
Microsoft Joins the Open Invention Network - MikusR
https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/10/10/1619375/0/en/Microsoft-Joins-the-Open-Invention-Network-Community.html
======
deknos
So, if \- microsoft de-debts every developer which got into financial trouble
like perhaps with US 6041345 and

\- i as an independent developer who only publishes code under bsd-2-clause-
license or agpl3+ or Apache or MIT-license

\- can reimplement

\- (arbitrarily big parts of)

\- Active Directory, VFAT, FAT, NTFS, MTP, RDP so my application can interact
with it, not only from Windows, but from Linux or BSD also

\- and i do not have to be in the OIN club, because i have no money for it or
i even do not know about it

\- then i will believe this move is sincere.

Is there already a complete free C#-Compiler available for posix systems,
which can be recompiled without non-free parts from microsoft?

Will their office suite in the future really support an open data standard
like ODF? because they kind of ditched their own standard.

With Active Directory and Windows, they keep people from really switching to
open source on the desktop. and they know it. And of course, THAT part is
exempted from their OIN-Initiave.

I would like to have meaningful examples what they opensourced, what they do
not primarily need for cloud, but what benefits open source in general, like
on the desktop or office applications.

But i have to admit, i am really starting to hope, microsoft is only a normal
company, not especially opensource-hating-one anymore. could be. time will
tell. would be nice. Really _hereIsMeHoping_

~~~
oropolo
> Is there already a complete free C#-Compiler available for posix systems,
> which can be recompiled without non-free parts from microsoft

Is the Apache 2 licensed Roslyn compiler not free enough for you?
[https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn](https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn)

~~~
jpic
I feel so much compassion for the developers of Roslyn, that were dictated to
"re-implement the bugs from the proprietary version in the open source
version".

~~~
breakingcups
Can you provide a source for that? I'm interested in learning what kind of
bugs would need to be re-implemented.

~~~
scw
Check out: [https://medium.com/microsoft-open-source-stories/how-
microso...](https://medium.com/microsoft-open-source-stories/how-microsoft-
rewrote-its-c-compiler-in-c-and-made-it-open-source-4ebed5646f98)

------
dschuetz
It's a quite interesting move actually. It indicates undoubtedly that
Microsoft's business model also radically shifted away from selling software
to selling hardware, subscription services and user data & analytics. It's not
surprising now that Microsoft doesn't plan to make money off patents. So they
make that huge OIN move to promote themselves as a big OSS supporter. That's
quite a PR move, I'd say, a nice one though.

~~~
S-E-P
Well while I mostly agree, I think it is important to note that it seems they
are going for more of a SAAS approach. With Office and Azure, etc.

They are more into the service industry now than they've ever been in the
past. This move was them realizing that OSS is just a really good way to
improve software for cheap.

I doubt this will have lasting effects as I have yet to see them actually open
source anything that I would consider special.

~~~
mr_overalls
> I have yet to see them actually open source anything that I would consider
> special.

It looks like they have open sourced a number of .NET components: CoreFX -
Core foundational libraries, CoreCLR - runtime, Roslyn - compiler.

As well as PowerShell, VS Code, Typescript, ASP.NET Core, MVC, Blazor, F#, Z3
Theorem Prover, etc.

And that's from just the first few pages of their Open Source page:
[https://opensource.microsoft.com/](https://opensource.microsoft.com/)

------
hardwaresofton
If the companies in OIN really wanted to help stop misuse of software patents
why not just donate the patents to the public domain? The OIN itself seems to
be either a patent cartel or a distraction.

> “Microsoft’s participation in OIN adds to our strong community, which
> through its breadth and depth has reduced patent risk in core technologies,
> and unequivocally signals for all companies who are using OSS but have yet
> to join OIN that the litmus test for authentic behavior in the OSS community
> includes OIN participation.”

Companies are the ones _creating_ patent risk by using the patent system to
attack others. If you want to keep your secret sauce secret, then use trade
secrets. They've basically signed non-agression pacts _with themselves_. Open
Source has nothing to do with this outside of projects that dual license
(which basically means that the code is _not_ F/OSS).

> “Microsoft sees open source as a key innovation engine, and for the past
> several years we have increased our involvement in, and contributions to,
> the open source community,” said Erich Andersen, Corporate Vice President
> and Chief IP Counsel

Yeah, that sounds like "microsoft sees the value in leveraging the free time
of thousands of developers as we can rope them in, now that many other
companies have forged the way while directly trying not to be crushed by us".

> Funded by Google, IBM, NEC, Philips, Red Hat, Sony, SUSE, and Toyota, OIN
> has more than 2,650 community members and owns more than 1,300 global
> patents and applications.

Yeah, somehow none of those companies strike as companies that want patent
wars to actually end.

More optimistically, maybe this is a step in the right direction, a few steps
before software patents are abolished all together.

~~~
seventhtiger
That's not a fair assessment, specifically towards open source in Microsoft.
Big closed-source corps, such as Microsoft, are often the biggest contributors
to the open source projects they use.

The free time of thousands of developers is not as efficient as a team of
developers working full time under a PM. That's why I think it's really
counter-productive when we call out those companies who are top contributors.
We should recognize good when we see it and encourage more of it.

~~~
hardwaresofton
Cool, are we just ignoring all the anti-competitive things Microsoft and some
of these other corps have done in the past? What about the time they sued
TomTom[0]? What about the paper that was written detailing other such
action[1]?

