Linux Vendor Settles With Microsoft (InformationWeek) [LWN.net]

undisclosed

Posted Jul 16, 2009 18:12 UTC (Thu) by tstover (guest, #56283) [Link] (1 responses)

Making the damages sum and patent in question unspecified contributes far more FUD than the likely "$1 + cooperation or else" they actually had to pay.

undisclosed

Posted Jul 17, 2009 13:35 UTC (Fri) by pzb (guest, #656) [Link]

Especially because the reporter worked "Linux" into the story, even though it was never said the patent involved Linux. For all we know, it could be a patent related to enclosure design.

Reminds me off a technique used in television where one "bleeps" regular words to make dialog sound much more coarse than it was when originally written.

Where's the action?

Posted Jul 16, 2009 18:49 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] (17 responses)

I believe there is too little action against software patents in the United States. Google search for terms like "against software patents" finds mostly concerned with the situation in Europe. Electronic Frontier Foundation is mostly busy with busting specific patents and doesn't appear to oppose software patents in general.

I'm afraid we are missing an opportunity. Democrats are naturally more receptive to arguments against businesses abusing protections granted them by the government. Democrats control the White House and the Capitol now. And the free software is a stronger position than ever before. Go to a local computer store, and you'll find computers, GPS devices and cell phones running free software. So, where's the action?

Where's the action?

Posted Jul 16, 2009 19:10 UTC (Thu) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link] (8 responses)

"Democrats are naturally more receptive to arguments against businesses abusing protections granted them by the government."

Are you sure? Now that the Dems in government have taken over large businesses (and are planning to take over more), I don't think they will be inclined to take away those large businesses ability to screw smaller competitors.

Where's the action?

Posted Jul 16, 2009 21:02 UTC (Thu) by leoc (guest, #39773) [Link] (7 responses)

FWIW, nationalization started under Bush II.

Where's the action?

Posted Jul 16, 2009 22:31 UTC (Thu) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (6 responses)

> FWIW, nationalization started under Bush II.

Nationalization started massively under Roosevelt in the 1930's.

Luckily back then the Congress and Supreme Court used a little thing called 'The US Constitution' to shut down most of the more outrageous grabs at power. But nowadays they don't let that sort of thing stop them.

Remember that it's the Congress that is responsible for raising taxes, writing/signing bills, and all that happy stuff. Obama or Bush have actually very little to say about the matter other then just getting public opinion to put pressure on Congress. The USA president is more of a easy scapegoat (or figurehead, depending on current public mood) then any effective force. They have virtually no power to affect the economy or write bills or do anything of that nature on their own. The President office is suppose to be more concerned about things like the military or international matters then anything else.

Where's the action?

Posted Jul 16, 2009 23:05 UTC (Thu) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link] (5 responses)

Nationalization started under Teddy Roosevelt with the progressivist movement and the trust busting.

FDR had a very compliant congress, who backed everything he did until the "Conservative Coalition" of Republicans and racist southern Democrats began to form in 1938.

The supreme court at the time was majority conservative (like now) with a general 5-4 conservative split, until the switch in time, when it reversed its overall ideology. Prior to the switch it did overturn a rash of new-deal reforms in the mid-1930s.

FDR was operating in an environment in which the prevailing socio-economic order had led to a dramatic collapse of the economy. He had a mandate to rework the entire system and he did. He was one of the most transformative presidents in history. So it's pretty hard to swallow that his democratic congress and a conservative-leaning supreme court were the valiant defenders of of the wonderful laissez-faire invisible hand of your wacked-out little libertarian world.

Where's the action?

Posted Jul 17, 2009 0:39 UTC (Fri) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (4 responses)

> FDR was operating in an environment in which the prevailing socio-economic order had led to a dramatic collapse of the economy. He had a mandate to rework the entire system and he did. He was one of the most transformative presidents in history. So it's pretty hard to swallow that his democratic congress and a conservative-leaning supreme court were the valiant defenders of of the wonderful laissez-faire invisible hand of your wacked-out little libertarian world.

