

Microsoft quietly buys Netscape browser technology (and patents) - gioele
http://www.slashgear.com/microsoft-quietly-buys-netscape-browser-technology-09222093/

======
gkoberger
I don't see a scenario where Microsoft will actually use these patents against
Firefox or Chrome. They're doing everything they can to curry favor with web
developers, and they'll destroy it in one fell swoop if they even think about
it.

That being said, I'm curious why they felt these patents were worth $1B. There
must be something really special in there.

(Disclaimer: Mozilla employee with no knowledge outside of what's been posted
on the Internet about it.)

~~~
forgotusername
Back in the sands of time when Netscape begat Mozilla Foundation and released
their source, they did so under the MPL, a license specifically written to
grant patent rights where required to operate the software. I'm not sure how
to interpret that, but I suspect Firefox would fare better in any war than
Chrome or Safari.

~~~
fpgeek
Safari will do fine. Microsoft and Apple have a broad patent cross-licensing
agreement. Chrome, on the other hand...

------
jroseattle
With all the patent lawsuits flying around among the big tech companies,
stockpiling patents seems like a prudent strategy from a corporate risk POV. I
have no idea which patents are included in the list, nor do I know what MSFT
would do with them. Just generally speaking.

~~~
drawkbox
SSL, cookies + Javascript are/were Netscape patents.

Better article about it: [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/microsoft-buys-
netscape...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/microsoft-buys-netscape-web-
patents-from-aol-to-attack-google/2203)

SSL [http://news.cnet.com/Netscape-patents-crypto-
protocol/2100-1...](http://news.cnet.com/Netscape-patents-crypto-
protocol/2100-1001_3-203307.html?tag=content;siu-container)

cookies
[http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=...](http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=5774670&KC=&FT=E&locale=en_EP)

Javascript
[http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/255293/-z_programmin...](http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/255293/-z_programming_languages_javascript?fp=4194304&fpid=1)

------
thereallurch
Sweet. They only expire in 3 years or so. Brilliant move on AOL's part.

------
naner
I suppose it's only a matter of time until they do something obnoxious with
these patents. Who will be their first target: Firefox or Chrome?

~~~
rbanffy
As long as Firefox's code heritage can be traced back to code released by
Netscape under GPL (or Apache), Firefox will be fine. Chrome, OTOH, may have
some problems.

Also, it's unlikely Chrome will be Microsoft's target - it's more likely
Android will. Chrome is much less of a threat to Microsoft's future and
Android includes a WebKit-based browser.

~~~
recoiledsnake
>As long as Firefox's code heritage can be traced back to code released by
Netscape under GPL (or Apache), Firefox will be fine.

Does the GPL contain a patent grant and/or indemnification clause? I think
only the GPL v3 does which wasn't around then.

~~~
rbanffy
As was discussed a hundred times, GPLv2 includes an implicit patent license
(because it's impossible to grant the required rights without granting the
usage of the patented technology and not granting those rights is a license
violation).

~~~
mbreese
An explicit grant is much better than an implicit one (and is one reason why
the university where I did my grad work refused to let us use the GPL).

Besides, wasn't the Netscape code released under the NPL/MPL, partially for
this reason?

~~~
rbanffy
> wasn't the Netscape code released under the NPL/MPL, partially for this
> reason?

Exactly. When I wrote the original comment, I didn't remember Netscape
invented its own license.

