
Microsoft and Linux and Patents and Tweets - rbanffy
https://meshedinsights.com/2016/11/22/microsoft-linux-patents-tweets/
======
simula67
This suggestion is a good one, but I have a better proposal.

The problem here is that Microsoft is free to cherry pick the best innovation
that is coming out of the open source community while the reverse not being
true. If Linux reinvents some feature already published by Windows, Linux
vendors could get sued for patent infringement and have to settle with hefty
license fees. Windows, on the other hand can and do copy improvements coming
out of Linux community. See for example : containers.

For people to use a piece of technology, it should provide something that no
other piece of technology provides. Linux community can patent serious
improvements and give a world-wide license to anyone who wants to publish an
open source version of the technology. Microsoft gets locked out ( totally
fair, since the reverse is already true ), and Linux has a killer feature
worth switching for.

If Microsoft wants to implement the feature, they can license it from Linux
foundation. Linux foundation can redistribute this money back to corporations
which paid license fee to Microsoft. Or they can put that money into Core
Infrastructure Initiative

~~~
pjc50
There are three serious problems with this idea.

\- Putting a patent application together costs time and money. Microsoft are
better able to do this.

\- Software patents have very little to do with who really first invented a
technique. Containerisation wasn't invented by Linux either.

They have very little to do with actual software or innovation, mostly being a
question of "what can we get away with at the patent office?" See
[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/chinese-govt-
reve...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/chinese-govt-reveals-
microsofts-secret-list-of-android-killer-patents/)

e.g.
[https://www.google.com/patents/US6339780](https://www.google.com/patents/US6339780)
: a patent on putting a loading animation on top of a browser, rather than as
a distinct element. Or
[https://www.google.com/patents/US8255379](https://www.google.com/patents/US8255379)
(location-based search).

\- Patent-encumbering things is _really_ unpopular in the open source
community, because you need to give a patent grant to every user. So as soon
as MS download linux, you've given them a patent license. Well done.

------
rwmj
All the rest of the post seems good, except this: _A trade association should
not permit its members to fight among themselves._

Surely a trade association which prevents "fighting" between its members is a
cartel? Whatever you think about software patents, MSFT is not doing anything
illegal. The real problem is (yet again) the existence of overbroad, non-
specific, long-duration software patents.

~~~
sqeaky
How does a standardization body, like the C++ Standards Committee, distinguish
itself from a cartel. I bring them up because they have mentioned this in
several talks from the latests Cppcon.

Has the Linux foundation taken similar steps? Do those steps prevent the
exclusion of an actor clearly working in bad faith like Microsoft.

------
baldfat
Slight bias?

> There is little indication that the rest of the company shares the Azure
> product group’s commitment to open source, especially not the patent
> licensing group.

I think the Open Sourcing of .net, PowerShell, VS Code and Ubuntu Bash in
Windows 10 would also be obvious inclusions?

 _THIS EXIST_ [https://github.com/Microsoft](https://github.com/Microsoft)

The _issue_ here is Software Patents exist.

~~~
air
> The issue here is Software Patents exist.

It's possible to not be asshole with software patents. See Facebook and
Google.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Note that Google hasn't committed to not be litigious with most of it's good
patents. They've signed their patent pledge for a very limited scope of
patents which looks good for PR purposes.

Bear in mind, patent extortion tends to look good as a business model once
your main revenue source is starting to wane. So while Google may be behaving
with patents today, they've been amassing a pretty large library... and the
advertising market is expected to start going downhill fast.

Google has pledged not to abuse 245 patents:
[http://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/patents/](http://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/patents/)

It's hard to get an accurate number on how many patents Google owns (Google's
search results are unhelpful, I'm sure they know, but they aren't sharing),
but considering they picked up 17,000 from the Motorola acquisition alone, we
can assume safely that Google is reserving the right to be a patent troll.

~~~
DannyBee
"Note that Google hasn't committed to not be litigious with most of it's good
patents.'