Uhuh. And I am sure that his economic policies and political actions did nothing to extend and deepen the depression either and if he did nothing then I am sure that the depression would of lasted for ever and ever and ever and everybody would of starved to death and the whole world would of turned into a gigantic dust bowl, right?

Where's the action?

Posted Jul 17, 2009 0:47 UTC (Fri) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (3 responses)

Your comment is pure troll. Why did you post?

Where's the action?

Posted Jul 17, 2009 1:29 UTC (Fri) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (2 responses)

I forgot that responding to a insulting troll sounds very trollish itself.

Where's the action?

Posted Jul 19, 2009 2:36 UTC (Sun) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link] (1 responses)

umm ... I would also suggest that that previous comment may not have been the best you ever wrote (and you do write good comments, very often, I know). At the very least, most history books (and I read some _before_ the present crisis) suggests that _no action_ was exactly what deepened the great depression to what it was. (And it may be worth pondering that very carefully - the present crisis was handled differently _exactly_ because of the lessons from 1929-1933.)

But, I forgot what all this has to do with the original discussion.

Patent action

Posted Jul 19, 2009 20:43 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

There is an excellent explanation of this inactivity in the wikipedia. Just wanted to point out that it was the Federal Reserve which didn't act, but it did so following government policy (as explained in the main article).

Just to come back to the present topic, I am not sure if the current US administration would see restrictions on the current patent model as pro-business (and therefore helping businesses to navigate the crisis) or against (making companies lose one source of income). Maybe they need some additional help from their constituencies to see that patents are harmful to the software industry as a whole.

I know that the Spanish government doesn't have a flying clue about the patent issue, and for once have more faith on European authorities to do the right thing here and continue disallowing software patents.

Where's the action?

Posted Jul 16, 2009 19:51 UTC (Thu) by ncm (guest, #165) [Link] (2 responses)

Democrats have just favored a slightly different mix of businesses -- more shaded to movie studios, record stampers, and telecomm, where Republicans have traditionally been more involved with finance, insurance, and coal. Both have traditionally been hostile to patent busters.

Where's the action?

Posted Jul 16, 2009 20:10 UTC (Thu) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] (1 responses)

Democrats have just favored a slightly different mix of businesses -- more shaded to movie studios, record stampers, and telecomm, where Republicans have traditionally been more involved with finance, insurance, and coal."

Do you have any facts to back this up besides ideology? Do you think the "recovery" $780B from Obama went to different businesses than the $780B from Bush?

I believe that elected politicians from all parties favor giving money to businesses of all sorts with very little discrimination. I think that you would find it hard to actually scientifically differentiate blindly between either elected democrat or republican officials' voting habits and decisions. Both groups are fairly "centrist" and favor large governments. Of course, to expect voters to actually look at behavior instead of propaganda... that would be Un-American! ;)

Where's the action?

Posted Jul 17, 2009 2:53 UTC (Fri) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link]

Oh please give it away. LWN has a large international readership. There's nothing so mindnumbingly boring as the minutae of some other country's politics. The Internet has no shortage of other places you lot can fling mud in support of your political allegiances.

Where's the action?

Posted Jul 16, 2009 22:39 UTC (Thu) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

> And the free software is a stronger position than ever before.

I am sure that is extremely unlikely. I am sure that, like most large businesses, Microsoft gives more money to the Democrats then they give to the Republicans.

Anyways. Start a letter writing campaign to your congressman... That is the person that has the power to do something about it right now.

Where's the action?

Posted Jul 16, 2009 22:43 UTC (Thu) by qg6te2 (guest, #52587) [Link] (2 responses)

Electronic Frontier Foundation is mostly busy with busting specific patents and doesn't appear to oppose software patents in general.

If one is too idealistic nothing gets done. Busting one patent at a time is currently the most effective way of exposing the broken system and achieving something useful at the same time.

Where's the action?