I'm all for forgiveness but I won't forget. Microsoft wanted Linux and any
ostensibly open source dead, as you would expect from a corporation which has
a horse in the software patents rat race and a moat to protect. If they want
good will, they should release their patents into the public domain, even
someone like me can't possibly ignore that kind of move.

I can recognize the fact that Microsoft has done a bunch for open source, but
do you think that's proportional to how much they've gained from it? In the
end a company is made of people, and maybe the people in Microsoft have
changed and the culture is changing but Microsoft the entity/business isn't my
friend/ally (as much of a corporation can be). It would be great if they've
turned over a new leaf but I'm not going to hold my breath.

I might be too harsh, but that doesn't change the point -- if they wanted to
get rid of patent wars, they'd just release the patents/start hunting patent
trolls/lobby for abolishing software patents all together. I'll say it again,
this is either a patent cartel, or a distraction -- I'd love to be proven
wrong.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._TomTom_Inc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._TomTom_Inc).

[1]:
[http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepape...](http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf)

~~~
prajaybasu
TomTom is a member of the OIN, and it probably will not be required to pay the
FAT32 IP licensing fees now that Microsoft has joined them.

It seems like Microsoft can do nothing to please you. But this is huge for the
OIN and its members.

~~~
hardwaresofton
I'm willing to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt, but the bar is higher.

At this point I can't tell who is being unreasonable anymore -- this is
exactly how cartels work, join/cooperate or face consequences. TomTom _paid_
licensing fees in 2009 -- they lost that fight with Microsoft... When
Microsoft joined OIN, did it return the licensing money TomTom paid adjusted
for inflation?

Again, I'm capable of looking at this optimistically -- this move is better
than the status quo, but it is not enough to budge my skepticism given the
damage done over the years by Microsoft.

------
apotheon
For the last half-dozen years (give or take), I've been flabbergasted that MS
has taken some of the steps it has toward being a better technology neighbor.
Even so, it still engages in some very sketchy (even "evil") behavior, as all
publicly traded corporations do, and some of that behavior is very reminiscent
of the bad old days of Microsoft (though living up to the evils of the Ballmer
age is probably not even visible from where MS is now).

Over the last couple years, I see people having completely ignored the fact
that Microsoft still pulls a lot of bad shit. Because the change has been so
drastic, people seem entirely willing to overlook the horrors still in play.
Sure, Oracle seems more evil than Microsoft these days, but that's a pretty
damned low bar for someone to suddenly forgive Microsoft and start singing its
praises. I'm a bit more cynical than that. Show me an open source MS-DOS 5.0
at least; MS-DOS 2.0 is nothing but a mostly-pointless curiosity and PR stunt.
Show me a covenant to never sue anyone for patent infringement, regardless of
OIN membership, unless that other party sued MS for patent infringement first.
Show me opt-in telemetry instead of opt-out; never opt-out instead of opt-in,
for any software at all. We need more.

I've been disappointed that people were so ready to forgive MS not only for
the perfidies of the past, but the ongoing bad behavior of the present, too.
I'm happy to see there are still people skeptical of Microsoft's current state
of reform here on HN. Yes, I am willing to believe MS is better than it was,
and is better in some respects than Google and Apple now (which are just
atrocious), but that doesn't mean I'm willing to give MS any support for
anything that isn't completely free and clear in its licensing.

DOS 2.0? .NET Core? PowerShell? Sure, I am happy with the direction Microsoft
has taken with those, but I'm not 100% sure I can legally trust them outside
of a Linux context, given how the OIN somehow abandoned the pretense of just
being about openness and doubled down on being about Linux specifically. What
kind of insanity might creep into GitHub now? How dangerous would it still be
to use Windows? No thanks, I'll put my time and trust elsewhere, same as with
how I treat Apple, Facebook, Google, and Oracle. I can't trust any of them,
and you shouldn't either.

~~~
neolefty
> ... Microsoft still pulls a lot of bad shit.

Specific examples?

~~~
chithanh
> Specific examples?

Microsoft should come clean, admit their wrongdoings and recant doing from the
following unethical practices:

1\. Bullying the competition with software patents

2\. Hijacking the ISO standardization process when they pushed through their
OOXML specification

3\. Having a man sent to prison for making Windows Restore DVDs from ISO
images that you could download freely from the Internet

4\. Lobbying lawmakers to block laws which promote open standards and free
software for use in the government

5\. Preventing users from running their own software using draconian DRM on
closed devices (Windows 10 Mobile and S)

6\. Enacting restrictive Marketplace policies against GPL-3 software

7\. Launching misinformation campaigns ("Get the facts" etc.), Astroturfing
and other ways of spreading lies, especially against Linux

So now they basically stopped #1 after already having more or less stopped #7,
and while technically still on sale, the market laughed them out of #5. But
they have still not owned up on anything, so someone mistrusting might think
they could start at any time again.

~~~
tw04
>3\. Having a man sent to prison for making Windows Restore DVDs from ISO
images that you could download freely from the Internet

Please stop parroting that non-sense. They didn't even bring the case against
him, US Customs did. He was also warned more than once by Customs to stop, and
he didn't.

[https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/04/27/the-
fac...](https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/04/27/the-facts-about-
a-recent-counterfeiting-case-brought-by-the-u-s-government/)

~~~
chithanh
> Please stop parroting that non-sense.

Please stop the Microsoft apologism.

It is not nonsense. Microsoft testified against the man in court. They wanted
him to go to prison.

