Motivation of FS contributors
steve at pearwood.info
Wed Aug 4 00:22:23 CEST 2010
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.
> 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".
More information about the Gpc