effect) alleges a bug in the development process itself - Still, 235 is a lot of alleged infringements. “This is not a case of some accidental, unknowing infringement,” says Microsoft’s licensing chief, Horacio Gutierrez. “There is an overwhelming number of patents being infringed.” -, but refuses to be more specific, it deserves all the scorn and contempt the F/LOSS community can pour upon it.

Secondly, the patent process is supposed to be all about opening the floodgates of development by disclosing all new techniques and developments - or it was, originally. Allegations about deliberate software patent infringements, that cannot be disclosed in public, while the allegations themselves are being made publically, is a violation of the whole purpose of the patent system itself; besides bringing up - for far too many people it seems - memories of one Senator McCarthy.

Ah, Microsoft brings back memories of junior high school: “Gimme your lunch money and I won’t beat you up.”

the ability to highlight (select) multiple items in a list, and then perform a simultaneous action on all those items with a single key (delete, move, copy, etc).

Ray Olsten: When you say this does not exist in “pre-Windows UIs”, I can only assume you are ignoring MacOS, since this trivial idea was described there since the earliest versions. Prior art all over the place…

Joshua: “Not a proponent of free software” - so you basically scrupulously avoid using it? That must be quite constraining.

Greg (San Diego): GPL car - a deliberate or inadvertent category error? Did you ever stop to wonder how the programmers who write/contribute to free software projects manage to eat, pay mortgages, send their kids to school, and buy cars and gas? I don’t think too many GPL licensors are homeless (with possible exception of RMS - How would you explain that?

I am very glad that you did ask why they didn’t choose the public path. However the answer doesn’t make sense. The Linux kernel, like many open source projects, is a public effort. For them to be valid, they shouldn’t consult with companies that use their software, because there will always be distributions made for no profit.

They pursue private discussions with companies so they can prey on their fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) regarding Linux. This issue will never be resolved if Microsoft keeps their discussions private. It will just provide them with an endless source of income from Linux vendors. Fortunately/unfortunately the Linux kernel is not directed by the vendors, it’s direction is given by Linus Torvalds. As such if they need to confer with anyone regarding Linux (which is just the kernel), they need to do so with Linus and not companies.

In time I will have a page describing more points here.

The root of the problem lies in the Patent Office and the U.S. Legal System. It has been well known for years that the USPTO is issuing floods of truly groundless patents in areas where they have absolutely NO knowlege, education or experience. As long as companies hire lawyers to file thousands of patent applications and the USPTO continues issuing them, then whichever company can marshall the largest war chest to fund the infringement-lawsuit battle will continue to prevail. This is simply because it is much cheaper for someone like Novell to settle and let Microsoft pay them than it is to “Win” over a “principle” in court.

The fertilizer which is nourishing these roots is FUD: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. The harvest that Big Industry is greedily seeking is money, and that money is being stolen from EVERYONE’S pockets.

It is time to overhaul the USPTO. Programming patents should perhaps not be disallowed, but at least the “bar” to be hurtled for a company to get one needs to be seriously raised. Also, as far as the U.S. Legal System goes, if a company presses a Patent Infringement lawsuit and it is found that they are wrong or that the patent is invalid, and it is determined to have been done in an uncompetitive or predatory way, then they should be fined ALL court and legal costs PLUS a penalty based on an order of magnitude higher than the supposed “losses” claimed in their suit, or a significant percentage of the company’s net worth - say 50% to 75% - whichever is higher.

The “Golden Rule” should NOT be: He with the MOST Gold Rules!

Micro(fraud) distribute GPL covered software. Will they sue themselves? Why distribute software: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_Services_For_Unix
that they alledge infringe their patents?
Interestly, Micro(fraud) benefits from Free Software! and choose carefully which one to attack.

From where did Microsoft get its TCP/IP stack from?? Look closely and you will find the answer in UNIX.

What Microsoft & the like are doing is patenting (after mass adoption by the masses) standard programming techniques and styles.

It’s easy to do if you have boat loads of money to burn.

They are then using these patents to intimidate businesses into abandoning free software.

This only succeeds because patent offices, politicians, and the judicial system are completely ignorant of the software industry and it’s standand techniques. This should come as a surprise to no one as the software industry itself has a huge deficit of knowlegeble and competent workers.

Something to think about concerning Microsoft and F/OSS software and some possible violations of their own:

The Windows networking stack was derived from mainly BSD code. Quite a bit of NT tech came from work that originated with Smalltalk, OS/2 and other operating systems and software packages/languages outside of Redmond. The GUI look and feel arguments were already essentially voided by the courts during the MS/Apple conflagration. There are tons of other examples you can make. For instance: VisiCalc, Lotus 1-2-3, WordPerfect, and other “office productivity” software packages that predate anything MS has to offer.

Take a look at these two IBM patents, and just consider for a moment, where in Windows software (especially in Vista) have you seen these before (and note the dates of the patents themselves, in regards to when IBM and MS had their last major cross-licensing agreement back in the late 80’s and early 90’s).