And yes, what they did is lie to the court in order to achieve that goal. The
sentencing is based on Microsoft testimony.

Louis Rossmann has some choice words for Microsoft:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaoJErxYLtM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaoJErxYLtM)

~~~
tw04
>It is not nonsense. Microsoft testified against the man in court. They wanted
him to go to prison.

He was selling counterfeit disks as genuine. Was warned to stop, and didn't.
You either haven't bothered to read the link provided, any of the court
rulings (it was upheld on appeal), or you're just such an MS hater you're
going to deny reality.

Either way, when there are literally email threads of him trying to sell disks
to computer refurbishers as "genuine" and being called out for them being
counterfeit, you're not going to convince me he was the innocent victim he's
claiming to be.

I'm just going to assume I'm correct in you not reading any of the links
provided, and I'll leave this here:
[https://blogs.microsoft.com/uploads/prod/sites/5/2018/04/Ema...](https://blogs.microsoft.com/uploads/prod/sites/5/2018/04/Email_image3.png)

And if you want to "prove" that MS is in the wrong, I'd suggest you link to a
lawyer disputing the results of the case. Not a guy who fixes laptops for a
living.

~~~
cyphar
> He was selling counterfeit disks as genuine.

While this is technically an accurate statement, it sounds like he was selling
counterfeit Windows CDs (that Microsoft sold). In fact, he sold bit-for-bit
copies of Windows restore CDs that you can get from Microsoft or Dell for free
online -- Microsoft claim in the blog you posted that they sold it for $25 but
that is not true (they sold CDs with Windows licenses for that much, and you
needed a Windows license to use the restore CD -- so you can arithmetically
conclude they are worth $0). The court and court of appeal disagree with that
point for two reasons:

1\. Microsoft's expert witness claimed that you could use most of Windows with
the restore CD image. This ignores the fact that you can download a trial
image of Windows for free, or install Windows on many machines without a
licence key and have it mostly work in the same way. It also ignores that such
a system mostly working is entirely the fault of Microsoft, by their own
admission, because they wrote earlier versions of Windows to only nag you for
a licence -- and the 30-day free trial was actually perpetual (like WinZip,
funnily enough).

2\. It is difficult to believe that the defendants would spend tens of
thousands of dollars to manufacture disks that are worthless -- though this is
said as an aside. This ignores the fact they sold them because they knew there
was a need for them, and so the value of the disks was the market value and
not any intrinsic value that Microsoft claims they had. I don't buy his "just
wanted to help people find the discs" comments, but I don't agree that he made
them because he believed they had an objective worth of at least $25. Because
he downloaded the images for free.

Obviously I disagree with their views, but more importantly the court claims
their worth _entirely_ on Microsoft's expert testimony. It's quite clear they
wanted to

Microsoft claims that the _software_ is counterfeit in their blog post you
linked, which is not physically possible since it's a bit-for-bit copy. Not to
mention that the court decision says that they distributed unauthorized copies
of copyrighted software, which is not the same as what Microsoft said (the
court effectively found that the disks were identical copies).

The key issue IMHO was that the CDs he sold had the Microsoft logo screen-
printed on it in an attempt to make his customers' customers not think that
the CDs were counterfeit (even though the software was not counterfeit -- it
was an unauthorized copy). Obviously this was a stupid (and as the court case
proved, illegal) thing to do, because it is obvious proof of him trying to to
deceive people. That was obviously illegal and unethical, not to mention
selling unauthorized copies of copyrighted software.

> Not a guy who fixes laptops for a living.

Bit of an odd stance from someone who is just posting links to Microsoft's
view on the case, which is obviously going to be in favour of the decision
(and as above possibly incorrect).

Louis has his biases, sure, but in his interview with the guy it was quite
clear (to me at least) that he had an issue with the key point of the case --
that he actually sold discs with a Microsoft logo on them that were not made
by Microsoft, and claimed they were genuine. He also admitted his initial
video about the topic was not accurate because he wasn't aware of all the
facts, and instead focused entirely on the valuation argument in the case.

~~~
tw04
>Bit of an odd stance from someone who is just posting links to Microsoft's
view on the case, which is obviously going to be in favour of the decision
(and as above possibly incorrect).

How so? I posted a link to Microsoft's legal counsel stating their case. I've
yet to see any third party lawyer make a claim otherwise. If you want to
dispute a lawyer and the justice department and their take on the law, the
very least you (op) can do is provide a reference to an opinion from another
lawyer.

~~~
cyphar
Just as an aside, it isn't their case (you said so yourself). But I'll move
on.

> If you want to dispute a lawyer and the justice department and their take on
> the law,

I'm not disputing the law, I'm disputing the facts presented and the
conclusions drawn based on said facts. Given that you and I are technically
inclined enough to understand what a Windows restore CD is and what
restrictions it places, this means that we are in a position to be able to
discuss the facts of the case and whether they pass muster.

In the previous comment, I explain in some detail what aspect of the facts I
disagree with as well as referencing parts of both the decision and the appeal
(from the link you posted). The conclusions made by the judges are clearly
based on the facts presented by Microsoft, and so discussing whether those
facts are actually true is a completely valid thing to do.

And finally, I don't disagree with the court that he broke the law nor do I
disagree that he should be punished. I just disagree with several of the
statements Microsoft made (in my opinion, in bad faith) related to the case --
and the valuation statement is particularly shady because it is simply and
provably _untrue_. The reason why the judges explicitly decided that
Microsoft's expert witness was more credible than the defendant's expert
witness is not something I know -- but it doesn't mean that they were correct
to do so.