Posted Jul 17, 2009 0:26 UTC (Fri) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] (1 responses)

However, the "idealistic" approach actually worked in Europe. Where's the American Florian Müller?

Where's the action?

Posted Jul 17, 2009 4:22 UTC (Fri) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

Unfortunately it does not have anything to do with idealism*.

The USA legal system was the first one to really deal with the issues of business and software law in a big way. Obvious mistakes were made. A big one was the old cold-war-style crypto export restrictions... which still plague many businesses to this day (and fortunately has been somewhat lifted for open source software).

The thing is that once you make a law (or in the case of software patents use court systems to allow it to exist) it's extraordinarily difficult to get it repealed. It's much easier and much more effective to go after a bad law or bad system before it gets established.

It's like if you have somebody bringing in a box of cockroaches into your house. If you see him coming then it's easy to stop it, once they are established then your screwed.

Where's the action?

Posted Jul 17, 2009 14:06 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link]

I recommend that people, if they want to see software patents abolished, do not pander to the "better quality patents" crowd. One often sees people and certain companies claiming to be "pro-open source" and being all very skeptical about patents, but if you read what they have to say on the matter, what bothers them is the existence of "trivial" patents, as they cling onto the myth of the "difficult" patent that only one person could ever have produced in all of human history, of which their corporate sponsor just happens to have many, in contrast to their competitors whose patents are naturally completely worthless. (Such companies also lobby for software patents, but you won't read anything about that in the enthusiastic blogs and articles from the aforementioned crowd.)

Patent-busting is a worthy exercise, certainly, but eradicating the problem at its root is the better choice. People shouldn't believe that making friends with big companies doing the former will get you the rewards that only the latter can bring.

A clarification

Posted Jul 17, 2009 1:40 UTC (Fri) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (1 responses)

Just to be clear everybody, Microsoft is not at patent war with Linux or open source. No sir. No way. Microsoft have been friends with open source for a long time now. Nothing to see here, move along.

A clarification

Posted Jul 17, 2009 13:01 UTC (Fri) by szh (guest, #23558) [Link]

Cold war under my definition of words and their meanings. But it seems its getting hotter.

> Microsoft have been friends
I am really lucky, that I've never had such a "friends".

Linux Vendor Settles With Microsoft (InformationWeek)

Posted Jul 17, 2009 2:20 UTC (Fri) by wilreichert (guest, #17680) [Link] (8 responses)

I suspect in a couple years that indemnity will be worth just as much as a Linux license from SCO. How long before one of their victims doesn't roll over to play dead & makes them look really bad?

Linux Vendor Settles With Microsoft (InformationWeek)

Posted Jul 17, 2009 3:12 UTC (Fri) by BackSeat (guest, #1886) [Link] (7 responses)

How long before one of their victims doesn't roll over to play dead & makes them look really bad?

Have any of them rolled over dead yet? (In other words, to answer your question, no time at all).

Assuming you meant "s/doesn't roll/rolls/", I still don't understand what point you're trying to make.

Linux Vendor Settles With Microsoft (InformationWeek)

Posted Jul 17, 2009 3:58 UTC (Fri) by wilreichert (guest, #17680) [Link] (6 responses)

They took the easy way out & settled. Sure it was probably financially in their best interest but it sets a precedence for future cases to look back at. Additionally, Microsoft now has increasing power in the supposed validity of whatever patent was possibly being infringed upon. This just makes it all the more easier to extort royalties from the next Linux based company. The only way this will stop is if someone steps up and challenges the validity of whatever patent/s.

Linux Vendor Settles With Microsoft (InformationWeek)

Posted Jul 17, 2009 10:05 UTC (Fri) by whacker (guest, #55546) [Link] (1 responses)

If this trend continues, and software patents continue to be invalid in the rest of the world, pretty soon USians will be unable to use all this Free Software. Businessmen will begin to wonder why they suffer such a grave disadvantage in the US versus software makers in the rest of the world.

I *am* an optimist. Really.

