| Microsoft vs. Linux: setting the battle lines |
May 14, 2007
Microsoft is putting its own spin on its "re-re-announcement" that it believes that Linux and open source violate 235 of its patents. The company is now sending out a release to some members of the press explaining its position.
Microsoft's statement opens, "The company's longstanding preference is to license rather than litigate and Microsoft's work over the past three years to build a bridge with open source is a result of that commitment. The November agreement with Novell addresses the IP issues in open source while meeting both the distributor's needs and, more importantly, the needs of the customer."
While Microsoft professes a preference to license rather than litigate, its record indicates otherwise. On Feb. 22, 2007, a jury awarded a $1.52 billion patent judgment in favor of Alcatel-Lucent against Microsoft over the Redmond, Wash., company's use of MP3 codices. This was the largest patent award in history. In the Eolas case, Microsoft was also found guilty in a $521 million patent infringement ruling over how Internet Explorer handled embedded content.
Richard Fontana, counsel for the SFLC (Software Freedom Law Center), which works with the Free Software Foundation, said that these judgments "[suggest] that it is Microsoft's proprietary software that is full of IP risk, and not Linux or FOSS [free and open-source software]. In the past three years alone, Microsoft has publicly paid out more than $4 billion dollars in settlements and court awards for alleged infringements of other companies' patents. And if any of Microsoft's own patents are not novel and non-obvious, that means that Microsoft's purported IP includes property it does not actually have any right to own -- property that has essentially been misappropriated from earlier inventors, or from the public."
The Microsoft document states: "The patent issue with open source has been in discussion for some time, first raised by various leaders in the free and open source community. According to its August 2004 announcement, the Open Source Risk Management group stated that Linux could be in violation of 283 patents and, as such, could expose customers to undetermined licensing costs. Richard Stallman further validated this in late November where he noted that 'a thorough study found that the kernel Linux infringed 283 different software patents, and that's just in the US. Of course, by now the number is probably different and might be higher.'"
There are several things to note here. First, the statement doesn't mention that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer had already made this claim in 2004. It also ignores the fact that the OSRM study's author, Dan Ravicher, an attorney and executive director of PUBPAT (the Public Patent Foundation), completely denied Microsoft's implication that Linux was violating Microsoft's patents. As Ravicher said then, "There is no reason to believe that GNU/Linux has any greater risk of infringing patents than Windows, Unix-based or any other functionally similar operating system."
Stallman's comment was about that same OSRM study. There was nothing new in his remark.
Fontana observed that Microsoft "refuses to identify specific patents or explain how they're being infringed, lest FOSS advocates start filing challenges to them. In other words, Microsoft is afraid of identifying any of these 235 patents because if they did, the free/open-source software community would be able to prove that the patents are invalid, or unenforceable, or that FOSS does not, in fact, infringe the claims of those patents."
Microsoft's statement went on, "Customers have asked industry leaders in both proprietary and open source to address these issues and over 90 percent of customers support the Novell agreement as addressing this need for vendor interoperability and cooperation." This study looked primarily however at interoperability, not intellectual property issues.
The Microsoft-sponsored IT executive survey was very limited regarding IP. The IP part consisted of executives agreeing or disagreeing with the following statements: "Technology companies, not end users or businesses, should take responsibility for the intellectual property in the products they ship and service." And, that "vendors should acquire IP rights to their competitors' products, if necessary, to prevent them from being exposed to any risk." The vast majority liked the idea of not having any risk.
Having mentioned the Novell deal, Microsoft moved on to the meat of the matter, saying, "The latest draft of the GPLv3 attempts to tear down the bridge between proprietary and open-source technology that Microsoft has worked to build with the industry and customers. Customers in multiple industries have already called for and endorsed the bridge as a positive move in their favor. AIG, Credit Suisse, Dell, HSBC, Nationwide and Wal-Mart are just a few of the customers who have already signed on."