------
mmastrac
Microsoft's Android patent shakedown was the big thing that kept me from
believing the company had really changed - I think I'm ready to consider that
it really has changed now.

~~~
alimbada
They started changing for the better as soon as they got rid of Ballmer in my
opinion. He was toxic for the company and for the industry as a whole. It's
taken a few years, but I don't think there's much of the "old" MS left anymore
in terms of business practices and ethics.

~~~
Isamu
Not just getting rid of Ballmer, but promoting Nadella to the job. That pick
was the turning point.

~~~
DonHopkins
Interesting... I don't know much about him.

Wikipedia mentions briefly that he worked at Sun. What did he do there, for
how long, with whom, and how did that influence his time at Microsoft?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satya_Nadella](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satya_Nadella)

~~~
Isamu
I haven't read it but apparently he published an autobiographical book last
year:

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30835567-hit-
refresh](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30835567-hit-refresh)

[https://medium.com/@xaviergeerinck/my-key-take-aways-from-
re...](https://medium.com/@xaviergeerinck/my-key-take-aways-from-reading-
satya-nadellas-book-hit-refresh-6c2f07893d5c)

~~~
DonHopkins
That's a great article by Xavier Geerinck.

The part about leaders generating energy is interesting.

I wonder what he thought about Scott McNealy's attempts at generating energy
by trying to make Microsoft out to be the great enemy of humanity that Sun was
going to vanquish, which I though fell flat because you should never let
yourself be defined simply in terms of opposition to someone else. When Sun
Microsystems fell apart into several different companies, he even named one of
them "SunSoft" in opposition to "Microsoft".

You've got to have something of your own to be energetic about, without
needing an enemy to fight against. For so many years, Java was first and
foremost simply a weapon in Sun's arsenal for their much bigger purpose, the
raging war against Microsoft. They actually weaponized a programming language,
and that was a higher priority than any other consideration. They wasted all
that energy they generated around Java in a war overseas, instead of building
infrastructure at home.

------
GiorgioG
All the more reason to move from Oracle's Java to MS's .NET Core. They're not
the big bad evil company they once were (they can't afford to be today.)

~~~
oblio
They're slightly less evil than they were, but they're still a company. To
quote Brian Cantrill, they're still a lawnmower and will chop your arm off if
you put it in the wrong place, without any hard feelings.

I agree with you that they can't afford to be super evil, because they're not
the only big fish anymore. They're actually not even the biggest one.

I think it's a bit too early to decide if Java or .Net Core is better placed
for the future, though.

~~~
mey
Your post makes me think you read that statement backwards. (The lawnmower
comment is from an oracle talk, etc) It's proposing to move to .net from Java.

With recent licensing changes to Java and microsoft's recent good behavior I
have considered it myself.

~~~
oblio
I've edited my comment to clarify that I'm not backing any migration option
(Java -> .Net, .Net -> Java). In my opinion both ecosystems are very solid :)

------
lukeschlather
> By joining the Open Invention Network, Microsoft is offering its entire
> patent portfolio -- with the legacy exception of its Windows and desktop
> application code -- to all of the open-source patent consortium's members.

Is this sentence a meaningless tautology (application code is not the same
thing as patents) or are there some older patents that Microsoft isn't
donating? For example the VFAT patents?

~~~
danarmak
This sentence seems to have been inserted by the ZDNet editor. The
GlobeNewsWire article (to which this post has been redirected), and the
original OIN PR
([https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/pressrelease_details/?i...](https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/pressrelease_details/?id=89)),
don't have anything like it.

It's not in the ZDNet article body either, just in the small lede under the
header. The body instead says,

> You see, Microsoft, with the major legacy exception of its Windows desktop
> and desktop application code, is an open-source company.

It seems like an editing mistake or a badly worded statement.

~~~
kemitchell
That's some close reading! Good catch.

------
walterbell
This is astonishing. Are there upcoming US/EU court cases on software patents
or specific Microsoft patents?

Which other large companies could now sue vendors of devices (e.g. ereaders)
which use Linux? Is Oracle in OIN?

Is OIN's Linux patent pool now large enough to deter other large companies?

Has Microsoft published a definitive list of their Linux-related patents which
were previously subject to royalty payment? Is the FAT patent covered,
[https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalD...](https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20011212&DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&locale=en_EP&CC=EP&NR=0618540B1&KC=B1&ND=4)

------
samfisher83
Microsoft android revenue was already going down:
[https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-android-patent-
lic...](https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-android-patent-licensing-
revenue-falling-2016-4)

I am sure most of the FAT patents must be expired at this point since patents
last 20 years and FAT32 came out 22 years ago. The Chinese manufacturers
didn't have much of incentive to pay Microsoft.

------
walterbell
(2013) [https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-fat-patent-loss-
enda...](https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-fat-patent-loss-endangers-
its-android-revenue/)

 _> A patent loss in a German court may lead to trouble for Microsoft's
Android strategy ... one of Microsoft main Android patent weapons has been
rendered harmless for now in the EU. This may sound like a minor patent. It's
not. Microsoft has been using this patent since 2003 to pressure Linux and
Android companies that use the popular FAT file system for compatibility with
other operating systems ... combined with the recent judgment that the US
version of this patent, "Common name space for long and short filenames,"
Patent No. 5,758,352 "invalid for obviousness," may finally blunt this
patent's usefulness for Microsoft._

~~~
_wmd
We could cutpaste a snippet like this for almost every major tech company on
the planet, what's your point?

