Comments on: Microsoft Wants to Have Its Cake and Eat It Too http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: eee_eff http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/comment-page-1/#comment-45565 eee_eff Sat, 02 Jun 2007 17:54:16 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/#comment-45565 <p><i>Now, the fundamental problem that allegedly needs solving is that consumers are afraid Microsoft might sue them for patent infringement. There are two ways that this problem could be solved. One way is the one Microsoft has chosen: use legal uncertainty fear as a way to extort money from “partners” who are unlucky enough not to have significant patent portfolios. This has the disadvantage of being blatantly contrary to the spirit of GPL v. 2 and the letter of GPL v. 3, and risks turning the firm on the open source end of the bargain into a pariah in the open source community.</i><br><i>The other is the approach that IBM, Red Hat, and a lot of other firms have taken: simply promise not to sue users of open source software. That doesn’t require any legal trickery, it doesn’t piss anyone off, and it solves the supposed “problem” Gutierrez has identified of IP issues getting in the way of interoperability.</i><br><br>Well here's a hypothetical that Microsoft should have considered, before it embarked on this strategy: if you are a big company that uses a lot of software, who would you like to come out on top, open source or Microsoft?<br><br>It is the consistent inability to see itself as an agent supplying something that a customer actually wants, rather than as the owner of a mine from which to extract monopoly rents, that will eventually do-in MS.</p> Now, the fundamental problem that allegedly needs solving is that consumers are afraid Microsoft might sue them for patent infringement. There are two ways that this problem could be solved. One way is the one Microsoft has chosen: use legal uncertainty fear as a way to extort money from “partners” who are unlucky enough not to have significant patent portfolios. This has the disadvantage of being blatantly contrary to the spirit of GPL v. 2 and the letter of GPL v. 3, and risks turning the firm on the open source end of the bargain into a pariah in the open source community.
The other is the approach that IBM, Red Hat, and a lot of other firms have taken: simply promise not to sue users of open source software. That doesn’t require any legal trickery, it doesn’t piss anyone off, and it solves the supposed “problem” Gutierrez has identified of IP issues getting in the way of interoperability.

Well here’s a hypothetical that Microsoft should have considered, before it embarked on this strategy: if you are a big company that uses a lot of software, who would you like to come out on top, open source or Microsoft?

It is the consistent inability to see itself as an agent supplying something that a customer actually wants, rather than as the owner of a mine from which to extract monopoly rents, that will eventually do-in MS.

]]> By: enigma_foundry http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/comment-page-1/#comment-38426 enigma_foundry Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:54:16 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/#comment-38426 <p><i>Now, the fundamental problem that allegedly needs solving is that consumers are afraid Microsoft might sue them for patent infringement. There are two ways that this problem could be solved. One way is the one Microsoft has chosen: use legal uncertainty fear as a way to extort money from “partners” who are unlucky enough not to have significant patent portfolios. This has the disadvantage of being blatantly contrary to the spirit of GPL v. 2 and the letter of GPL v. 3, and risks turning the firm on the open source end of the bargain into a pariah in the open source community.</i></p> <p><i>The other is the approach that IBM, Red Hat, and a lot of other firms have taken: simply promise not to sue users of open source software. That doesn’t require any legal trickery, it doesn’t piss anyone off, and it solves the supposed “problem” Gutierrez has identified of IP issues getting in the way of interoperability.</i></p> <p>Well here's a hypothetical that Microsoft should have considered, before it embarked on this strategy: if you are a big company that uses a lot of software, who would you like to come out on top, open source or Microsoft?</p> <p>It is the consistent inability to see itself as an agent supplying something that a customer actually wants, rather than as the owner of a mine from which to extract monopoly rents, that will eventually do-in MS.</p> Now, the fundamental problem that allegedly needs solving is that consumers are afraid Microsoft might sue them for patent infringement. There are two ways that this problem could be solved. One way is the one Microsoft has chosen: use legal uncertainty fear as a way to extort money from “partners” who are unlucky enough not to have significant patent portfolios. This has the disadvantage of being blatantly contrary to the spirit of GPL v. 2 and the letter of GPL v. 3, and risks turning the firm on the open source end of the bargain into a pariah in the open source community.