IBM’s “Window Manager” Patent

A graphical user interface to desktop documents presents a visual display of visual summaries extracted from still image files, video image files, presentation slide documents, and word processing documents that include figures therein, in a computer file system, in response to a computer user requesting a directory listing. The user can select a visual summaries to cause the computer to search for files/documents containing similar images. The visual summaries can be presented in a hierarchy, with the top level of the hierarchy containing one visual summary per file/document, the next level containing visual summaries of all images in each file/document, and the lowest level containing visual summaries of each individual component, if any, in each image in a document. Further, for an alpha-numeric document having no images, the corresponding visual summary can be a visual representation of the appearance of a portion of the document, such as a portion of the first page of the document.

Exactly, what are these patents as mentioned by many other folks here. If you ask me, it sure sounds like Big Boy Microsoft is threatened by the Open Source and FOSS world. Good. Technology continues to be the way of the future - sooner or later Microsoft is going to have to realize that it isn’t always going to be the only ‘guy’ on the field. Seriously Microsoft, just exactly how badly is this hurting your pocketbook and how much will you be spending in legal fees, employee time, etc. to get this through - is it really worth it? Sure, principles, blah blah blah, but the point is that a lot of these other FOSS and open source programs have something to offer that Microsoft previously did not.
Exactly where is the the listing of all of the thousands of patents Microsoft has on mathematical 0’s and 1’s and a vast array of words? It sounds to me like anyone who writes any software is at risk of infringing on a ‘Microsoft Patent’ that God only knows existed. Again, I reiterate, you can’t own everything.
If you’re concerned that something might be better than what you have - here’s a thought - make an honorable attempt to work with that company or individual, but instead since you have a nearly infinite supply of financial resources, you wait until you can slap the little guy (yes, I realize some bigger guys too) in the face.
Now it might sounds like I’m a programmer and developer myself, but I truly am not. I am in the field and am truly bewildered by the constant garbage that goes on involving Microsoft…perhaps if all of this money that is being so wisely spent was invested in other research, we may have more health science breakthroughs, or less depletion of natural resources.
Well enough Microsoft bashing - Hat’s of to Linux, Open Office and the rest of the FOSS & Open Source World!

Actually this post is a “seek for advice” one. SInce MS puts such allegations on web a I find myself in the middle of laughs and accusations of using not so legal software (I’m a debian user)from people around me. So MS allegations on midia like this one is causing me some constraints. The advice I want from you is: is it possible for me to sue MS since these so clamed (but not proved) patents violations are leading me to personal confrontation with people of personal circle of relationship? These constraints that arise from MS allegations are getting me a little disturbed.

All software is based on ‘prior art’ - the opening or closing of a switch. Repeating this act very quickly does not make it innovative! Furthermore, a sufficiently large sequence of randomly generated bits will contain, within it, all software ever written, past, present or future. Thus, to prove that any software is ‘intellectual property’, it would be necessary to prove that it was not produced ‘at random’ - and how would you do that?

It would be really interesting to see how this would play out in court. I am not too familiar with patent law, but it would seem to me that Microsoft would be on pretty shaky ground,in terms of conceptual IP. Operating systems with graphical interfaces were in abundance long before MS Windows appeared on the scene. Unix graphical shells had concepts similar to the taskbar / start menu long before Windows 95 arrived. The Windows NT kernel is widely considered to be a derivation of Digital Equipment Corp’s VMS operating system and was worked on by many of the same developers. Does this make NT/2000/XP a rip-off of VMS? Not necessarily; programmers who have found that a concept works well once are bound to come up with the same or similar approaches on future projects. Also, software development has always been constrained to a certain extent by hardware limitations; there are only so many efficient ways of accomplishing the same task on the same hardware. Developers are bound to come up with similar ideas, even working independently, since hardware interfaces dictate how software may use the system. Think about it from a high-level perspective…How many ways are there for a user to interact with a mouse and a keyboard? I have a hard time believing that Microsoft could win or would even pursue any lawsuit based on kernel architecture. If they did and won, it would surely provoke a landslide of similar suits against Microsoft on behalf of IBM, AT&T, Hewlett-Packard, Apple, and Sun Microsystems

Roger: Why did you not report on the SCO vs. IBM fiasco, where MS seems to have financed the same Linux patent challenges via a sock puppet corporation? (see http://www.lamlaw.com/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=141)

God bless Richard Stallman for peering 20 years into the future and anticipating the kind of bogus tactics that MS and others would use to try and kill free software. I would love to see some of these nonsense software patents reach the Supreme Court which just recently ruled on the “obviousness” of combining two prior ideas. If Stallman calls MS’s patent bluff and drags them into court, the fireworks will be interesting indeed to watch.

I think this is all very interesting.
I use win2k and xp and linux.
And will use them as I choose leagle or not till I die. If some freak with a law degree want to sue me fine.
I have nothing and you will get nothing.
Business will go on just fine.
Stall Stall Stall we only live so long, Stall again.