~~~
r00fus
At some point it was arguable whether Microsoft was making more money from
Android than Google [1].

That it's even possible shows the entire corruptness of the broken patent
system and Microsoft's active abuse of it.

They're not just "one of the kids who benefit for misbehavior" they're the
poster child.

[1] [https://www.quora.com/How-does-Microsoft-make-more-money-
fro...](https://www.quora.com/How-does-Microsoft-make-more-money-from-the-
Android-than-Google)

~~~
bepotts
Exactly.

I think people are too eager to claim Microsoft as one of the "good" guys.
Microsoft has been around since the 70's and has not been "good" through
almost that entire period. So, Microsoft releases a (nice) text editor,
releases a Linux subsystem, partially open sources .NET, releases an open
source JavaScript framework, has an active GitHub account (filled mostly with
nonsense by the way), and we're supposed to forget the 40 years prior?
ExxonMobil has been investing heavily in renewable energy lately; would you
tell an environmentalist that they're wrong to dislike Exxon now?

Microsoft changed because they had to. _That_ must be the context in which
they are evaluated in. Joining a couple organizations, and open sourcing a
couple projects doesn't negate the fact that they were forced into this
position because they were losing mindshare, developer prestige, and can no
longer force everyone into their playground.

~~~
_wmd
FWIW I hadn't intended to suggest Microsoft was somehow 'good', just not
'particularly bad' compared to any other company. The readers of this thread
are polarized into two camps, neither of which match reality, and Microsoft
discussions always end up like this. People have no problem with nuance and
"on balance" regarding other huge companies (perhaps except Oracle), but when
it comes to Redmond, the same tired old noise is regurgitated every single
time.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
In addition, Apple, Amazon, and _even_ Google aren't completely open source
friendly. In the case of Google, pretty much all their webservices are closed
source, and they make more and more components of Android become part of the
closed source Google Play Framework. I realize Google is the best major corp
for open source. But somewhat cynically, I view the ultimate purpose of their
open tools to be for running proprietary code.

~~~
TheAceOfHearts
> I realize Google is the best major corp for open source.

It's not. I'd say Red Hat is the friendliest open source company. They truly
embrace the open source ethos.

------
gmueckl
So a patent license is granted when

a) you are a member of OIN

b) the infringing software is core to the Linux system

Is that correct? What about other OSS projects that are unrelated to Linux?

~~~
tomnipotent
I think it only highlighted Linux specifically because of the prior tug-of-war
there, it mentions right afterward " and other important OSS technologies".

~~~
svick
[https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/joining-
oin/](https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/joining-oin/)

This specifically talks about "the Linux System".

~~~
aaaaaaaaaab
I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as Linux, is
in fact, GNU/LInux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux.

~~~
tomnipotent
No where in the literature does it mention GNU outside of the GPL.

[https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/joining-oin/linux-
syste...](https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/joining-oin/linux-system/)

~~~
cyphar
It's a Stallman copypasta, but in this case I think it's justified. The
definition of "Linux System" appears to refer to a Linux distribution which
would include GNU and countless other projects than just the kernel. Seems
like really strange wording since it'll likely just cause confusion and
lawsuits down the track.

------
ElijahLynn
Want to take this opportunity to describe my positive experience with the Open
Invention Network (OIN):

I called the OIN many years ago to talk about what they do and how it works. I
ended up speaking with Tom Tyson for a good 15-30 minutes and he was very
helpful in answering my questions.

My questions were around open sourcing inventions so that other companies
could not claim IP on them and prevent others from using them. I am fine with
companies taking the idea and making money from them, just not okay with them
taking the idea, claiming it is theirs, and creating a proprietary product.

So, I spoke with Tom and the gist of it that I remember is that OIN will work
to create a "defensive patent" for your invention. Now, the idea doesn't
actually have to be software, they may be software based but are open to all
inventions (this may have changed since then). So if we have ideas (we all do
right!) that we know we won't have time to implement/execute but just want the
product made so we and society can use it, while having multiple companies
offering it to compete and improve the idea, then OIN passes the smell test!

Feel free to give Tom a call if you are curious, he was very patient with my
questions.

------
cptskippy
This seems like an extension of what large tech companies like Microsoft,
Apple, and Google have been doing among themselves all along. Over the last
two decades they amassed huge patent portfolios and then mutually agreed to
only use them defensively.

The difference here is that anyone who joins OIN can play along too.

I feel like this a natural evolution of their policies over the last decade.

[https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2018/04/04/a-new-ip-
strateg...](https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2018/04/04/a-new-ip-strategy-for-
a-new-era-of-shared-innovation/)

------
damon
It's hard to let past Ballmer / Gates era sins go, and I'll probably take a
lot of heat here, but moves like this continue to reinforce the Nadella era is
truly serious about advancing OSS both within Microsoft and within the broader
community.

~~~
pkulak
The WSL stuff has me seriously considering a Windows laptop next, which I
would have told you was pants-on-head crazy a couple years ago.

~~~
endgame
The fact that Windows 10 updates bundle shit like candy crush[1] and use my
computer as an advertising platform means my current and future laptops run
GNU/Linux.

