The Reason for All These Patent Deals?
|
Red Hat wants to talk interoperability, but Microsoft's reluctance says much about real objectives behind recent patent agreements. |
Before Microsoft and Novell made their historic pact last November, apparently Red Hat talked agreement, too. But the Microsoft-Red Hat deal collapsed over patent licensing. Red Hat wanted to talk interoperability—and still does—but Microsoft wouldn't deal without a patent agreement, too.
My eWEEK colleague Peter Galli has spoken to executives at both companies, and what he's learned is finally starting to explain Microsoft's rash of recent patent deals. The question raised: What is Microsoft hiding—or perhaps better stated, what is the company trying to protect?
Since its agreement with Novell, Microsoft has been on a roll. Other recent deals include Fuji Xerox, JBoss, Linspire, Samsung, Xandros, XenSource and Zend, and they all share some aspect of open source in common. While Microsoft executives talk about the importance of interoperability and providing customers with patent protection, Peter's reporting raises to surface another possible reason for the deals. The failed Microsoft-Red Hat agreement holds the key to unlocking motivations.
If Microsoft were truly serious about interoperability, an agreement with Red Hat should be possible independent of any patent deal. Microsoft's unwillingness to separate the two issues means that:
- Interoperability is not Microsoft's main motivation for cutting these deals, contrary to the company's incessant PR blathering.
- Cross-licensing of patents is paramount to Microsoft when making these agreements.
I've known for some time that Microsoft's main priority was about intellectual property, but attributed the focus to company claims that open-source software violates more than 200 of its patents. Microsoft is fussy about intellectual property rights, so it's no surprise the company would insist on patent cross-licensing if it truly believed that open source infringed on its patents.
But even Microsoft's childlike "that's mine" attitude about intellectual property and patent violation claims against open source doesn't explain the company's resistance to Red Hat. The question to ask: Whose intellectual property rights is Microsoft seeking to protect? Microsoft's insistence on combined interoperability and patent deals makes more sense if the company's concern is that its software infringes on open-source intellectual property.
No doubt, someone has made such connection before, such as my Linux-Watch colleague Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols. In this context, Microsoft's patent violation FUD campaign: Distraction; point the finger at them before they point the finger at you.
If Microsoft truly is serious about interoperability—and there is no other hidden objective—the company should be able reach a deal with Red Hat or even Ubuntu without any attached patent strings. I contend that if interoperability agreements continue to hinge on patent deals, Microsoft's main priority is about protecting somebody against intellectual property violations. That somebody is more likely to be Microsoft than Linspire, Novell or any other company selling Linux.
What's that saying about actions speaking louder than words? Let Microsoft tell all by its actions.
Related Posts:
- Red Hat, Microsoft Talk Tux, Linux-Watch, July 3, 2007
- Microsoft's Five Stages of Linux Grief, Microsoft Watch, June 28, 2007
- Why Microsoft and Linux Companies Are Tying the Knot, Linux-Watch, June 17, 2007
- Microsoft's Linspiration, Microsoft Watch, June 14, 2007
- Linspire, Microsoft in Linux-Related Deal, Linux-Watch, June 13, 2007
- What's Behind All These Patent Agreements?, Microsoft Watch, June 7, 2007
- Shuttleworth: Microsoft, Patents and Ubuntu, Microsoft Watch, May 21, 2007
- Microsoft's Open Letter to Open Source, Microsoft Watch, May 14, 2007
- Microsoft Reignites Its War on Linux, Linux-Watch, May 14, 2007
- Open Source: Microsoft's Patent FUD Campaign, Microsoft Watch, May 13, 2007
- Show Us the Code: Right Pew, Wrong Church, Linux-Watch, Feb. 25, 2007
- Patent Fallout Continues over Microsoft-Novell Deal, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 21, 2006
- Ballmer: Pay You, Pay Me, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 17, 2006
- Microsoft's Interoperability Trust Problem, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 16, 2006
- Interoperability: Is Microsoft All Talk?, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 15, 2006
- Hell Freezes Over: Microsoft, Novell Partner on Linux, Linux Watch, Nov. 2, 2006
Comments (15)
Nicely written Joe, and in full agreement with you.