Google has released 4000+ open source projects[1] under the apache license,
which has a pretty broad patent grant, something you seem to be completely
ignoring.

This includes things like tensorflow, the maps geometry library, etc.

I'm not sure what you consider "the good patents", but for most developers,
it's the stuff we open source.

[1] This is just the 30 day active number, the total number over the 11 years
i've been at Google is closer to 12k, last i looked.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Re: Apache license. But that only really covers the patent as far as the
specific open source work in question. Implementing the content of said patent
independently would leave you open to being sued by Google, right?

The question is, if Google has this open patent pledge, right, why are only
245 patents in it of the tens of thousands they have? Dare I suggest you ask
Larry Page if you ever get the chance, why is Google so afraid to put it's
money where it's PR spin is? If Google TRULY believes what it says, it'd act
on it.

~~~
DannyBee
"Re: Apache license. But that only really covers the patent as far as the
specific open source work in question. Implementing the content of said patent
independently would leave you open to being sued by Google, right?"

Maybe? But i'm not sure what the point is? This is true of literally every
patent granting open source license I mean, i'll be honest, this basically
sounds like whining to me. Nothing is ever enough.

As for the open patent pledge, it's pretty simple: Nobody has ever cared
enough to desire more patents there.

Seriously. 99% of people don't go around trying to reimplement the stuff we
do, they use the implementations we give them. Where they haven't, and it's
serious, Google has tried to pledge patents. This has happened pretty much
never. In fact, i can't think of the last time someone asked. Optimizing
heavily for the 1% case makes no sense.

Past that, OPN says "The OPN Pledge is designed to supplement existing OSS
licensing alternatives ..." (IE it's designed to supplement our permissive
licensing).

In any case, it sounds like you have an axe to grind here, so i'm pretty much
out, since i'm sure no answer i give you will ever satisfy you.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
The answer "Hey, we're working on getting all our patents into our patent
pledge" would totally satisfy me. But let's be honest: It's never going to
happen.

Patent licensing that only benefits people using Google tech is exactly the
sort of hypocrisy Google and others accuse Microsoft of. (Manufacturers who
ship Windows Mobile generally don't get sued for violating Microsoft's
patents, AFAIK.) Obviously, since Microsoft's OS would implement it's own
mobile device tech, the sorts of protections afforded by Google via Apache
licensing probably doesn't protect Microsoft from a suit by Google, for
example.

What is the harm in Google pledging all of their patents, if they have no
intention to ever use them offensively?

~~~
DannyBee
"The answer "Hey, we're working on getting all our patents into our patent
pledge" would totally satisfy me. But let's be honest: It's never going to
happen. "

It's not _supposed_ to happen? The same way that one does not have to give up
all their worldly possessions to be a good catholic.

"Patent licensing that only benefits people using Google tech is exactly the
sort of hypocrisy Google and others accuse Microsoft of."

Except that's not what it is, and spinning it this way just shows you keep
trying to find ways to hate it.

It's patent that benefits people using the code google gave them. If you take
the code from a google patented project, and use it, derive from it, whatever,
you end up with patent protection.

Which, as i said, 99% of people do, _including_ Microsoft, so your next
example is _simply_ wrong.

These companies simply don't usually do what you are saying is the issue. IE "
Obviously, since Microsoft's OS would implement it's own mobile device tech,
the sorts of protections afforded by Google via Apache licensing probably
doesn't protect Microsoft from a suit by Google, for example."

Is neither obvious, nor correct. In fact, they just use our implementation in
the cases i'm aware of. The last time someone came to us and said "i want to
use the patents but not the code", was webm. So we created a spec, and gave
patent license to all implementations of the spec, google created or not.

Can you provide a _real_ example instead of theoretical cases? I can state,
affirmatively, that anyone who has come to us with a serious need, we've
solved it, AFAIK. Can you provide a counterexample?

"What is the harm in Google pledging all of their patents, if they have no
intention to ever use them offensively?"