I’ve always heard you can not patent an idea. You can copyright the code or the algorithm but not an idea. I would like to see these so called patents. I think most if not all could be shot down. It all comes down to money, money to defend. I hope the open source community defends itself with whatever means we have. If the business community wants to stand by, than let them.
I am not sweating anything about this, microsoft will ultimately take a swifter beating than the one that is coming anyway. Sounds like a good short play to me

I’m a software developer, and having just looked over some of the patents held by Microsoft I believe my profession is under a serious threat if any of these are to be taken seriously. I see patents for absolutely trivial and obvious solutions to problems. Take this example, which is supposed to “ensure… the smooth flow of electronic ink”. How? By placing e-ink events into a separate queue and assigning the highest priority to them! That may sound technical, but I assure you that every programmer reading this is smacking his forehead right now. The award of this patent is absolutely unjustifiable. Event queues and priorities are standard tools for approaching this kind of problem.

If the USPTO continues to allow patents for such inconsequential methods, it may well soon become impossible to program anything without violating one patent or another.

If MS’ claims against Linux and other FOSS is of a similar nature, it will at the very least expose the brokenness of the system for all to see. Maybe then we’ll finally see some action toward correcting the travesty that software patents represent.

Patents and paying for software might just be a good thing. As a programmer, I also need to pay the bills and I haven’t had any luck finding a gpl car I can take to work…

This is just MS trying to scare costumers from other alternatives back to SM Vista etc.
There is lots of prior art to what I have seen so far.

How about we as Linux users and/or companies do not request a declaratory judgment to protect our investments, maybe that way we can end this “controversy”. Anyone up for it?

Is MS just trying to start a war of attrition here? It seems to me that a series of law suits and patent infringement cases, and then counter suits by other companies as suggested in the main article, would be long and drawn out and very expensive. Regardless of their legal validity, such suits could end up costing both sides massive amounts of cash. Could any of these companies really hold out against MS’s hoard?

For Kaj Kandler–
Yes, you’re right that the Linux kernel, while covered by GPL, is not a GNU project. Its copyright status is a mess, because Linus Torvalds did not, at least in the early days, ask contributors to assign him their copyrights the way Stallman did for GNU contributors. Though Torvalds did choose to use the GPL license, he also did, as you say, choose a version of it that will not automatically shift to subsequent versions, as most GPLs do. So Stallman definitely doesn’t control the kernel, and most people I spoke to assumed that Torvalds effectively controls it at this point. (He and a handful of corporations who are deferential to him, like ibm and red hat, probably own most of the copyrights at this point.) And most people also suspect he will not switch to v3, at least not immediately. Nevertheless, there are key parts of the typical Linux operating system distribution, like the GNU G compiler and the C library which are under Stallman’s control. And nobody wants to start having a fork between Linux distributions that use a GNUv3 G compiler and Linux distributions that use a GNUv2 G compiler, as I understand it.

Joshua: MS likes software patents; they’ve attempted to lobby the EU to get them harmonized and adopted continent-wide, and failed due to the efforts of the FSF. MS has stated in the EC antitrust case (still ongoing) that it has patented communications protocols in the US and EU and therefore cannot abide by the antitrust behavioral remedy of RAND licensing them (..since 2004). However, the EC struck down these claims as non-innovative. Microsoft could make itself a killing by selling it’s non-innovative protocols. You might notice that MS has itself gone after many businesses using GNU/Linux, so what type of business practices is software patenting fostering? All the big players cross-license their patents and then sue anyone who doesn’t…sounds like a great place for small inventors. Also see Blackboard for another bad patent saga on education software, trying to make a government-granted monopoly there. If they hadn’t budged, you could only get software from them, at the dictate of their whims on pricing.

then MS will hten be able to “freely” take whatever they want from anyone and anywhere and use it freely in their systems. They have the $ and power to do

Well of course they do, they can do anything they want because antitrust remedies have done nothing to restore competitipon to the marketplace, and in fact MS has increased marketshare. However, in the utopian case that laws actually mattered to Microsoft, copyright still protects that code and software. Imagine a book being both copyrighted and patented–crazy.

Anyways, MS doesn’t care about laws as seen in Stac v Microsoft, Burst v Microsoft, Mosaic v Microsoft, should I go on?

I’ve seen many posts against Microsoft for using “acquired” patents.

It seems to me that patents are property that have value and can therefore be bought and sold. Using this argument is not very smart.

It’s laughable that the alleged infringements aren’t made public, however I’m sure there is no attempt to “bluff” on the part of Microsoft.

I’d like to see Microsoft lose any lawsuit filed, but should they win, I hope they get $.000001 for each copy of Linux or Open Office sold.

Thanks for presenting an informative article. I especially loved the background on the Novell/Microsoft deal and the conditions that Richard Stallmann puts on being interviewed.