[1]: [https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/05/humanity-weeps-as-
can...](https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/05/humanity-weeps-as-candy-crush-
saga-comes-pre-installed-with-windows-10/)

~~~
imandride
Removed at build 1803 good sir.

~~~
endgame
See, that's funny. Because when I woke my windows gaming machine from its long
slumber, it updated and dumped "Bubble Witch 3 Saga", "Candy Crush Soda Saga",
"Disney Magic Kingdoms" and "March of Empires: War of Lords" into my start
menu.

------
m-p-3
I'm wondering if the portfolio include most filesystems Microsoft made (NTFS,
VFAT, ExFAT, etc).

------
zihotki
Here is a link to the source post from MS - [https://azure.microsoft.com/en-
us/blog/microsoft-joins-open-...](https://azure.microsoft.com/en-
us/blog/microsoft-joins-open-invention-network-to-help-protect-linux-and-open-
source/)

------
bobcallme
I'm still a little skeptical since this applies to "Microsoft" and not any of
its holding or investment companies. A great move to earn trust is to "Open
Source" almost expired or useless patents.

------
EastSmith
Remember now Linux is part of Windows via Windows Subsystem for Linux
(Ubuntu). This is very important for me as developer and I am using it every
day.

By joining ONI MS is strengthening parts of its offerings (Linux), and maybe
is using (or will be using) existing ONI Linux patents to defend that part.

~~~
executesorder66
Why not just use Linux directly? It's much better than using a paid OS with
ads and spyware.

------
scruffyherder
It's simple, the last attempts at getting Windows into the new computing
spaces failed. Windows RT & Windows Phone (Windows on ARM) have all failed.

Microsoft is being left behind, and their only hope is to pick up the "open-
ish" platform and run with it. SQL Server has always been portable, and it
running on Linux is no surprise. Expect more and more of this, culinating with
a Microsoft branded Android devices.

By this time Google will have abandonded Linux & Android to have moved onwards
to Fushia.

------
forapurpose
I'm uncertain about OIN's membership and its benefits to the larger public. Is
it just an exclusive club that benefits its members, or a means to provide
everyone with IP safety regarding Linux and maybe other FOSS? One sentence in
the press release suggests that only members benefit:

> The OIN patent license and member cross-licenses are available royalty-free
> to any party that joins the OIN community.

Still, their About page says membership is free:[0]

> Any company, project or developer that is working on Linux, GNU, Android or
> any other Linux-related software is welcome to join OIN, free of charge or
> royalties.

On the other hand, there are only ~2,600 members [1] - that sounds like a big
number, but I would expect almost everyone to join. Are you protected if you
are not a member? Why haven't more joined? I suspect that the answer may have
something to do with the IP needs of software developers compared to those of
users, and the latter don't need membership for some reason; but even then,
2,600 seems like a small portion of FOSS developers.

[0] [https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about-
us/](https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about-us/)

[1] [https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/community-of-
licensees/](https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/community-of-licensees/)

~~~
svick
> Why haven't more joined?

My guess:

1\. Most devs don't know about it.

2\. Most devs don't need it, if they contribute to projects that are
themselves members.

------
berkes
Not OP, but I think it is important to see a company as a whole.

Untill Microsoft has truly changed its entire company and the culture ruling
it, to be supportive of Open Source, it is safe to say "There are just some
parts supporting OSS". Just like one can safely say "but there are just some
parts of the company opposing FLOSS".

In order to truly help OSS, joining some initiative, group or foundation is
the easy thing to do. Opening the patent portfolio, is the difficult thing to
do. The latter helps FLOSS a lot more.

~~~
_wmd
The 90s called, they want their tired old meme back. If you want to know if
Microsoft has truly changed, please take your fingers out of your ears for
just 10 minutes and review some of what's been happening in the past half
decade:

\- They're now, or soon will be, the largest supporter of free infrastructure
for open source projects on the planet (GitHub)

\- They've open sourced a massive chunk of their (IMHO) best-in-class language
runtimes and language implementations (C#, F#, VB.net) and design and develop
new features _in the open_

\- They've contributed more than 1700 changes to the Linux kernel that can
easily be identified with a quick 'git log --grep'

\- They're the first company to make a real attempt at an industrial strength
alternative implementation of the Linux kernel. Linux was supposed to be about
choice, remember?

\- They've open sourced the core chunks of the evaluation engine used in Bing
(BitFunnel)

\- They're a platinum member of the Linux Foundation. In other words, _they
pay Torvalds salary_

\- They support Linux as a first class OS on Azure and make it _cheaper_ than
Windows

\- They have one of the largest and most active GitHub organizations

\- They've joined OIN and, ignoring the actual patents involved, have thus in
the process made an implicit promise never to attack any core part of the
Linux infrastructure in the future

What more do you want?

~~~
linuxftw
Big-fat "So what?" to all of that.

Their primary product is still proprietary, and if that's not bad enough, it's
essentially completely spyware at this point.

I don't want to use their crap open source products so I can integrate with
their crap proprietary SaaS ecosystem.

Just because they're finally deciding to release some token software with some
level of open source, and buying political influence via the linux foundation,
doesn't make them a friend of free software. There is more to free software
than just the license: their strategy of vendor-lockin via Terms of Service
instead of EULA, they are merely seeking to 'vendorize' free software projects
to integrate with their paid products.

~~~
scarface74
_Their primary product is still proprietary, and if that 's not bad enough,
it's essentially completely spyware at this point._

You could say the same about Google......

