Microsoft licensing Linux
Submitted by srlinuxx on Tue, 03/16/2010 - 11:14
Proprietary giant is licensing open source to its partners. What is going on?
Over the past few weeks Microsoft has been licensing Linux to a number of its partners, most notably Amazon. Although the idea of Microsoft, a company steeped in proprietary software, licensing open source software is ludicrous it's not completely unexpected. It's also not the first time Microsoft has played the Linux patent game and we can expect to see more deals in the future. So what's going on?
Back in 2007 Microsoft stirred up the open source community by claiming that Linux infringed on more than 200 of its patents. Although the specific patents were never actually revealed it was enough to stir emotions and kickstart a campaign in which Microsoft planned to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt among corporate users.
Last year Microsoft sued TomTom, the GPS maker, claiming it infringed on Microsoft's patents with its implementation of the Linux kernel in its devices.
FTA: "It's a clever strategy by Microsoft and one...."
It's not a clever strategy, it's racketeering and it's illegal. It should be reported by vendors like Red Hat as it violates laws introduced by the RICO Act.
Patent licensing is not copyright licensing of GPL ? Patent laws
Linux GPL licensing is only the free usage of copyrighted binary codes generated by GCC compiler of GNU/linux open source library. It does not protect you on any design(shape or appearance of the product) or letter patents(methods of computing).
Microsoft is correct to license their patents for profit(typically 1% of gross revenue) or for exchange or use of patents owned by others. Licensing is not covered by rico laws(not racketeering). You are entitled to make a profit even when you exchange the privilege of using patents of others. You pay when you agree that you used the patent, otherwise will result in a lawsuit.
We have cross licensing from AT&T on all semiconductor patents. But neither paid 1% royalty because we did not use each others' patents. No rico laws are applicable here. We have the advantage of knowing all AT&T patented technology to leapfrog them or pay to use the patents for profit,
Software patents
Software patents are not valid where I live. And for good reasons! I know Japan is one among the very few countries that made the mistake of allowing software patents. I don't know about China, but in some ways I admire their approach towards intellectual monopolies, which make monopolies, censorship, classes, bogus DMCA takedowns, and so on. Big mess, ACTA exacerbates things.
patents are applied in each country to enforce them ? Free too ?
One page Free patent licence is available from Microsoft Linux Labs, if you request it.
Cross patent licensing with TomTom and Microsoft made lawsuits not a required business decision. You pay as you go, using each others' patents or owned intellectual property?
People's Republic of China has patent laws to protect their own citizens of their inventions and intellectual properties in general. Laws are generally protection of one's life and property. Ownership of intellectual property has to be established, and that is by issued patent. Many countries honour other countries' patent laws. Some may be more zealous.
Anyway, which country are you living in that has no computer software patent laws? It amounts to lawlessness. No protection of your intellectual properties, if you are a computer inventor? Anyone can steal your property or you can not claim its your property by law?
Software methods such as file switching or packet switching are inventions and must be protected on ownership of the invention?
Copyrights
Copyrights protect software rights.
Copyrights vs. patents ? Copyright can be stolen by languages ?
When you change language, copyright no longer protects your intellectual properties. Patent gives you protection on how the method works. MIT taught us not to patent benefits of a product or service, but protect the manufacturing or performance methods of a product or service. WE were shown the SR4 atraingage patent to study how to protect your intellectual property.
Anyway, Patent owner can sue copyright owners(of any language) for violation of the methods of doing things.
Dr. Roy thanks for bring out some of the concepts so that people will know Stallman can not play god, by giving defacto GPL license to Novl because of the date of GPLv3 legal aggreement. Stolen copyright of GNU/linux language can not fight patents in courts. DRM has to protect media ownership from being stolen(using different codecs) by using encryption.
Thanks for the opportunity to straighten out some of the mistaken concepts of Linux freeloaders? We had to learn the protection of intellectual property in university.