Now some of you may remember the "code borrowing" that MS did with Stac back in the Dos days. So clearly M$ has no problems stealing someone elses code or patents. It is rumored that there is a lot of unix and bsd code in Windows, as well as "borrowed" Linux open source. Since Windows is a closed system, it mostly is only noticed when they are sued in court by another commercial vender. That is usually the only time MS code is leaked out, and can be seen.
So the question would be, why then the only 5 year agreement?
I can see where MS gains from the Novell deal, as Vista and XP probably stole a lot from Novell server software, even or especially in Longhorn Server 2008. Novell gains right up front with a lot a cash from MS up front.
The other distros are now Lepers in the Linux community. Nobody wants to touch them.
Red Hat has nothing to gain by signing M$ agreement. They rightly suspect that M$ is up to their old dirty tricks. The Linux Community does not need an agreement with M$. Most of us want nothing to do with M$.
Posted by chips b malroy | July 3, 2007 8:38 PM
Perceptive, Joe.
The only other common element in the deals is the requirement upon the non-Linux parties to make the Microsoft new XML document format the default in each distro's implementation of OpenOffice on Linux.
Almost EVERYONE misses the centrality of the document format in these deals. To Microsoft, 'interoperability' is a code-word for document formats working according to Microsoft's rules - thus, "Interoperability by Design".
In Sun's 2004 deal with Microsoft, it's apparent McNealy saved his company by agreeing with Microsoft that OpenOffice/ODF would never deliver interoperability with Microsoft formats. This Sun has seen through and it has killed ODF, as the recent news in Massachusetts signifies.
The reason it killed ODF is that the inability of OpenOffice/ODF to work very well with .doc, .xls & .ppt files makes it impossible for organizations to get out of Microsoft software.
It's that simple.
This is what I was pushing for since 2001 and Sun, the provider of the only desktop alternative, has been acting in Microsoft's employ.
Microsoft killed ODF by tying up with Sun. Notwithstanding that this has anti-trust issues miles deep, it means all ODF, OOXML *AND* ISO are going to be deprecated and we are stuck with Microsoft software crammed down our throats until the Customers recognize they can have a universal document format under their own control -- if they ever realize that all the vendors must be kept away from the document format community process.
Posted by Sam Hiser | July 4, 2007 1:11 AM
[Joe - I meant "...Linux parties, non-Microsoft parties". -Sam]
Posted by Sam Hiser | July 4, 2007 1:16 AM
Joe, What's taking you guys so long to get up to speed?
http://vcsy.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
The right understanding at the wrong streetcorner...
Our guy here does know what Microsoft's big mistake was back in the day that allowed Linux to rise so quickly and so decidedly.
"Microsoft's brass blew an important test when it failed to get XP's replacement ready for the market. While XP ranks as a stable product, it took too long to carry the Longhorn project over the goal line."
But...
What this guy (and most of the industrial world) doesn't know is Microsoft's salvation.
VCSY technology can turn all of this to Microsoft's favor leaving the 10% that have already left to be the attrition MSFT would have faced with going toward a component/web-application developer approach.
The remainder will be retrained to facilitate systems similar to Project Zero... componentized application building. The Current paradigm is still tilted more heavily toward developers than Anny Mae Admin. they have to have somewhere for all these current paradigm developers to go.
This is a sea change and if you know the concept of those words as Shakespeare intended them you know the 'developer' community will be unrecognizable over time. They will cease to be what everyone considered them to be and place them closer to information admins than code wizards. The wizardry will be in the arbitrated ecology.
Now they can take the next couple years to educate those who are loyal and capable to build larger abstractions toward general purpose use and use the technology license (excluding Linux users not aligned with Novell) as a strangle-hold to starve off the 10% who fled (those are going to be the most business savvy developers lost as they were able to read the movement at the time but did not know the desktop v web information theory realm as well as they might.) for not sticking with MSFT until this next generation technology they've been working on since 2001 became mature and ready to produce.
All this is going to take some time, but, I believe the results will be seen surprisingly fast, further dissolving the traditional developer base down to specialists and hobbyists. Yes, I mean the demise of programmers as a large culture. They see a new pasture working on Linux desktops, but they will soon realize they've been closed off from behind like a heard of buffalo that have crossed a dry lakebed only to have the lake waters return and stranding them on their green island.
