Get three services for $100/mo
September 20, 2007 6:15 AM PDT
Gauging Microsoft threat to Europe's Linux users
- Related Stories
-
Novell joins EFF for patent reform
May 23, 2007 -
Experts say Microsoft's patent quest won't go far
May 16, 2007 -
Microsoft agitates for open-source patent pacts
May 14, 2007 -
Report: Microsoft says open source violates 235 patents
May 13, 2007 -
Microsoft, Samsung in patent swap deal
April 18, 2007 -
Microsoft inks patent deal with Fuji Xerox
March 21, 2007 -
Microsoft, Novell talk up 'meat' of technical collaboration
February 12, 2007 -
Microsoft has OS patents; Linux has none
December 4, 2006 - Related Blogs
-
Red Hat discussed patents with Microsoft...this is news?
June 28, 2007 -
News flash: Novell doesn't want to be SCO - who knew?
August 15, 2007
Microsoft has claimed that Linux and other open-source software infringes 235 of its patents. Although the company has refused to say which patents are involved, the risk must be lower in the U.K. than in the U.S. because the company has far fewer patents in the U.K., Andrew Katz, a solicitor at Moorcrofts Corporate Law, argued last week.
However, Microsoft does have more patents affecting the U.K. than the 51 U.K. patent applications Katz quoted, because Redmond also has a few hundred European patents that might have force here, depending on the decisions of U.K. courts, said David Pearce, an associate at Nottingham-based patent attorneys Eric Potter Clarkson, on the IPKat blog.
Katz points out, though, that "even if 400 (patents) apply in the U.K., this is a vastly smaller number than the amount that apply in the U.S. It demonstrates that the U.K. regime is vastly different to the U.S. regime, which is the main point that needs to be drawn out."
According to Katz, the European Patent Office has granted 431 patents to Microsoft, out of 4,341 applications. More than 7,000 patents have been granted to Microsoft in the U.S.
European patents are more attractive than U.K. patents, explained Pearce. "For obvious reasons, and not just those relating to cost, most big companies nowadays much prefer to prosecute their patent applications before the European Patent Office rather than the U.K. Intellectual Property Office."
Of Microsoft's 431 European patents, many will be irrelevant to the Linux case because they deal with hardware issues such as mice.
"In a very brief and nonscientific scan of the 51 applications made through the U.K. patent office, the proportion of patents which were hardware-related seemed significantly higher than a quick, random sample of (Microsoft's) U.S. patents," said Katz.
Europe's stance against software patents is not as firm as Katz said, according to Pearce. "Europe does indeed 'do' software patents, and has done for many years," he said.
Since 1999, patents have been issued for computer program products according to complex criteria. "(It) depends on something to do with a 'technical effect'--that is, an effect beyond that of a mere computer program," Pearce explained. "This is easier to understand when computers are used to control industrial processes, but less so when applied to general-purpose computer applications."
These criteria are just "loopholes" by which patent agents try to get around a European statutory exclusion for the patentability of computer software, Pearce said. The European Patent Convention and the United Kingdom Patents Act "make it clear that computer software 'as such' is not patentable. This obviously generates a lot of debate as to what 'as such' means."
If its Linux patents are legal in the U.K., Microsoft would have to sue for "indirect infringement"--a supplier of computer programs providing the means to put Microsoft's invention into effect--rather than "direct infringement"--a supplier providing infringing computer programs.
"The difference is one of level and burden of proof, and effectively makes it harder to enforce the relevant patents," said Pearce. "The patents would not, however, necessarily be invalid as a whole, just in part. This would not prevent Microsoft from suing anyone--just make it a bit harder for them to win."
So both Katz and Pearce agree that Microsoft is much less likely to bring any patent infringement cases against open-source users in the U.K. The U.K. Intellectual Property Office doesn't grant computer program patents anymore--ever since two recent applications (submitted by Aerotel Medical Systems) were rejected.
However, the status of patents already in existence is not clear without more case law, said Pearce.
Peter Judge of ZDNet UK reported from London.
See more CNET content tagged:
patent,
U.K.,
Europe,
Linux,
open-source software
source adoption.
MS doesn't want to reveal what patents it feels are in violation
because they know that the community will circumvent them very
quickly and negate their arguments for adoption.
I don't think M$ will be able to collect $200 from me.
From what I've read, Germany has a "put up or shut up" law. If you claim someone is violating your patents, you have to lay out the proof.
Out of fear that someone might get their lousy OS for free, they've made it so much worse that "free" is the only thing it's worth.
I truly believe that Microsofts, alleged, "235 patents" (which are supposedly "...infringed by Linux") are not being detailed, and acted-upon, at this time... ONLY because the new "patent reform legislation"...
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9746705-7.html?tag=tb
...hasnt, yet, actually been fully-passed, and enacted.
First, you really need to understand that Microsoft files, literally, thousands of software-patents a year (many of which are highly-questionable). And you also need to realize that Microsoft is the largest supporter of the newest "First to File" based "patent reform" measure (currently making it way through the Federal Legislature). Frankly, if Microsoft tried to enforce its, highly-questionable, vaporous-patents, at this time, I truly believe that most would, undoubtedly, easily be shown to be "invalid" due to the "obvious nature" of many of them, not to mention the bombshell that "Prior Art" would undoubtedly wreak upon Microsofts American patent-portfolio.
However, once these, heavily-lobbied-by-Microsoft, "new" patent-laws actually go into effect... I fear that Microsoft will be in a far, far, stronger position to hold onto such shady-patents, and be further empowered to pursue a relentless litigation-threat campaign against Microsofts top "competitive-threats"... including, "Linux".
And when they [Microsoft] do finally have everything they want, Microsoft WILL use these, much-harder to invalidate, "patents" as a perpetual weapon against any potential-competition.
I honestly believe that is, exactly, why Microsoft files so many "fluff" patents (and is pushing this particular "patent reform") so hard, in the first place. This is also why, I think, that several of the more obvious Microsoft-shills are exhibiting so much confidence about "Microsofts patents" being effectively used against "Open Source". They [the shills] know about (or, at least have an inkling of) Microsofts latest FUD and market-manipulation strategy.
So, I would say the "threat to Linux" is, unfortunately, very real.
Pure speculation on my part, I'm no lawyer, but it seems obvious to me (note: if you came to the same conclusion, I posted it first and you are subject to paying me royalties in perpetuity for my patentable idea). Blaaaahhh!