.
/v3-uk/news/2000868/microsoft-aims-patent-guns-red-hat
09 Oct 2007, Tom Sanders in California , V3
Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer has warned users of Red Hat Linux that they will have to pay Microsoft for its intellectual property.
"People who use Red Hat, at least with respect to our intellectual property, in a sense have an obligation to compensate us," Ballmer said last week at a company event in London discussing online services in the UK.
A video report of Ballmer's speech (registration required) was posted on Mydeo over the weekend.
Red Hat has repeatedly stated that it will not engage in a patent licensing deal similar to the Novell-Microsoft partnership, referring to its as an 'innovation tax'.
Microsoft has been the second most aggressive party in pursuing alleged intellectual property claims against Linux and open source in general.
The firm ranks behind SCO, which failed in its attempt to prove that it owns the intellectual property to Linux and now faces bankruptcy.
Microsoft inked a partnership with Novell last year in which Novell agreed to license Microsoft's intellectual property in exchange for a patent pledge to users of Novell's SuSE Linux.
Ballmer praised Novell at the UK event for valuing intellectual property, and suggested that open source vendors will be forced to strike similar deals with other patent holders.
He predicted that firms like Eolas will soon come after open source vendors or users. Microsoft paid $521m to settle a patent claim by Eolas in August.
"Every time an Eolas comes to Microsoft and says: 'Pay us,' I expect they eventually would like to go to the open source world [as well]," said Ballmer.
"Getting an intellectual property interoperability framework between the two worlds, I think, is important."
Microsoft supported the (rejected) European software patent directive, which would have allowed software patents to be filed within the EU.
Software patents are permitted in the US today. But poor oversight and quality control at the US Patent and Trademark Office allow for many 'bad' patents to be awarded.
Patent critics argue that software does not need long term protection by patents. Development costs of software innovations require fewer investments than for mechanical or pharmaceutical innovations.
Today's cutting edge innovations, furthermore, are reduced to commodities in a matter of a few months or years.
Repeating his call for software patents, Ballmer argued for a limited reform of the US patent system.
"The thing I worry about is that people will want to throw the baby out with the bath water and say: 'Let's just get rid of this.' That would be a terrible thing for innovation in companies large and small," he said.
"Reform makes sense, but we should make sure that it facilitates innovation in our industry as well as others."
Do you agree?
Balmer tried that before
This isn't the first time that Mr. Balmer made unsubstantiated allegations on the subject of supposedly infringed Microsoft patents.
Interestingly, and following SCO's proven tactics in the matter, he refuses to say *what* patents are allegedly violated.
Of course Mr. Balmer admits that he doesn't expect to see a huge revenue stream from licensing agreements (he named the Novell agreement), but that isn't the point.
The point is that "free as in speech" and "free as in beer" are threatening Microsoft's business model. If only he could somehow get rid of the "free as in beer", and with it the "free as in speech", he would turn Linux into just another commercial offering. And that's something he knows how to compete with. With fair means or foul.
It's interesting to realise that any solution that would consist of Linux dropping any code if that were to be found to infringe on Microsoft's patents therefore can only be unacceptable to Mr. Balmer.
With that in mind it's easy to understand why Mr. Balmer really *cannot* list the patents he wishes to receive "just compensation" for. It's because he does not want to give Linux any opportunity to remove any offending code (assuming there is any). He does not want any compensation either.
He just wants to make Linux non-free because that's how he can get rid of it.
Posted by Golodh, 09 Oct 2007
2 cents worth
How about this:
We *ALL* should be sending MS the patent monies they are owed. Each and every one of us should send a US penny taped to a piece of cardstock to Steve Balmer, and include a letter that you want your half-penny change back (or, conversely, sent to the FSF).
Posted by James E LaBarre, 09 Oct 2007
What are the patents?
They continue trying to scare Linux users with those patent guns, but never mention even one of them. If they are that sure about the patents being violated, why don't they just publish them?
mckooiker.byethost5.com
Posted by Maarten Kooiker, 09 Oct 2007
Red Hat
"Red Hat has repeatedly stated that it will engage in a patent licensing deal similar to the Novell-Microsoft partnership, referring to its as an 'innovation tax'."
There's a very important "NOT" missing from that paragraph.
---
From the editor:
Thank you for brining this to our attention. it has been corrected
Posted by Mike, 09 Oct 2007
error in 4th paragraph
The 4th paragraph should have a "not" in it. Try to guess where.