~~~
linuxftw
I don't disagree. I have started using Firefox as my primary browser again.

~~~
jhall1468
And you don't have any social media accounts, don't use Google/Bing or any
other Google/Microsoft service, no social media (Youtube, Facebook, Instagram,
etc), right?

~~~
MadcapJake
So you have to be 100% clean of all google/microsoft tools/services in order
to criticize them? Give me a break.

------
tsenkov
Does anyone know (or have a speculation on) the annual profit loss coming out
of this? Didn't they get a very significant portion of every Android sale?

~~~
nonfamous
According to Yahoo Finance, "billions":
[https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-may-
relinquishing-b...](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-may-
relinquishing-billions-android-patent-royalties-141047213.html)

------
MichaelMoser123
How does Microsoft benefit from this step?

~~~
UseStrict
Definitely a lot of goodwill between patent non-aggression, all of their work
in the developer community (VSCode), listening to user feedback (most of the
time anyways). Also they gain access to other patents in the OIN. Plus most of
their revenue seems to be from cloud and licensing, I'm sure they are making a
mint on Office, Windows, and Azure without needing any patent aggression.

I keep asking myself "is this a trojan horse" and the more time goes on, the
less I think it is. Maybe they have actually changed for the better.

~~~
guiriduro
Yes, this Microsoft does seem to have left much of the Gates and especially
Ballmer machinations behind - at least as regards its openness and
collaboration.

------
ISL
Does this include hardware patents? Quantum computing? Microsoft Research?
XBox?

~~~
mdturnerphys
According to the OIN license agreement, it's just patents for the "technology
defined as the Linux System" [0].

[0] [https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/joining-
oin/](https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/joining-oin/)

~~~
ISL
Aha -- that makes practical sense.

(and a reply from the person in whose perspective I was most interested!)

------
choot
Can i get nice font of linux now? Does it include the font rebdering patent?

~~~
athenot
I thought fonts were copyrighted.

~~~
0-_-0
This is about rendering, not the font itself:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearType](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearType)

~~~
athenot
Ah, thanks for the clarification!

------
polskibus
How does that affect royalties from android phone makers?

~~~
Grazester
Wasn't that a fat32 patent? Would I have had to pay for this patent if my
phone didnt have an SD card slot and didnt support reading of fat32 partitions
on USB OTG storage devices is what I would love to have known.

~~~
michaelg7x
How many of Microsoft's cornerstone patents are soon to emerge from patent-
protection?

------
josaka
Link to terms: [https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/joining-oin/oin-
license...](https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/joining-oin/oin-license-
agreement/). Looks like it might be revocable.

------
danarmak
Here's the original press release on the OIN website:
[https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/pressrelease_details/?i...](https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/pressrelease_details/?id=89)

------
oropolo
The continued hatred of Microsoft amazes me. If Linus Torvalds, Eric Raymond,
and RMS __all joined Microsoft and proclaimed it safe, I suspect the
accusations of selling out or being drugged would be leveled within
milliseconds.

 __I fully realize RMS would never do this; my larger point is that with a
huge chunk of the population I don 't think there is anything Microsoft can
possibly do to convince them they aren't evil/truly friendly toward open
source.

~~~
manquer
While their current efforts seem genuine, the deep skepticism is not
unwarranted given their behavior in the late 90s and should not be a surprise

~~~
mixmastamyk
And their behavior recently:

\- Data collection

\- Forced installs

\- Android shakedown

Looks like some progress is being made, however.

~~~
tw04
>Data collection

So turn it off. It has ACTUAL end-user benefits being enabled by default. You
are literally asked on first boot if you want it on or off. And you can go a
step further by disabling it in the registry to prevent a second user on the
system enabling it.

>Forced installs

This one gets me more than anything. Literally every *nix admin on the planet
bitching for the last 2 decades about MS having all these insecure zombies out
in the wild. The fix? Enable updates by default, and make it difficult for the
average home user to turn it off. More importantly make it difficult for
malware to easily turn off. And you STILL find a reason to complain. Why on
earth you'd want to make the internet less secure is beyond me, but that's
just such a horrible thing to try to bag them for.

~~~
mixmastamyk
Privacy is not opt-in, thanks. The actual benefits must not be great as
Windows is the most user hostile of the big three, and not much improvement
since 7. It's clear soon after install that you'll be doing things the way MS
wants.

The second you misunderstood, it refers to forced installs to 10.

------
cailloud
Embrace extend extinguish

I'm sorry but i just can not trust microsoft, their history is just too full
with heinous behavior and so is their present behavior. I think mocrosoft
embracing opwn source and linux is more unsettling then comforting.

~~~
wnevets
I find seeing this post in every single MS related story to be quite boring.

~~~
svick
Even worse, they don't even attempt to justify how EEE applies to what MS is
doing now. Please, at least try to make what you're saying relevant to the
story.

------
aritmo
I would like to see the definitive analysis as to whether they will continue
to benefit from those licences on patents that affect open source software.

How do they plan to recoup their losses? They weren't getting much anyway?

~~~
jeremy7600
They were getting more from Android on licenses than they were on Windows
Phone.

------
shmerl
So no more Android patent protection racket from MS? What about using exFAT in
Linux distros (especially commercial ones that need to provide support for SD
cards), will that now be free?

~~~
puzzle
That would be covered if exfat were in the mainline kernel, which I don't
think it is yet.

~~~
shmerl
OIN doesn't cover the kernel only. So that's why I'm asking. I'm not sure what
exactly is covered.

