
Thoughts on Microsoft Joining OIN's Patent Non-Aggression Pact - walterbell
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/oct/10/microsoft-oin-exfat/
======
rcthompson
So if I understand correctly, the situation is: MS is pledging not to assert
patents on "Linux", but the kernel code for exfat isn't upstreamed into the
official Linux kernel code, so the pledge doesn't apply to any patents on
exfat (patents which MS has already used in past lawsuits). Have I got that
right?

~~~
dcbadacd
Pretty much.

~~~
HankB99
I'm confused. An entire paragraph scraped from a ZDNet article [0] states:

>>In a conversation, Erich Andersen, Microsoft's corporate vice president and
chief intellectual property (IP) counsel -- that is, Microsoft top patent
person -- added: We "pledge our entire patent portfolio to the Linux system.
That's not just the Linux kernel, but other packages built on it."

And I note "entire patent portfolio" to the Linux system. Wouldn't that then
include the exfat related patents?

[0] [https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-open-sources-its-
ent...](https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-open-sources-its-entire-
patent-portfolio/) (apologies for the autoplay video.)

------
tomnipotent
> Microsoft has done patent troll shakedowns

You're not a patent troll if you invented the patents (for a 1st-party OS).

~~~
Timothycquinn
IMHO, a party that owns or invents a patent that it does not use and never
intends to use in any real products and they only litigate with said patent
makes it a true patent troll.

~~~
rayiner
Leaving aside the desirability of software patents, the "real products"
element is not a useful way to define who is a "troll." Economically, one of
the functions of the patent system is that it allows specialization and
division of labor. It allows you to take the results of R&D efforts and wrap
it up into a property right that can be the subject of market transactions.
ARM doesn't make CPUs; it sells IP that a wide variety of companies can
incorporate into "real products." ARM's expertise is in CPU design. It's
economically efficient to let it focus on that, instead of forcing it and
every other R&D house to also master manufacturing, supply chain, etc.

(I'd also posit that this is a good thing for consumers because it is a force
pushing back against vertical integration. In the long run, I think it'll turn
out to be a bad thing for consumers that the market is moving from ARM
supplying IP to dozens of manufacturers, to a handful of companies with like
Apple and Samsung moving CPU design in-house within a vertically-integrated
supply chain.)

~~~
harryh
ARM has a product though. Just because that product isn't sold directly to
consumers doesn't mean that it isn't selling products.

I actually somewhat agree with Timothycquinn. Companies that make all of their
money from suing people are, at the very least, suspicious.

------
jake_the_third
Assuming this is not an oversight and microsoft is purposefully withholding
licensing their patents, why did Microsoft join the OIN?

My naive guess is either PR or to obtain a hard-to-get license grant from a
competitor but I expect I'm wrong on both counts.

~~~
fgonzag
It's right there in the article: Only patents relating to the upstream kernel
are included. The "Linux System Definition" is the baseline for the non-
aggression pact.

The exfat system is not part of the Linux System Definition because it is not
part of the upstream kernel, so it isn't covered by the non-aggression pact,
so Microsoft did not include the exfat patents.

~~~
qaq
Could it become part of upstream kernel though now ?

~~~
blihp
That's basically what the post is asking for. (i.e. as the pledge currently
stands, probably not)

------
peter_retief
An excellent suggestion, lets see if Microsoft are prepared to actually commit

~~~
ilaksh
In other words, put your money where you mouth is. But I have read that they
make $2 billion a year on this. So why would they give that up when people are
giving them credit without actually changing something crucial like that? It's
too much money.

I think it comes down to legal manipulations rather than PR. If someone can
find a legal way to force Microsoft to stop the exfat stuff, maybe with some
other Linux related patent litigation, then they will. But it might need to be
worth $2 billion which is a pretty big ask. On the other hand other large
corporations have a lot invested in Linux and certainly some of those
executives must be able to see through this PR so maybe they can do something.

I wonder if there is any possibility of dropping exfat entirely over the next
few years.

------
alexandernst
I'm SO surprised...

~~~
fgonzag
It seems you didn't bother to read the article so I'll summarize (even though
it's all of 4 paragraphs, I'll shorten it down to two):

Exfat code is not included in the upstream kernel (no one has merged it yet
since it is obviously a patent mine). Microsoft's lawyers only included those
patents that pertained to code included in the "Linux System Definition",
essentially upstream software, ergo no exfat patents were included. That is
fine because it was the basis of the arrangement.

They are now asking Microsoft to merge the exfat code into the upstream kernel
itself, so that it will also be governed by the patent non-agression pact.

------
jimnotgym
Tl;Dr

Microsoft did a good thing (whatever it's motivation).

Some people want Microsoft to do more.

There is always a danger in this that Microsoft think that their
MicrosoftHeartsLinux strategy isn't working and go back to what they were
doing before. The 'nothing we do is ever good enough for them,' outcome.

~~~
tomnipotent
I remember reading that something like 40% [0] of Azure servers now run Linux.
It's in Microsoft's best interest to embrace Linux, and they've been doing a
damn good job the last few years. It simply takes time for the momentum of a
ship as large as MS to change course.

[0] [https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-says-40-percent-
of-a...](https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-says-40-percent-of-all-vms-
in-azure-now-are-running-linux/)