Linux Vendor Settles With Microsoft (InformationWeek)

Posted Jul 18, 2009 23:53 UTC (Sat) by wookey (guest, #5501) [Link]

Software patents are not invalid in the rest of the world. There are many fewer than in the US, and business process patents usually are invalid, but sadly most places have software patents - very few jurisdicions declared the MS FAT patents invalid for example, and I believe a variant is granted in most significant markets. New Zealnd was one of the few that refused it IIRC.

People keep quoting that 'europe does not have swpats' on this site, and it's just not true. We managed to stop having them explicitly legalised, but many, many are still granted every year. You pretty-much just have to say 'some software running on a computer' and thus claim it as a 'machine'. It makes litte practical difference, and what limits there are are being steadily eroded.

Linux Vendor Settles With Microsoft (InformationWeek)

Posted Jul 17, 2009 17:45 UTC (Fri) by kdogksu (guest, #46337) [Link] (1 responses)

Completely agree. As soon as one of Microsoft's victims wins one of these patent battles instead of settling out of court, Microsoft's ability to bully smaller companies into making these sort of payments will be diminished. Of course, this does nothing for the overall patent situation in the US, but that will be a change long in coming. It's important to put a stop to these litigation threats to protect open source innovation in the short term.

Linux Vendor Settles With Microsoft (InformationWeek)

Posted Jul 24, 2009 20:29 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (guest, #4458) [Link]

That supposes the victim has the ~~staying power~~ money to fight to the bitter (or sweet) end... plus one fighting while many fold doesn't help that much...

Key quote

Posted Jul 17, 2009 21:50 UTC (Fri) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] (1 responses)

"While we plan to increasingly adopt Windows Storage Server for our NAS business, we also wanted to ensure that our open source and Linux-embedded devices had the appropriate IP protections," said Hajim Nakai, a board member at Melco's Buffalo line.

In other words, we're closing up shop in this market, and this is our chance to poison the well for those who are staying.

As with the Novell deal, the "unspecified patent protection racket" participation is part of a wider deal with MSFT.

Key quote

Posted Jul 19, 2009 20:49 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

Excellent sight for spotting the quote. I think it explains the whole deal. Bad luck for those still developing Linux NAS boxes (and probably worse luck for those selling Windows gadgets, having to maintain them afterwards).

Vote with your dollars

Posted Jul 17, 2009 4:16 UTC (Fri) by wtogami (subscriber, #32325) [Link] (4 responses)

I'm ashamed that I bought products from both TomTom and Buffalo, although it was years ago. The best I can do is never buy products from these companies again.

Vote with your dollars

Posted Jul 17, 2009 8:31 UTC (Fri) by fb (guest, #53265) [Link] (2 responses)

The way I read your comment, you seem angry because neither company took upon itself to fix the US patent system through litigation.

Wouldn't it better to place blame and fix requests where they belong? (At the law makers.)

Vote with your dollars

Posted Jul 17, 2009 10:10 UTC (Fri) by whacker (guest, #55546) [Link]

> Wouldn't it better to place blame and fix requests where they belong? (At > the law makers.)

They could at least settle the cases. But protest loudly for doing so. Talk about how Microsoft is being the big bully in the school yard. If they are lucky, there will be public attention and discussion of the problem.

Vote with your dollars

Posted Jul 19, 2009 17:26 UTC (Sun) by wtogami (subscriber, #32325) [Link]

TomTom went to the effort to join OIN, appearing that they would fight it in court, but shortly after they rolled over in submission rather than fighting.

Vote with your dollars

Posted Jul 17, 2009 12:11 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

You would do better to avoid companies like IBM and Nokia (and of course Microsoft) which actively lobby in favour of software patents and have tried to have them introduced in Europe.

Linux Vendor Settles With Microsoft (InformationWeek)

Posted Jul 17, 2009 13:54 UTC (Fri) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link]

Even the title is FUD. They are not a Linux vendor, they sell NAS devices and routers that happen to include Linux. If the happened to use Windows CE (or whatever they call it these days) they wouldn't be called a Windows vendor, would they?