However, I think at the end the article gives the impression, that the changes to the proposed GPL V3, made after the Novell/Microsoft deal became public, affect Linux (or any current software). First, I thought the GPL V3 is still under debate and not yet applied to any software licensed. Second, this kind of change does, to the best of my understanding, not affect the Linux kernel.

The reason is that Linus did (does) not require that contributions are attributed to the FSF or a similar institution. And the Linux kernel, as I understand it has a modified GPL V2 license, which removed the provision, that any user can license the code also under any successor of the GPL license. The change means the license of the Linux kernel is fixed. Off course, this provision does not apply to all the GNU utilities in a Linux distribution, which are under the FSF’s control.

The lack of copyright attribution to a central body, means one needed to track down all authors to ask for a change in license, or recreate the code in question. As often the contribution is only a part of the code, like a bug fix or a performance improvement, this disentanglement is very difficult to achieve. And tracking down contributers for their consent is not easy either. Some might not even live any more.

As far as I know, Linus has not entertained a change of license for his own contributions to the kernel nor the effort to make such a change. Therefore it is unclear how this change will really affect the license of Linux as a whole.

The article is an interesting read, but it contains some inaccurate statements.

Linux is a kernel for an operating system, not an operating system per se as said in the article. By the way, Linux is licensed by GNU’s licence. So, why is it a problem to call GNU/Linux GNU/Linux instead of Linux?

An open source licence is essentially the same as a GNU licence. There are other licences that are called ‘open source’ by their inventors or some companies for marketing or other reasons, but unless a licence is essentially compatible with GNU’s GPL, it is *not* a ‘open source’ licence. The terms ‘free software’ and ‘open source’ are both essentially synonyms to ’software licenced according to GPL’. The term ‘open source’ originates from the Debian project and was first defined in Debian’s Free Software Guidelines [1], from which the Open Source Definition evolved [2].

There are some good articles about ‘free software’ and ‘open source’ on wikipedia.

The section about ‘open source’ versus ‘free software’ exaggerates any differences between the two terms.

[1] http://www.de.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
[2] http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

Seems Microsoft is covering all bases here!
They’re targeting the applications that all organisations use on a daily basis - word-processing, email, web browsers, spreadsheets and the operating system. All business would grind to a halt instantly without these apps. Yet these are the very core of successful Open Source software - and Microsoft’s dominance to date. It’s easy to see why large corporates are ’shaking at the thoughts of the uncertainty this claim causes.
It also adds more doubt to the decision process of large organisations thinking of converting to Open Source. I guess many of them might wait and see what happens here? Which will suit Microsoft just fine!

Anthony Meagher

Another example of how M$ “borrows” from other companies, is their .NET platform.

The .NET platform has a virtual machine called the CLR (Common Language Runtime). It is basically the exact same thing as the JVM (Java Virtual Machine), which was made public about 6 years earlier than .NET. But CLR only runs on Windows, where JVM runs on just about everything which has an electronic pulse (in example more than 2 billion mobile devices).

The primary language of .NET is C#. C# version 1.0 was merely a copy of Sun’s Java. Even many of the C# classes is called the same as in Java.

Microsoft has been wanting to turn the pc into a DRM controlled appliance so they can control everything and everyone that attaches themselves and there products to the pc, that in turn- turns it into an intelectual poroduct of microsoft by design of its software alone residing on the particular pc in question, wether it be made by dell, HP, Sony, ect.. microsoft wants to assume patent control over it all (device+software+use) once it reach’s and is put into use by the consumer. that is there eventual monopolistic goal.

If this issue ever gets to courts, I only hope that the judge knows the history of computers, which would help to rule wisely

Unix systems were around way before Microsoft Windows (or even DOS). If Microsoft patented something they took from Unix, that should be annulled.

Speaking of GUI, Microsoft used tons of GUI ideas from Mac OS.

The world is so closely inter-related today that it’s often hard to definitevely tell things apart.

Then again, Moglen is right, the actual battle will first occur in the legal field.

Think ahead - if the patent Armageddon indeed occurs, what would life be after?

is there anyone that is really concerned about this, i mean just your average user, not corporate america or corporate anywhere?
it seems to me MS is just trying to scare people into paying “protection money” much like an organised crime syndicate that was once very powerful in america.
if this is what software vendors are reduced to, i am glad i’m using gnu/linux.
one issue that should be well considered by MS is that if it comes to a court decision, they may happen to find GPL’d code in their software, which has the potential to break MS by forcing them to comply to the GPL and distribute their source code….
atleast thats how i see it here in australia, what does everyone else think?

The point that people are missing is that if the patents that MS is trying to enforce (perhaps legally) are shot down - and FOSS wins the battle that software is mathematical and not able to be patented . . . then MS will hten be able to “freely” take whatever they want from anyone and anywhere and use it freely in their systems. They have the $ and power to do so . . . and just completely overwhelm any competitor with sheer number and $. This is a win-win for MS - they either get the patent infringements upheld or they clear the way for themselves to hijack Google’s patents and they will have created the precedent that allows it.