What's the benefit? There are lots of possible harms, like the inability to
use them defensively in certain situations (no pledge is perfect, it's not
possible to create something without loopholes), the inability to maintain the
status quo of patent peace, etc. There's a lot of risk here.

You seem to have this black and white view where this is zero risk, and it's
just silly to me.

It's like saying: What's the harm in destroying all of the US nuclear weapons
if they never plan on using them offensively?

You act as if this is a zero risk proposition, but it's not.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
The benefit is being able to trust they won't be used offensively. Being able
to trust those patents were open for use, and not at risk of being weaponized,
is a major benefit.

You have to bear in mind, for probably 99% of Google's patents (as I said, we
don't really have an exact official number including acquisitions), Google is
entirely capable of either selling them to Intellectual Ventures et al. or
going patent troll themselves when the market turns against them (or their
business model becomes illegal).

The fact that _so far_ Google has been accommodating with a small number of
patents and _currently_ claims to be against using patent litigation. What
Google engineers preach and what Google legal does (see also: support for the
Trans-Pacific Partnership) are two different things. In fact, much like
Microsoft, as we can see with a combination of open sourcing and patent
litigation.

Aim to be Tesla[0], not Oracle.

[0][https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-
you](https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you)

------
NetStrikeForce
The problem, as usual, are software patents. Any other discussion is just a
by-product of that.

~~~
PietdeVries
And is there an alternative to software patents? One of the examples (linked
to the case against TomTom) is related to Fat32. I can imagine that if you
"invent" a filesystem and everyone is enthusiastic & starts using it - you
have the right to be paid for your work?

~~~
icebraining
The sad thing is that the patents are not even on the filesystem, but on the
workaround they had to put it to support long file names. And even _that_
wasn't a novel concept - OS/2 had already added long file names to FAT, just
in a different way.

~~~
ygra
Aren't patents exactly for protecting a particular way of doing things,
instead of applying to concepts?

Not to defend software patents, I still think they're a stupid idea, but for
patents prior art applies to the exact workings of something, not the general
idea and concept.

~~~
icebraining
It's supposed to protect a particular way of solving a problem, but this is
more a minor variation of the same way that others have already invented.

------
golfer
Microsoft wants to have its cake and eat it too.

Embrace open source and Linux by publishing projects on GitHub and joining the
Linux foundation, while simultaneously sucking the lifeblood out of it by
being a patent troll.

~~~
yarrel
The loud cheers on hn whenever they announce their latest "open source" moves
show that it's working.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Generally, when you want a company to open source more things, you should
cheer for them when they do. Regardless of any other things they are engaged
in.

~~~
CaptSpify
Personally speaking: I _love_ that they are open-sourcing more things. Great!
Amazing!

I still hate them as a company, and would discourage the use of their
software. I know it's complicated, but just because they do some good things
(which _should_ be celebrated) doesn't make them a good company overall.

The attitude I've seen on HN that I personally dislike is typically of the
"No, they've totally changed! Look, they are pushing open-source software!"

But they haven't. Not if they are still strong-arming via patents.

------
jsingleton
A bit off-topic but the image used suggests that MS have officially adopted
the ninja cat riding a flame-breathing unicorn meme [^0]. They even added
special emoji to Win 10 [^1].

[^0]: [http://www.windowscentral.com/here-microsoft-ninja-cat-
wallp...](http://www.windowscentral.com/here-microsoft-ninja-cat-wallpaper)

[^1]: [http://blog.emojipedia.org/ninja-cat-the-windows-only-
emoji/](http://blog.emojipedia.org/ninja-cat-the-windows-only-emoji/)

~~~
coldpie
I wonder if they paid the original artist. Maybe the original artist should've
patented the idea of a cat riding a unicorn. Oh wait that would be stupid and
ridiculous.

~~~
Grishnakh
No, it wouldn't. At least it wouldn't be any more stupid and ridiculous than a
patent for exercising a cat with a laser pointer.