The other is the approach that IBM, Red Hat, and a lot of other firms have taken: simply promise not to sue users of open source software. That doesn’t require any legal trickery, it doesn’t piss anyone off, and it solves the supposed “problem” Gutierrez has identified of IP issues getting in the way of interoperability.

Well here’s a hypothetical that Microsoft should have considered, before it embarked on this strategy: if you are a big company that uses a lot of software, who would you like to come out on top, open source or Microsoft?

It is the consistent inability to see itself as an agent supplying something that a customer actually wants, rather than as the owner of a mine from which to extract monopoly rents, that will eventually do-in MS.

]]> By: Luis Villa http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/comment-page-1/#comment-45562 Luis Villa Sat, 02 Jun 2007 06:32:30 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/#comment-45562 <p>GPL apps cannot link against the Fluendo plugins; they have to be GPL + a special exception which allows the linking to the binary plugins (which are binary because of the patents.)</p> GPL apps cannot link against the Fluendo plugins; they have to be GPL + a special exception which allows the linking to the binary plugins (which are binary because of the patents.)

]]> By: Luis Villa http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/comment-page-1/#comment-38425 Luis Villa Sat, 02 Jun 2007 05:32:30 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/#comment-38425 <p>GPL apps cannot link against the Fluendo plugins; they have to be GPL + a special exception which allows the linking to the binary plugins (which are binary because of the patents.)</p> GPL apps cannot link against the Fluendo plugins; they have to be GPL + a special exception which allows the linking to the binary plugins (which are binary because of the patents.)

]]> By: Don Marti http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/comment-page-1/#comment-45561 Don Marti Sat, 02 Jun 2007 04:21:08 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/#comment-45561 <p>Tim, look at the Gstreamer/Fluendo interface. The patented stuff is broken out into plugins and the framework is LGPL. Some applications that use Gstreamer are GPL.<br><br></p> <p>Open source developers tend to be good at working out the necessary interfaces to integrate with the patented stuff. Another good example: the "Personal Security Manager" for Mozilla, before the RSA patent expired.</p> Tim, look at the Gstreamer/Fluendo interface. The patented stuff is broken out into plugins and the framework is LGPL. Some applications that use Gstreamer are GPL.

Open source developers tend to be good at working out the necessary interfaces to integrate with the patented stuff. Another good example: the “Personal Security Manager” for Mozilla, before the RSA patent expired.

]]> By: Don Marti http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/comment-page-1/#comment-38424 Don Marti Sat, 02 Jun 2007 03:21:08 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/#comment-38424 <p>Tim, look at the Gstreamer/Fluendo interface. The patented stuff is broken out into plugins and the framework is LGPL. Some applications that use Gstreamer are GPL.</p> <p>Open source developers tend to be good at working out the necessary interfaces to integrate with the patented stuff. Another good example: the "Personal Security Manager" for Mozilla, before the RSA patent expired.</p> Tim, look at the Gstreamer/Fluendo interface. The patented stuff is broken out into plugins and the framework is LGPL. Some applications that use Gstreamer are GPL.

Open source developers tend to be good at working out the necessary interfaces to integrate with the patented stuff. Another good example: the “Personal Security Manager” for Mozilla, before the RSA patent expired.

]]> By: Tim Lee http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/comment-page-1/#comment-45559 Tim Lee Fri, 01 Jun 2007 21:00:16 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/#comment-45559 <p>Don, wouldn't licensing a patent portfolio be a violation of the GPL? I know you can offer a proprietary MP3 player that runs on Linux, but if you had a GPLed MP3 player, wouldn't the GPL preclude the kind of per-copy license that patent holders most often demand?</p> Don, wouldn’t licensing a patent portfolio be a violation of the GPL? I know you can offer a proprietary MP3 player that runs on Linux, but if you had a GPLed MP3 player, wouldn’t the GPL preclude the kind of per-copy license that patent holders most often demand?