These companies are those that have bought Microsoft-provided, Novell SLES (SUSE Linux Enterprise Server) certificates. Ballmer claimed in November that Microsoft was motivated to sign a deal with SUSE Linux distributor Novell because Linux "uses our intellectual property" and Microsoft wanted to "get the appropriate economic return for our shareholders from our innovation."
Novell CEO Ron Hovsepian replied at the time, "Our agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property. To claim otherwise is to further sow fear, uncertainty and doubt, and does not offer a fair basis for competition."
Novell hasn't changed its position. Bruce Lowry, Novell's director of global public relations, said, "We stand by Ron's open letter of November 20 on this issue. The fact that MSFT is now putting numbers to the patents it thinks are infringed doesn't change our position. Our focus in the patent deal with MSFT was to remove the patent issue from the table for customers."
In other words, Novell continues to state that it does not believe that Linux violates any of Microsoft's patents. If knowing that Microsoft won't bother Novell's customers on such issues makes them feel better, that's fine.
Finally, Microsoft addresses its real concern: "Microsoft is discussing the patent issue even more directly now, with specifics about patent numbers and areas of infringement, in response to continued industry question and concern over the GPLv3's adoption. Unfortunately, for customers, the Free Software Foundation's efforts with GPLv3, while not harming existing contracts, can harm the desired interoperability and open exchange that we have increasingly seen between proprietary [software] and open source over the past several years."
In part, Microsoft cares about these issue because the latest GPLv3 revision would make future patent deals like the Microsoft-Novell one almost impossible. What may be far more important, though, is that the open-source software lawyers are now claiming that by reselling SLES certificates, Microsoft has become a Linux distributor and is therefore bound by the existing GPLv2.
Fontana explained, "Now that Microsoft has effectively become a distributor of Linux, by distributing some 50,000 or so Novell SLES coupons, it has perhaps unwittingly restricted its ability to sue Linux users over its patents. While this is particularly clear under the forthcoming Version 3 of the GPL, the Microsoft lawyers who helped craft the MS-Novell deal appear to have overlooked the fact that, by procuring the distribution of lots of free software under GPL Version 2, among other licenses, Microsoft has already lost some of its power to assert patents against subsequent distributors and users of that software."
-- Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
Do you have comments on this story?
Talkback here
NOTE: Please post your comments regarding our articles using the above link. Be sure to use this article's title as the "Subject" in your posts. Before you create a new thread, please check to see if a discussion thread is already running on the article you plan to comment on. Thanks!
(Click here for further information)
|
|
|
7 Advantages of D2D Backup
For decades, tape has been the backup medium of choice. But, now, disk-to-disk (D2D) backup is gaining in favor. Learn why you should make the move in this whitepaper.
4 Legal Reasons to Control Internet Access
The Internet is obviously a valuable resource for many organizations. However, many are exposed to legal liability concerns because they fail to control Internet access. Learn if you're safe in this white paper.
Rapidly Resolve J2EE Application Problems
Whether you are in the process of building J2EE applications or have J2EE applications already running in production, you must ensure that they deliver the expected ROI. Learn how in this white paper.
Load Testing 2.0 for Web 2.0
There are many unknowns in stress testing Web 2.0 applications. Find out how to test the performance of Web 2.0 in this white paper.
Build Better Games Online
For the game infrastructure providers, life is complex. Making money from games has become more complicated. Why? Find out in this white paper.
Building a Virtual Infrastructure from Servers to Storage
This white paper discusses the virtual storage solutions that reduce cost, increase storage utilization, and address the challenges of backing up and restoring Server environments.
Gaining Faster Wireless Connections with WiMAX
Welcome to what is quickly becoming the hyperconnected world where anything that would benefit from being connected to the network will be connected. Learn more in this white paper.
Is Your Desktop a Security Threat?
The new wave of sophisticated crimeware not only targets specific companies, but also targets desktops and laptops as backdoor entryways into those business’ operations and resources. Learn how to stay safe in this white paper.
Increasing SAN Reliability by 100 Percent
Storage area networks (SAN) are a strong part of storage plans. Learn how to increase your reliability and uptime by 100 percent in this case study.
|
|
|
|
|
news feed