Since I make my living writing software - I am not a proponent of free software. (Although I would love if my dentist believed that his ’service or goods’ should be free to the public)

In Germany the patent law says: “If you give the impression that your product is protected by patents, you have to tell interested people which patents are meant” (Not the exact wording). You should alter your patent law, i suppose.
And to those who talk about MS patents in the LINUX kernel - sorry, I can’t believe this, as the LINUX/UNIX kernel has been far more stable than MS OS for a long time.

I believe that the UI component that Microsoft will most vigorously claim to be “their IP” is the ability to highlight (select) multiple items in a list, and then perform a simultaneous action on all those items with a single key (delete, move, copy, etc). This capability was not available in any of the pre-Windows UI’s mentioned here, and credit should go where it is due. Microsoft will definitely win at least this little battle, and many more like it.

This is extortion. Pure and simple. Microsoft are a convicted predatory monopolist. RICO anyone?

A few more recursive acronyms for everyone. Linux Is Not UniX. When Linus started out he was trying to clone a Unix like O/S by the name of Minux or Minux Is Not UniX. These are long standing naming practices in the unixish world.

As for the subject at hand, I think M$ is just trying to blow smoke up Korporate Amerika and see what they can shake them down for. I defy anyone to come up with anything that M$ has been innovative with other than extremely buggy software. Vista, for example, has finally implemented ’soft links’ (look it up) that Linux had from day 1 and DEC first implemented in the late 1970s. I suppose M$ now wants a patent for their implementation of a 30 year old idea. The patent system needs to be overhauled and everyone at the patent office fired.

“Once you’ve made that statement from a public perspective, anybody in the world can go to court and ask for a declaratory judgment. That would spur potentially hundreds or thousands of lawsuits around the world, or reexaminations of patents around the world. Even if they’re perfectly good patents, it would create an administrative nightmare.”

In other words, they don’t want public scrutiny.

Isn’t this exactly what SCO did? Didn’t they essentially say “Our IP is in Linux, no we won’t say what it is unless you sign an NDA (and consequentially the world can’t examine it and see if we are telling the truth or lying).”

hey Roger, I think it’s interesting that this blog is powered by the GPL licensed WordPress…I wonder what crazy MS patents that violates

Mr. Smith @ Microsoft has a strategy. I think that the overall strategy is to force FOSS to be pool its resources under a single entity one where the end user, developer, and distributor are clearly distingiushed. FOSS will then be easier to compete against becuse it would become subject to the same market forces i.e regulations, patents, customer accountability, and security threats that Microsoft is exposed to. By doing so Microsoft would then curb the innovation and free contribution of (end-users) developers and thus effectively destroy FOSS. However, the result on the consumer market would be the lack of apparent or even the possibilty of competition; thus it would become a sanctioned monopoly i.e. a regulated utility.

This is of a great concern because at the very core of the free market economy is competition. Case and point as evident in the regulated and unregulated energy markets without thorough and adequate governmental oversight companies can and will set themselves up for windfall profits at the detriment of the customer.

MicroFraud does not matter for much. Much like “The Prohibition.” Even they cannot stop the world. All you do is create a underground of innovation.

We, the mighty few will still use Linux. With great effect.

I have to admit to being fascinated by this article. While it seems a
fair and balanced, if a bit Microsoft biased, it ignores so much
background as to beggar belief.

Since when has Microsoft respected anyone’s patents? If they find a
competing technology they either buy it or copy it and crush the
competitor. This includes, but is not limited to, proven incidents of
stealing competitors code and incorporating it into their competing
products!

I think the Sendo incident is a classic in this regard:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/13/sendo_ms_settle/

Though i am not casting aspersions on CNN’s objective credentials, i
have to say that CNN’s coverage of the incident seemed to be in
Microsofts corner:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=sendo+microsoft+cnn&btnG=Search&meta=

I should also mention Microsoft’s well proven habit of co-opting
standards, then patenting them or minor variations/extensions of
them.

For example the enterprise wide authentication standard Kerberos was
extended and then denied to non windows platforms:
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/05/02/158204.shtml

Was that an interoperability move?

Where is this angle portrayed in this piece of the convicted
monopolist having to compete in a market place it could not corner?

I would request that the author look a bit more into the actual
meaning of patents and how they apply to Microsoft.

I’m sure an
objective view of its adherence to patent and copyright laws, versus
the track record of the open source community would be an interesting follow up piece.

Remember OS/2 an IBM & Microsoft Product?

“windows, dialog boxes etc.” — we used those on tty terminals no they weren’t as fancy but still the concept was the same. We would have liked to do it how its done now but memory and disk space was more expensive than the programers.

Multi-Color displays were in most cases prohibitively costly. I wonder who holds the patent on representing characters as a sequence of binary digits. Maybe IBM should be suing everyone for making a machine similar to the 402 accounting machine only based in silicon. Transistor gates are not much different from vacuum tube or relay gates for that matter

Too bad that the Free Software Foundation cannot say “You tried to destroy the concept of free software, therefor you are not permitted to distribute free software yourself”, thus stopping Microsoft from have a web browser, using TCP/IP networking, including virtual memory in it’s OS, threads, and other common OS concepts that have been around for 40 years.