~~~
puzzle
Those are all userland packages. OIN's site does not list any packages with
supplemental kernel modules.

~~~
shmerl
exfat is using FUSE I think in common distros anyway. So it is userland.

------
damon
What's interesting to me is how serious Nadella's Microsoft is about embracing
OSS. Consider his appointment as a line in the sand and look at how
drastically the company has changed since that line was drawn.

I realize that doesn't make the actions done prior to 2014 right. But I do
feel the company has been serious about advancing OSS since Nadella took over
as CEO.

~~~
executesorder66
Yeah, I like how after 2014 they decided to push ads into their paid OS. And
how they forced "upgrades" to windows10 for millions of people who didn't want
it.

They are truly a company that cares about openness and giving back control of
the device the the people who fucking paid for it.

No wait, they aren't. They are still just a bunch of assholes like always.

------
partycoder
Public donations to foundations and similar stuff are:

\- public relations

\- tax deductible

So it's PR the taxpayer pays for.

------
kidsnow
I have a feeling this is neither open, nor inventive, nor a network.

------
CodeSheikh
Hopefully MS joining OIN would further discourage patent trolls.

~~~
qaq
How? By their nature patent trolls don't have products so they don't care
about OIN's patent portfolio size.

------
wangyjx
no matter MS is good enough or not, this is a good thing

------
justin--sane
Interesting how this thread reads when you replace "Microsoft" with "NASA" or
"Pharma Companies" and "Windows" with "Globe Earth" or "Vaccines"...

------
azhenley
Here is the press release without ZDNet's autoplaying videos:
[https://globenewswire.com/news-
release/2018/10/10/1619375/0/...](https://globenewswire.com/news-
release/2018/10/10/1619375/0/en/Microsoft-Joins-the-Open-Invention-Network-
Community.html)

~~~
ChrisRR
Thanks. I opened the page and chrome started chugging. I closed the page
without reading the article

~~~
capdeck
<F9> in Firefox to open in "reading mode" \- majestic.

------
ckluis
Holy shit. I'd like to see an anti-microsoft comment on this post...

~~~
diblasio
Microsoft bit my sister once.

~~~
CodeCube
heh
[https://www.hanselman.com/blog/MicrosoftKilledMyPappy.aspx](https://www.hanselman.com/blog/MicrosoftKilledMyPappy.aspx)

------
jhabdas
HN this week:

\- Don't trust global supply chains \- Apple loses trust for the MSM \-
Microsoft loves FLOSS, really \- Google really is evil, really \- Global
supply chains are scary, pt II \- Something about Elm \- Instagram is
Facebook, duh \- MSM loses trust for everyone \- EU licks chops, globalist
fines \- China buying out EU, world

------
brian_herman__
Wow nice!

------
anhldbk
Really like the way Satya Nadella transforms M$

------
peter_retief
Is that joined or infiltrated?

------
itsreallyme
If Microsoft is doing this selflessly, then why aren’t they simply putting
their patents into the public domain?

Consider the open innovation network as a kind of club, with good intentions.

When a company like Microsoft joins it might seem like the pinnacle of
success, but with it really means is that the club has become a mafia.

It won’t be long before OIN uses its patent leverage to affect control over
the behavior if its members.

Think about it for a minute… Why wouldn’t such a group or simply convince
corporations, like Microsoft, to put their patents into the public domain? If
you have to join a club to gain access to something, but it’s not really open
source and it’s not really some kind of charitable contribution.

Another way of looking at this is, Microsoft has just one goal, being a
publicly traded company, which is to increase the share price of its stock…
Why are people so stupid always constantly fall for the same tricks, believing
that such companies do anything that is actually charitable?

~~~
ohthehugemanate
No one suggests they're doing it selflessly. They're doing it because they get
more value out of the IP by sharing and collaborating, than they do by
litigating. Like so many OSS evangelists have said for the last 20 years: open
source isn't about charity; it's actually a better way to develop.

I think you raise a good point about the public domain. Why wouldn't the GNU
licenses just force users to put their works into the public domain? Because
public domain software isn't copyleft. "Joining a club" in this case is just
signing an agreement (for free) that compels open access to your entire patent
portfolio. The OIN agreement is a copyleft-style patent club, similar to the
GPL. You get unlimited, royalty-free access to my software, but you must agree
to offer similar access to everyone, too.

~~~
itsreallyme
> ...GNU...

That’s not a valid comparison. If Microsoft was licensing their patents under
GNU (if that was possible), we’d be talking about something different
entirely, but they’re not actually open sourcing them in any way at all...
they’re entering into a contract to trade them like Pokemon cards with a
consortium that will actually, eventually become a monopoly. Once they become
a monopoly with enough leverage, they will inevitably agree to change their
terms to be more hostile to the rest of the world.

Open source software offers usage under some kind of license for essentially
nothing in return, not “you can use our software if you make all of your
software open sores as well”.

I’m gonna leave this comment here so that I can come back and reference it in
an article that all right 10 years from now when everybody is talking about
how this consortium effectively took over the world of IP and how it’s too bad
nobody could see that snowball when it was near the top of the hill still.

Here’s another thing to consider: given the right terms, which the
constituents of this consortium could agree to, this IP monopoly (read: mafia)
could even use their IP to collectively sue basically everyone (the cross
section of that many patents will overlap with much more IP in the world,
creating an economy of scale nobody can compete with).