---
From the editor:
Thank you for brining this to our attention. it has been corrected
Posted by Jokono, 09 Oct 2007
I think there's a typo
I think the word "not" was excluded, which changes the entire meaning of the paragraph.
([not] added by me)
" . . . Red Hat has repeatedly stated that it will [not] engage in a patent licensing deal similar to the Novell-Microsoft partnership, referring to its as an 'innovation tax'. . . "
---
From the editor:
Thank you for brining this to our attention. it has been corrected.
Posted by drew, 09 Oct 2007
Please get it right
Novell never licensed anything from Microsoft.
The "patent" agreement is simply a covenant not to sue each other's customer's.
Please state fact correctly.
Posted by JP, 09 Oct 2007
M$ FUD
"People who use Red Hat, at least with respect to our intellectual property, in a sense have an obligation to compensate us," Ballmer said.
Now it's Red Hat's turn. Ballmer has defamed Red Hat with this statement. Red Hat should sue for a retraction, thus, forcing M$ to produce proof of the IP or patents they claim are theirs.
My hope is that M$ will wind up like SCO. Bullies deserve to be defeated.
Posted by GoinEasy9, 09 Oct 2007
Proof
Name the patents. Show the open source developers where they infringe. Put up or shut up. tSCOG never could. Can Ballmer?
Posted by malikvlc, 09 Oct 2007
Liar Steve Balmer has NO "IP" in Linux
Put up, or SHUT UP!
Extortion racketeers threatening shakedowns are R.I.C.O organized crime if it is promulgated over WIRES or mail. M$ has been caught in illegal rackets on two continents so far.
Posted by Lion Kuntz, 09 Oct 2007
To MS: Put up or shut up
If Open Source is really infringing on Microsoft's IP, then why hasn't Microsoft told us exactly what we are infringing ?
Posted by bilaterope, 09 Oct 2007
Prove it
Ballmer has been rattling this saber for way too long. Put up or shut up. If there is any offending IP in any Linux distro, PROVE IT.
Ballmer is a liar, and MSFT is so desperate that they are relying on FUD instead of making quality products.
Vista is a train wreck, MSFT products are God-awful bug-fests and they are resorting to this BS.
Pathetic.
Posted by Fred Flintstone, 09 Oct 2007
Innovation will be hurt by Patent recall?
What a joke! Take a look at our innovative countries like Ukraine or Russia. They don't pay for Windows software at all - they innovatively hack it, and freely distribute. Apparently, no patents over their and the high price of Micro$oft Windoze has created some very creative young people!
Just show your "intellectual property" so open source can show you (Microsoft) where your developers got their intellect!
Posted by VelocityWebdev, 09 Oct 2007
Defamation
Surely that?s close to enabling RH to approach a court and say ?MS is sprouting lies in the press about us - defamation? ? Then the court can say to MS (Balmer, et al) - ?Put up or shut up. Which patents are you concerned about ??
Posted by Mark Unwin, 09 Oct 2007
Why mention the EU SWPAT directive?
Without at least mentioning it was also rejected by the European Parliament with a 97% vote against?
At least you could frame things in a proper context.
Microsoft's gangster-like threats are, fortunately, quite worthless in most of Europe.
Posted by Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 09 Oct 2007
What do you do when you stagnate?
MS Vista is a disaster; MS Office is under increasing pressure; Xbox is a loss leader; MSN and Windows Live had their lunch eaten by Google a long time ago.
If you're a software company that can't sell software profitably anymore, what do you do next?
Racketeering?
Posted by dogStar, 09 Oct 2007
Not in the UK
Maybe Mr Ballmer should read up on UK Law. Microsoft's "patents" are, in the main, not recognised in the UK.
Also I think people are getting pretty bored of the same old rubbish from Microsoft: Either Put Up or Shut Up Mr Ballmer.
Posted by Kirsty S, 09 Oct 2007
Show me.
Boils down to this: don't just claim there are vague patent infringements, give details of WHICH patents and WHICH claims.
Until then, it's just so much meaningless hot air intended to create F.U.D. in the market. Coming from Microsoft right after it loses a major anti-competition ruling, it does seem to indicate they have absolutely no idea what it means to comply with the law.
Posted by Marc D, 09 Oct 2007
Wow
Here we go again with Ballmer shooting his mouth off. So...which of those patents would Linux be violating? Until we know it's just Ballmer's usual hot air.