The main problem I have is that Microsoft claims to have patents that if closely examined, are things that were invented by someone else, and not microsoft. I can think of plenty of examples offhand. For example, I really doubt that there is ANYTHING in the Linux Kernel that wasn’t in UNIX first (BEFORE MICROSOFT). As for GUI, Microsoft didn’t invent ANYTHING there. We all know how Microsoft ripped off Apple who bought patents from Xerox. X-windows has been around for a lot longer than windows (or has had a nicer look), so I really don’t see where Microsoft thinks they have patents there…..Oh yeah, Microsoft invented Truetype fonts….or did they….amazing how they are pretty much exactly the same as the antialiased fonts that the Woz invented for the Apple II 30 years ago….

Microsoft is losing it’s ability to steal quietly (not it’s ability to be innovative, as it’s really never been innovative).

I say we all bust out the windows 3.1 disks and go back in time tryin to load the mouse drivers into high memory! and play us some free ski!!! (or a good air hockey game)

“You only need to look at openoffice and office 97-2003 side by side to realise that Microsoft has a prior art case here. Even if they applied for late patents, their interface was still around first for many of the features available.

Similarly, Win95 was the first OS to deliver many of the things we see in gnome/kde.

Who knows about the kernel - the reason why you can bet your bottom dollar that Microsoft aren’t bluffing here is in the interfaces. They are unmistakably similar.
Posted By Keith Humm, Christchurch, New Zealand : May 14, 2007 10:43 am ”

Really? Maybe you have never heard of XEROX PARC’s computer efforts? Possibly the spreadsheet related aspects might have novelty, but for certain one has to look at Lotus 123 for spreadsheet prior art, and possibly a couple prior to that.

But the basics in windowed user interfaces certainly came 1st at Xerox PARC and possibly next at say Three Rivers Computers, maybe the MACINTOSH ??? If mouse driven commands and UI exsited before Excel in Windows, the question is can one get patent coverage in every new program from using a mouse? That will be one to earn Brad some suspenders…

It will be curious what specifics of the undisclosed Microsoft claims are upheld upon scrutiny, or maybe they have a dreaded Eola type patent - claiming a browser plugin is NEW? when in fact a browswer plug in is merely dynamically loadable code…which fundamentally is as old as the hills ( yet MS paid up to Eola? )

I guess Brad lost his suspenders on that one?? and is trying to get them back.

Dear Micro$oft:

It was stated back in the main article that “[M$] asserts that one reason free software is of such high quality is that it violates more than 200 of Microsoft’s patents.”

If you are truly holding patents which enable the creation of high quality software I have one question - why aren’t you using them?

I, for one, am tired of paying for bugs. When I buy a piece of software with the M$ logo on it it seems like the bug to software ratio is at least 5:1 - in favor of the bugs. I would love to be able to buy some software based on those patents you claim to have.

I forgot to give my city in my previous comment. Sorry.

Microsoft’s top lawyer says open source software violates exactly 235 entries in the firm’s vast patent portfolio.

This reminds me of the following: Senator Joseph McCarthy “claimed, according to press reports of the address [in Wheeling, West Virginia], to have in his hands a list of 205 members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring currently employed by “and shaping the policy of the State Department.” When later challenged to produce evidence for his charges McCarthy maintained that he was referring to Communist “party loyalists” or “bad risks” in the State Department, and in the moderated version of the Wheeling speech introduced into the Congressional Record on February 20, reprinte d below, he reduced the number of alleged Communists to 57.

McCarthy had no list at all. But it didn’t matter.”

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/mccarthy.html

Giving a precise figure conveys the impression that you are talking about something real. Microsoft is nothing but the pinnacle of that enduring American profession, the con artist.

Drew, Monroe, La. wrote…

> I imagine M$ as a street thug with
> nothing in his pocket but his
> index finger pointed out.

Right idea, wrong finger.

“This is not a case of some accidental, unknowing infringement,”

But he won’t say which patents are being infringed. If the “infringers” know what they are infringing, secrecy is moot.

Further, does not the injured party have an obligation to attempt to minimize their losses? If my pipes burst and wreck my carpet, I could sue my landlord. I can’t keep the leak secret until my entire living room suite is ruined, then sue for new furniture. Keeping the infringement secret exacerbates the infringement ( it goes on for longer than it otherwise might), and ought to limit damages.

Finally, I’m not a lawyer, or American, but isn’t slander of title actionable in the US? If they were sued, Microsoft would have to justify their claims.

I’m a programmer because that’s what I love to do. I’d be happy to let you have what I have done for free. I’m also a musician, and I once wrote a song that sounded kinda like something I once heard. It had parts of something I once studied in a book. You can have that too. All this said, be careful not to get caught enjoying either one, because if for some reason what I have done appeals to you more than that done by someone who does it for a living, you may get sued. Oh wait, They agreed not to sue each others’ customers. - Give me a break.