]]> By: Luis Villa http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/comment-page-1/#comment-45558 Luis Villa Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:47:07 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/#comment-45558 <p>Well said, Tim. I might add that this is a big business opportunity for Microsoft, if it actually wanted to compete. Sales of Exchange on a Linux server backend, or Office on a Linux client, would easily exceed their meager licensing revenue. They have the choice to do that sort of thing- we're not forcing them to isolate themselves.</p> Well said, Tim. I might add that this is a big business opportunity for Microsoft, if it actually wanted to compete. Sales of Exchange on a Linux server backend, or Office on a Linux client, would easily exceed their meager licensing revenue. They have the choice to do that sort of thing- we’re not forcing them to isolate themselves.

]]> By: Don Marti http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/comment-page-1/#comment-45555 Don Marti Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:09:34 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/#comment-45555 <p>Don't forget the more common approach taken by, for example, companies that hold MPEG-related patents. The normal approach is actually to let people know what the patent portfolio is, so that those who want to license the patents, or figure out how to interoperate with the patents from open source software, can do so (see <a href="http://fluendo.com">fluendo.com</a> for how to make patented codecs work in open source media apps).<br><br></p> <p>The current Microsoft approach goes beyond what other patent holders typically do in two ways: first, threatening customers; and second, licensing "intellectual property safety" instead of a patent portfolio.</p> Don’t forget the more common approach taken by, for example, companies that hold MPEG-related patents. The normal approach is actually to let people know what the patent portfolio is, so that those who want to license the patents, or figure out how to interoperate with the patents from open source software, can do so (see fluendo.com for how to make patented codecs work in open source media apps).

The current Microsoft approach goes beyond what other patent holders typically do in two ways: first, threatening customers; and second, licensing “intellectual property safety” instead of a patent portfolio.

]]> By: Tim Lee http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/comment-page-1/#comment-38423 Tim Lee Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:00:16 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/#comment-38423 <p>Don, wouldn't licensing a patent portfolio be a violation of the GPL? I know you can offer a proprietary MP3 player that runs on Linux, but if you had a GPLed MP3 player, wouldn't the GPL preclude the kind of per-copy license that patent holders most often demand?</p> Don, wouldn’t licensing a patent portfolio be a violation of the GPL? I know you can offer a proprietary MP3 player that runs on Linux, but if you had a GPLed MP3 player, wouldn’t the GPL preclude the kind of per-copy license that patent holders most often demand?

]]> By: Luis Villa http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/comment-page-1/#comment-38422 Luis Villa Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:47:07 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/#comment-38422 <p>Well said, Tim. I might add that this is a big business opportunity for Microsoft, if it actually wanted to compete. Sales of Exchange on a Linux server backend, or Office on a Linux client, would easily exceed their meager licensing revenue. They have the choice to do that sort of thing- we're not forcing them to isolate themselves.</p> Well said, Tim. I might add that this is a big business opportunity for Microsoft, if it actually wanted to compete. Sales of Exchange on a Linux server backend, or Office on a Linux client, would easily exceed their meager licensing revenue. They have the choice to do that sort of thing- we’re not forcing them to isolate themselves.

]]> By: Don Marti http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/comment-page-1/#comment-38421 Don Marti Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:09:34 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/01/microsoft-wants-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it-too/#comment-38421 <p>Don't forget the more common approach taken by, for example, companies that hold MPEG-related patents. The normal approach is actually to let people know what the patent portfolio is, so that those who want to license the patents, or figure out how to interoperate with the patents from open source software, can do so (see fluendo.com for how to make patented codecs work in open source media apps).</p> <p>The current Microsoft approach goes beyond what other patent holders typically do in two ways: first, threatening customers; and second, licensing "intellectual property safety" instead of a patent portfolio.</p> Don’t forget the more common approach taken by, for example, companies that hold MPEG-related patents. The normal approach is actually to let people know what the patent portfolio is, so that those who want to license the patents, or figure out how to interoperate with the patents from open source software, can do so (see fluendo.com for how to make patented codecs work in open source media apps).

The current Microsoft approach goes beyond what other patent holders typically do in two ways: first, threatening customers; and second, licensing “intellectual property safety” instead of a patent portfolio.

]]>