The Open Innovation Network has found a few of Microsoft's patents in dealing with the past TomTom/FAT case a bit fishy and have therefore submitted them for review of prior-art to the Linux community at large.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-01-01
In my own opinion, Microsoft will not sue beyond TomTom unless its (Microsoft's) very existence is threatened by Linux. I don't believe MS wishes to destroy "linux". If they really had such intentions, "linux" would have been gone by now and I don't believe it would have started from "linux" the kernel itself but stuff such as taskbar, My Computer, My Documents instead. Then they'll continue with audio/video codecs etc...The only way I see this happening is if MS' market share seriously worsens because of "linux". However, one thing is for sure. In my own opinion, MS will not threaten to sue people if someone wrote something on a web site (Unlike Apple). We should be lucky Apple doesn't have MS' market share.
Edited 2009-04-29 06:12 UTC
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2007-03-26
You can't "destroy" something that's free and open source. All you can do is push the software further underground, but there'll always be users and updates so long as the code and software is free to download.
and I don't believe it would have started from "linux" the kernel itself but stuff such as taskbar, My Computer, My Documents instead.
Linux holds a greater market share on the server and integrated devices, so attacking the kernel makes much more sense than attacking a desktop GUI.
Plus, the GUI isn't Linux, it's just a desktop manager running on top of a window manager running on top of XWindows running on top of Linux.
If MS want to attack Linux then they have to attack the OS itself, not just an interchangable interface that many users don't even install.
MS don't hold the patents to that many audio/video codecs - and certainly not the patent holders of the most top spot codecs either (MP3, MPEG2 (DVD), DivX)
MS's market share is very poor on server installs compared to that of Linux and UNIX.
They couldn't if they wanted to because of their monopoly and anti-competition laws.
Hense why their frequent EU court apperences
Member since:2006-01-01
Plus, the GUI isn't Linux,
I believe in my post above I clearly made that distinction hence "linux" the kernel itself. When I spoke about the GUI I was referring to attacking "linux" indirectly. I know that X.ORG (which separated from Xfree86) is just a "Windowing Environment" just like Win 3.1/9x on top of DOS and the shell is a command interpreter to the kernel.
Edited 2009-04-29 09:08 UTC
Member since:2006-07-25
i agree with the other posters, Microsoft doesn't like compeition, however in today's climatethey have to put up with it. Im sure if Microsoft could, they would have stepped on and squashed linux ages ago. However two things stop them,
1. EU and other anti competitive laws
2. How do you stop something thats free and open, it would be like trying to grab air with your fingers.
Member since:2007-02-17
I'm not getting why you think Microsoft has any ownership rights over things like these. Apple for example, had a desktop and a taskbar and similar GUI things a long, long while before Windows had any such things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lisa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_Lisa_Office_System_1.0.png
Then there was the actual origin of this idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Alto
Nothing to do with Microsoft at all.
BTW, Linux desktops typically do not ship with a "My Computer" icon, nor do they typically have a folder called "My Desktop" ... (but they do often have a Desktop folder in each users home directory).
Codecs are an idea as old as modems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec
None of the codecs code in Linux was written by Microsoft:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libavcodec
Edited 2009-04-29 10:54 UTC
Member since:
2006-12-28
I'm very much in agreement with your sentiments there, Thom, and will be keeping close watch on what the OIN does in the future. For me, actions like this embody the spirit of the FLOSS community.
US software patents are slowing down innovation and there is more than ample evidence for that statement on this site alone. Anything at all that can be done to stop companies from using them to sue and/or muscle out competitors is in my eyes very positive.
The thing is, Microsoft is far from the only culprit. I know that IBM are signing over patents to the OIN, but to me they are still the US's largest software patent troll. The day IBM kicks it's patent based racketeering is the day I will consider the OIN to have done it's job.
Member since:
2006-02-21
Patents 5579517 and 5758352 were challenged earlier this decade by the Public Patent Foundation. PUBPAT won the initial case, but Microsoft won the patents back on appeal. Did the OIN find additional prior art, because if they didn't, the fate will probably be the same as before, with those two patents being upheld. I don't think they changed the patent reexamination process, so it will still be weighted on the side of Microsoft, plus they'll need new evidence if they don't want it dismissed out of hand.
Member since:2006-02-21
Link to prior decision on patents... http://news.cnet.com/Microsofts-file-system-patent-upheld/2100-1012...
Member since:2007-02-17
Groklaw has quite a few articles about this on its patents page:
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20050402193202442
AFAIK, this doesn't amount to a "case". There was a dispute raised by PUBPAT to the USPTO about the validity of the Microsoft FAT-LFN patents, on the grounds that the concepts therein were obvious and not innovative at all. This objection was initially upheld, Microsoft appealed, USPTO reinstated the grant of patent.
This has all be decided, so far, by patent examiners. That is a long way off having the patent challenged and validated (or invalidated) in a court.
The post above has kindly provided a link to an article.
A quote from there:
It does not say "a judge has decided". This is like the USPTO saying "yeah, we were right all along, so we get to keep our fee for Microsoft's patent application".
It would appear that the OIN, in frustration at the USPTO re-instating such ludicrous patents, is now gathering evidence to legally challenge these patents. They appear this time around to be going for a argument based on "prior art" in addition to their previous argument of "obvious" and "not innovative".
If this comes before a real court, in light of the recent in-re Bilski decision, there is an excellent chance these patents would be toast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski
In light of this decision, more recent patent applications for "computer implemented inventions" have not been granted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilski#Impact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_implemented_inventions
Even if the OIN comes up with no further strength to its "obviousness" argument, and it cannot find any valid prior art, even then there is a good chance to get these patents dismissed in light of the in-re Bilski decision.
Caveat: IANAL. My argument above depends on logic, so it may be inapplicable to "legal" rea$oning.
Edited 2009-04-29 11:50 UTC
Member since:
2007-02-17
It looks like the OIN is constraining itself to work with the USPTO, and is not considering a full legal challenge at this point.
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS9914086320.html
So the OIN is seeking instances of prior art to add to its previous argument of obviousness. The OIN is asking for help from the Linux community in this matter.
Groklaw has an article on how people might be able to help this effort:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090429183737328