Microsoft will probably not sue IBM or Sun Mircosystems (owner of Star Office) and cannot sue Linux because there is no Linux owner to sue.

So Microsoft’s strategy is probably to threaten Linux users who cannot afford the cost of patent infringement litigation and will accept to pay Microsoft some fee to avoid legal costs. Microsoft probably also uses clauses to prevent these companies to subsequently talk about the threat and settlement arrangement. This would be a blatant case of I protect you or I kill you.

Doing so, Microsoft avoids the cost of litigation, the challenge of a probably large number of junk patents, and the unpopularity of going after open source users.

All of this is made possible thanks to the inapplicability of the non-obvious clause for patents. It is indeed almost impossible to define what is obvious from what is not, especially after seeing a disclosure.

Microsoft experts and lawyers will always pretend that using the right button of a mouse is non-obvious while the rest of us will find this obvious.

All spreadsheet patents for example are small improvements over a really non-obvious invention: the spreadsheet as a concept which is over 20 years old.

Graphical user interfaces have been around for more than 20 years, all improvements from there are minor and obvious. The non-obvious concept was invented over 40 years ago at Xerox.

The Linux kernel concepts are based on developments done in the seventies at AT&T and elsewhere.

Microsoft itself might have been a great contributor to word processing over 20 years ago. But the patent law is not meant to grant infinite monopolies.

The solution for end users is to call for a broad reform of the patent law, communicate about Microsoft threats, and boycott Microsoft new products.

The same goes for Verizon. They patented in 1999 the idea to transform telephony signals into packets for which experiments where done in the seventies and many times thereafter.

Most comments show a clear lack of understanding of the patent system, especially its origins in the US Constitution.

Patents (and copyrights) are provided for in the US Constitution “to promote progress in the arts and sciences” by providing a “limited monopoly” to the inventor/artist. That “monopoly” is provided so that the artist/inventor can receive compensation for his/her investment in the work being protected. That monopoly is “limited” because the work is SUPPOSED to go into the public domain, so that others can build on it for greater progress, yet. The patent system was NOT intended to be an “easy street” or a roadblock to innovation, as it too often seems to be, today.

To that end, patents are supposed to be NOVEL and non-obvious to “one skilled in the art.” Both are frequently missing today, so too often it seems like patents are, “First one who thinks something up and files, WINS!”

Isn’t that exactly what the Microsoft lawyer said? If they were to specify the patents, they would be invalidated without Microsoft ever being able to make a penny off of them. They are selling the most pure vaporware.

That is why they had to pay Novell so much money to go into the deal. Otherwise, there was no reason for Novell to do so.

The SCOX suits were backed by MS specifically to see if such vague and unsubstantiated claims could be used as leverage to get paid. It hasn’t worked. Even the _judges_ in the case keep demanding that SCOX show what code was infringing, and SCOX will not or cannot do so. Just like Microsoft.

Folks, this game has already been played. Look at SCO. What did they accuse? Wasn’t it “millions” of lines of infringing code in Linux? But, they wouldn’t tell what it was because every time they did, it was instantly proven false. What was SCO’s stock price when they sued? Where is it now? Less than a buck?

In other news, Ford goes to owners of Toyota vehicles and explains that Toyota has violated some of Ford’s patents and they think the Toyota owner owes them money.

The following linked image is of Photon, which existed BEFORE Windows 95:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/Qnx_floppy.gif

But of course desktops were bound to evolve, maybe into something kind of similar to this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/75/Qnx621about2.png

To M$’s credit, I am confident all of you have heard of Win 95, but how many of you knew that Photon existed before today? Did you know that Win NT4.0 ran 16 bit OS/2 apps natively? Where did the NT4.0 kernel come from…

My point is simple - QDOS, Xerox, Apple, OS/2, QNX/Photon… It doesn’t matter. I’ll bet that on a good day even the AMIGA camp can throw in on this one. Micro$oft “borrows” all the time and will as long as it exists, just do not expect it to return the favor - EVER! You are expected to pay to play.

M$ is filled with childish greed, and feels threatened. And M$ likes its profit margins where they are. I have yet to pay $40.00 for Windows and Office combined but because of the threat of free software someone did: http://www.tunexp.com/news/windows-story-135.html. We need more of these kinds of threats, not less and only free software is going to provide it.

If it turns out that there is some minuscule kernel of truth to MS’s claims then everyone should keep in mind that M$ does not invent, it innovates. M$ should not be allowed to interfere with other entities who also wish to innovate. Especially when they are using M$ as their example of a successful business model worthy of emulation. They just want to “borrow” too.

M$ better should not be allowed to win a patent war because all the innovating they do is based on someone else inventing it. Patents should go to the inventors first. Let M$ pay a few royalties for a change.

