On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 06:02:15 am Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 03 Aug 2010, at 17:18, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 07:07:10 pm Jonas Maebe wrote:
It's not really supporting in this case. Microsoft is of the opinion that a lot of open source software infringes on their software patents (which is definitely true
[...]
Unless you can point out the infringing software, and demonstrate what patents it infringes, that's just an supposition. It is not "definitely true" except by doing violence to the idea of "definitely".
(to view the patents, enter the patent numbers at http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm and click on "Search"; to see the most basic stuff covered by a patent, read claims that do not refer to other claims)
- Microsoft's patent on page up/page down (including a formula on how
to calculate how much you have to scroll a text document to show the next page): 7,415,666
[snip further examples]
Fair enough. However, until they have been proven in court, it still isn't proof that they definitely are infringing. You have Microsoft's accusation, and (e.g.) HTC's decision to make a deal rather than fight a legal battle that would probably cost them millions even if they win. That's good evidence, but not proof.
In fairness, in hindsight I'd probably agree with you that *some* OSS *somewhere* surely has to be infringing some patent. Whether that patent is actually valid and would itself survive a court challenge is another question. I suspect that's at least partially why MS prefers to talk tough about patents and cross-licence rather than sue.
[...]
Tinfoil hats need not apply. Steve Balmer publicly announced that sooner or later someone will have to pay for the Microsoft patents that FOSS projects infringe.
He can say whatever he likes, but until infringement is either proven in court or admitted (and paying a licence fee or doing a cross-licence patent deal is not admitting infringement), it's just a wild claim.
See http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS6670466370.html about the Linux kernel in particular, and http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3513440381.html about the Novell deal and veiled threats to users of Red Hat Linux.
Yes, they're threatening to wield the patent sword (and yet they haven't done so ...
They have done plenty of times, see above. And those are only a number of published cases (there are more, involving at least Amazon, Samsung and IO Data). As you may or may not know, most patent cases however never reach the daylight and are settled behind the scenes (it's generally not good business to publish that you are being accused of patent infringement, and patent court cases cost insane amounts of money -- in fact, if the license fee is less than $1 million, in the US the costs of the court case itself will always outweigh the license fee; see slide 9 of http://people.ffii.org/~jmaebe/conf0411/tue/Brian%20Kahin.pdf ).
Right, which is why licence deals don't prove that infringement occurs. Patents make a wonderful instrument of intimidation and legal blackmail: "pay us $1M, or your lawyer $10M".