Posted by Dave, 09 Oct 2007
money lost
microsoft continues to pay out money in lawsuits, they don't seem to learn, bullies can't win. open source is too big now and the moment is lost. windows operating system is old news.
Posted by josh, 09 Oct 2007
RedHat & MS patents
You stated that "Red Hat has repeatedly stated that it will not pay Microsoft for its software patents" - i'm fairly sure RedHat has ever said anything remotely like this, although they *have* said that they would not pay for protection against action for vague, undetailed rumours.. few businesses would.
Your statement is mis-leading and seems to try and indicate that RedHat are not respectful of intellectual property - regardless of you opinion on them for other matters, things could hardly be farther from the truth (as you should well know).
Posted by Tim, 09 Oct 2007
Microsoft patents, realy so inventive...
If you start looking at most of the IP I sometimes realy wonder how realy innovative some of the Microsoft patents are. The problem is how can you find against does patents.
Check put www.ffii.org (European Anti software patent organisation) to see some of the examples in the archives.).
Certainly the European and United States patent office have approved a lot of software patents that should not even have approved in the first first place.
But I gues that is known for years it seems it does not realy chance. In the end I get the impression the consumer looses out, the smaller and medium sized companies. And last but not least the big companies wins and of course the big amount of lawyers required to drive to this legal engine...
Posted by Roderick, 09 Oct 2007
They owe us!
66% of Linux code came directly from MS! We can prove it but don't want to show all of our cards. Sign an agreement then we will let you see our evidence.
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
Posted by Steve Ballmer, 10 Oct 2007
The SCO Group, Revisited
I started laughing when I read this, and have yet to stop ... this Ballmer statement, after The SCO Group has fallen over on its face after being told it doesn't have any case in any case?
Microsoft is going down, down among the dead companies, and seemingly wants to take the entire Western software business with it.
I'll believe they want to play fair with the Free and Open Source Software communities when they release their entire software archives and stock-in-trade as FOSS, and not before. That, Ballmer has achieved, at the very least - before I was more accomodating and live-and-let-live ... ;)
Posted by Wesley Parish, 10 Oct 2007
Ballmer? Really?
If a college editorialist can get away with it, so can I: F*** Steve Balmer!
He's replacing Darl McBride as the "most hated man in IT". Shame on him, and Microsoft, as if THEY need MORE money.
Posted by Fritz, 10 Oct 2007
Steve Ballmer Threatens ISVs
When Steve Ballmer dances around the stage and chants "Developers, developers, developers," he is sending independent software vendors a message: "It is profitable to develop software under the Microsoft umbrella." On Oct 1, 2007, he sent them another message: "It is hazardous to develop software outside the Microsoft umbrella."
Want to develop a killer real-estate indexer? Steve won't let you. Want to enable your clients to talk to their computers in English? Steve won't have it. Want to build a three-dimensional spreadsheet program? Better check with Steve first. Because if you go off and independently develop a major piece of software, based on your own original ideas, building everything from scratch, using only methods and concepts already published in textbooks - Microsoft will sue you for "intellectual property" violations.
At least that's what Ballmer is telling Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, and several thousand prgramming veterans who created the GNU software suite and the Linux kernel. Their fundamental and entire mission is to write software which does not encroach on anyone's rights. Remember, they have software. What they want to make is completely unencumbered software. Ballmer says they didn't do it, they can't do it, and he won't let them do it. And if Stallman and Torvalds, who set out to do nothing else, cannot write legitimate computer programs, then you can't either.
The world according to Steve Ballmer. If you code, you break the law. If you pay off Microsoft, they'll help you.
-Wang-Lo
Posted by Wang-Lo, 11 Oct 2007
This is so sad
Yes, it's SCO all over again. Yes, Microsoft has yet to reveal which patents it is claiming infringement on.
The thing that's sad about this is that patents were invented to protect people who are driving invention and innovation. In the case of software patents however, it's doing the exact opposite. It's open source where all the really neat innovations are happening, even some that Microsoft has copied for themselves. Microsoft does nothing but buy other people's good ideas, corrupt them with their inferior developers and software, and then resell the same crap. How is Ubuntu able to provide new releases every 6 months and Microsoft can't even provide a working upgrade for the piece of garbage that is XP in 7 years?
Unfortunately, it's bad news for American leadership as far as software development goes because we are handicapped by our own laws.
Posted by Mike, 12 Oct 2007