If M$ wants to use FUD as its weapon of choice then let them, just don’t fall for it unless they reveal what the patent issues are. They are suggesting that they are “loaded for bear” I’m betting they’ve got nothing in the gun but blanks.

I imagine M$ as a street thug with nothing in his pocket but his index finger pointed out.

Microsoft is no better than any monoply we’ve had over the history of America. Microsoft is the perfect example of the same attitude the buisness leaders of the guilded age had. Robb them blind and sell it for more. It seems microsoft want to abuses these patent rights to take linux off the market so were all forced to pay ridicilous prices for the software. You can’t download anyhting off of microsoft site anymore without paying 20 bucks. It cost 20 bucks for a DVD encoder. Thats right 20 dollars who in the right mind is going to pay 20 dollars when you can easily find a piece of FREE software that does exactly the same thing. Microsoft is ridicilous when it comes to their buisness practices. I’m starting to not like microsoft any more. They want to make the IT industry cheap labor, so me as natural born citizen is going to get paid less for going into I.T. because some foriegner has a cheaper pay scale. Then they have endless lawsuits with linux. Microsoft should just give up, they already make enough money without robbing everyone blind.

whether or not M$ actually has any substantial claims, the publication of such a feat is foremost another stance of ingenious (?) legal marketing to scare potential customers into the womb of the mothership

When Microsoft put an infusion of cash into SCO, they were obviously looking to see if the “sue option” would even work.

Not being stupid, they must have concluded that they would have about zero chance of actually winning in court. Thus, their only approach is to threaten - after all, court cases cost money.

Microsoft probably figures 80-99% of the patents would be overturned by the courts, plus it would take years and years.

Anyone familiar with Windows programming will recognize Unix constructs EVERYWHERE. Most of Microsoft’s products are a rip off of someone elses work. Remember, Gates himself stole source code from the dumpsters of companies like Digital Research because he didn’t have the mettle for a formal education.

Well, perhaps this is just the next level of work required from the folks who support the GPL. How much work would be required to look at Microsoft’s patent portfolio, and find those 235 patents that need to be examined at and debunked? An open source wiki or database that listed software patents from all relevant tech companies, with relevant comments and relevant prior art, would be an extremely beneficial resource to the world at large. Is anyone building this?

Somebody further back there mentioned Win95 and KDE in the same sentence. KDE is a pretty fair clone of CDE(Common Desktop Environment), which is a Sun Microsystems product that predates Win95 by some years.

I hope no company is stupid enough to have Microsoft blackmail them into paying them for someone else’s software.

I hope companies realize that Microsoft will never actually take anyone to court for this, because they don’t have a leg to stand on. Their case would be obliterated once actual prior art searches, obviousness and failure to promptly take action after infringement is suspected, bring some reality to this FUD claim.

That would wipe their pretty number of 235 infringements to just about nothing. Instead, they love to just dangle this supposed thread of 235 infringements in front of everyone’s face and make the uninformed pay up.

This is the reason they don’t specify which patents they’re talking about, as their patents would be invalidated even without going to court. And of course they won’t sue developers, as they would have to be specific about the patents they’re talking about in that case too. Better to just scare customers with vague threats instead.

I wonder if anyone could sue Microsoft of trying to hurt their business with unsubstantiated claims though. It should be illegal to “compete” by what basically comes down to slander.

It would be good to investigate the difference in efficiency between the US and European companies due to paying this extra “tax”. And whether large American companies taxing free software in this way will influence EU governments in their decisions to grant (or not) software patents. By moving too early MSFT may be killing the golden goose as far as software patent revenue in Europe.

The logical step would be to create the initiative to analyse Microsoft`s Patents and fid out which is really infringed and how it can be avoided.

Interesting paradox, Microsoft can’t patent it’s most powerful product - FUD Fear,Uncertainty,& Doubt. That is what this is all about. A powerful rich monopoly losing its grip on its own Market, it can’t even compete with itself. Witness Vista’s lackluster showing against XP, its own product. Dell recently began offering XP again because consumers don’t want Vista, they want XP. Microsoft is stuck. They can’t innovate or they lose their base, yet they can’t generate revenue unless they force the base to upgrade. Hence the lawsuits as a new revenue stream. FUD - Microsoft’s only real asset.

When Microsoft loses this suit, they will become a classic college course must read- how to destroy a multi-billion dollar business by imploding.

Okay… I knew someone was eventually going to bring up Xerox. But let’s not forget that before Xerox was playing with these user interface elements, they had seen Doug Englebart’s “Mother of All Demos” which was funded by (D)ARPA.

I wonder if there’s a way to appeal to the many eyes of the open source community to have each of Microsoft’s patent filings examined and evaluated and rated based on it’s likelihood to be thought to infringe and then the likelihood that it would actually stand up in court?

Assuming there are maybe 10,000,000 people in the world with sufficient technical skill to understand the patents, and maybe one in a thousand might have the time to devote to such a project, we’re still talking about 10,000 geeks. Competent legal