We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Microsoft’s open source patent violation claims - one year on

Microsoft’s open source patent violation claims - one year on

Good cop, bad cop routine has not been a success

Article comments

It was just over a year ago that Microsoft dropped a bombshell of a claim: users of Linux and open-source software were unwittingly violating as many as 235 Microsoft software patents.

"This is not a case of some accidental, unknowing infringement," Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft's vice-president of intellectual property and licensing, told Fortune magazine at the time. "There is an overwhelming number of patents being infringed."


Since then, critics say Microsoft has played the “good cop, bad cop” routine with the open-source camp.

For example, promising not to sue customers of 8 vendors that had signed cross-licensing deals with Microsoft for potential open-source-related violations? Good cop. But continuing to refuse to publicly reveal what those alleged patent violations are? Bad cop.

Here's another: Announcing in March that open-source developers will now be able to use hundreds of Microsoft software protocols without a license for non-commercial use? Good cop.

CEO Steve Ballmer telling customers of Red Hat, which has refused to take out a license, last October that they "have an obligation to compensate" Microsoft for IP violations? Bad, bad cop.

Gutierrez, interviewed late last week, says Microsoft's hot-and-cold engagement with the open-source community is neither "intentional" nor "inherently contradictory."

"We spend $7 billion (£3.5 billion) a year on research, development and cranking out innovations," he said. "We need to protect our innovations against people who infringe upon them."

But legal eagles in the open-source camp argue that Microsoft's moves, even its ostensibly positive ones, have done little to bolster its patent claim.

"Claiming you have IP that folks are infringing isn't the same thing as proving it," wrote Pamela Jones, author of the open-source legal blog Groklaw.net. "I think they [Microsoft] are in a weaker position *because* they did the [cross-licensing] deals. It makes them look needy, like they can't make it any more without Linux."

"The [legal] threat [to open-source] is no greater" today than a year ago, according to Mark Radcliffe, a lawyer with DLA Piper's Silicon Valley office and the general counsel of the Open Source Initiative, which oversees the approval of open-source software licenses, in an e-mail.

Take Redmond's attempts to persuade vendors to sign cross-licensing deals that include protection from potential open-source patent lawsuits by Microsoft.

Besides Novell and Fuji-Xerox, which both had signed deals before “PatentGate”, other cross-licensees include Asian consumer electronics makers Samsung Electronics, Kyocera-Mita and LG Electronics, and a trio of smaller Linux makers including Xandros and its Scalix subsidiary, TurboLinux and Linspire. The overall number taking our patent agreements though remains at 8.

Share:

Comments

Send to a friend

Email this article to a friend or colleague:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the recipient know who sent the story, and in case of transmission error. Both your name and the recipient's name and address will not be used for any other purpose.


ComputerworldUK Knowledge Vault

ComputerworldUK
Share
x
Open
* *