[http://www.google.com/patents/US5443036](http://www.google.com/patents/US5443036)
[http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H...](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5443036.PN.&OS=PN/5443036&RS=PN/5443036)

------
partycoder
I suggest a patch for their announcements:

    
    
        - Microsoft loves Linux
        + Microsoft loves revenue

~~~
RandomOpinion
While downvoted for its lack of substance, the parent post does really capture
the heart of the matter. Microsoft (or any other for-profit company, really)
as an organization does not think in terms of being a friend or enemy of open
source; that's a fiction projected upon it by people fixated on the idea of
open source as a ideology (e.g. RMS) instead of a tool (e.g. Linus Torvalds).
To paraphrase the famous quote by de Gaulle: " _Corporations have no friends,
only interests._ "[0]. Microsoft thinks in terms of "In this specific
situation, do we make more revenue by cooperating with open source or by
competing with open source?" and that decision is made on a team-by-team and
product-by-product basis. On this basis, it's easy to see why they continue to
work to get revenue from their patent portfolio while still doing things
favorable to open source elsewhere.

[0]
[https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Charles_de_Gaulle#Most_famous](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Charles_de_Gaulle#Most_famous)

~~~
partycoder
"Give the adversary what they want, just profit from it." A Go proverb I
guess.

------
shmerl
_> it can only be estimated (and doing so involves a decoder ring according to
Ed Bott who suggests about $8bn of Microsoft’s revenue comes from IP
licensing)._

Are those software patents? If yes, that's a horrendous amount of racket they
profit from. It's basically a massive tax on innovation.

Linux Foundation indeed should have a requirement for members not to assert
patents except in defensive fashion. Or they can at least require them to join
the OIN.

------
tbrock
The person who wrote this thinks Redhat cannot afford a 500k Linux foundation
membership... I don't think that is correct.

They should really step up.

~~~
toyg
I don't think the Foundation is particularly key to Linux development in
general; they don't mandate anything, they're there to do a bit of bureaucracy
nobody wants to do (IP etc) and pay a few salaries for a handful of key
hackers so they can work with a degree of freedom from commercial pressure.

This is mostly a PR exercise from Microsoft. John Gossman has better things to
do than sitting in more pointless meetings; his appointment to the board is
just another way of screaming AZURE LOVES LINUX and WE LOVE OSS SO MUCH WE
PAID 500 GRAND. RedHat doesn't need to do that. Their 500K are better spent
employing the likes of Poettering so they can define what Linux _actually_ is.

~~~
slgeorge
Plus they _don 't_ handle IP in any meaningful sense. For that you have to pay
into OIN ([http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about-
us/](http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about-us/)).

------
raverbashing
It seems to me the mobile makers were all too happy to pay these "licensing
fees" without contesting too much (they're still stuck with "hardware maker"
mentality)

Because frankly, $5 to MS on licensing costs per mobile is completely
ridiculous. Add to this other licensing costs (like video, MP3, etc)

~~~
jononor
The alternative was to burn some millions on lawyers, possibly ranging in the
hundreds, in attempt to contest it. With no guarantee that they will win, and
a fair chance that their products would be blocked from the market during the
years that the process would likely take.

~~~
shmerl
_> The alternative was to burn some millions on lawyers, possibly ranging in
the hundreds, in attempt to contest it. _

It's doable if all racket victims would pool their resources against the
aggressor (MS). Trolls lose when faced with massive opposition. Their whole
tactic is based on individual intimidation.

------
mtgx
How is everyone here not agreeing to and upvoting this? Because the
alternative means you're okay with the fact that Microsoft gets to be part of
the Linux Foundation, while continuing to extract billions of dollars a year
from makers of Linux and Linux derivative devices, based on bogus patents,
most of which have already been invalidated by the Supreme Court's Alice
decision.

------
yuhong
The Linux Foundation and VMware debacle is probably worth mentioning here.