The excitement will be on the web and they will have to toe the IBM community line or they won't be 'developers'. They will be coders... and THAT will become about the worst thing you could be called in future world.
How much time? Perhaps improvements on the order of ten times the amount of time needed to do traditional product development and deployment. The main bottlenecks in software development have to do with determining the user requirements (interviewing the users, mocking up their requirements, evaluating feedback, redesign and loop until users are happy - interrupt: users are never happy begin at do) and testing. The toy-like method IBM is putting out is an expression of abstracted complexity being reduced into few steps with less 'data matter'. As innovation extends the offerings will become more and more useful and robust as the re-use ethic and an ecology to achieve re-use is central to the SiteFlash concepts.
Innovation takes time is right - invention takes an instant followed by a mountain of real work. Innovation requires mountains of invention in bits of work accumulated.
What's nice about SiteFlash is the ability to maintain all the knowledge in cultures and communities and repurpose it elsewhere.
Innovation begins on this and other like platforms in small steps. If they are successful, they will accumulate and proliferate and be repurposed into cultures in verticals rather than 'consumer bases'.
Hopefully soon we will see what Scorpio and Flex will come up with for the Adobe community.
If Google ever joins the advance, Gears can be installed on any platform to tie Google's search, advertising and community capabilities into any application.
See where the power goes? This is why it's so odd none of the big guys have the upper hand except IBM and it's acting like a shepherd rather than a cattle roper.
I gotta say, if Ballmer is smart, he'll take that approach. I don't know how smart Ballmer is so anything is possible.
Posted by T.B Light | July 4, 2007 2:53 AM
Now I understand (after reading bob's comment)why there are people who have interest in defending MS-all good and evil things- (and I'm not saying that bob could be one of these people- he only opened my mind-) it is because the lack of sense of personal freedom, and the lack of imagination and personal capacity. For they would rather be a fat dog to be a skinny wolf-among other things...
Well, yes, MS is the same than an iceberg: aside the visible on-the-sea part there are always hidden subjects, which are not always sacros-saints (to avoid saying never.) Genial Joe, MS's better defence is to attack, but I am pretty sure there are more to discover yet.
Posted by Marco | July 4, 2007 2:05 PM
Joe, the reason for all these patent deals, stems back from that Microsoft was using VCSY's patents and if it is as it seems and they settled and signed licensing agreements, then your seeing Microsoft setting the table. Why are all the journalists ignoring the facts here?
Posted by char | July 4, 2007 6:12 PM
FYI Microsoft and Red Hat:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2007070412502112
MS: We'll only interoperate if you sign a patent deal. Red Hat: No.
Wednesday, July 04 2007 @ 02:12 PM EDT
So, negotiations between Red Hat and Microsoft appear to be ongoing in the media. Hahahaha. Get real.
Here's what I think is happening. Get a load of this description of the strategy from Microsoft VP for IP Marshall Phelps:
At a keynote at Red Herring East on Thursday, Phelps explained the slow shift in attitude and valuation of patents that corporate patent spectators have been watching from the sidelines for the past few years.
He spoke about the increasing practice of using patent licensing agreements as a way for companies, and companies and universities, to pool resources and share research without losing rights, or with an agreement to share rights or revenue made off of the technology.
"For those of you in VC, this is going to be a radical departure. We used to define competitive advantage as 'I've got and you don't.' Or 'You've got it, but I got better.' Well, today it's 'You got it and I got it, but I make money when you use it," said Phelps explaining the shift to a strong emphasis on companies licensing out their patented technology.
So, let's see. How does this work? "I got it and you got it but *I* make money when you use it." Who wouldn't want that? Um... Red Hat. Why not, Microsoft beguiles. I'll tip you. And, by the way, I won't interoperate with you unless you agree. Oh, and Microsoft adds, if we assume a similarity to the Novell deal, we get to alter and control your development model and your license -- you have to agree we step over or around it somehow. And you can't just let all those end users and downstream folks do whatever they are used to doing. They have to sit in paid seats. No sharing. Or else we can sue them.
In other words, in my translation, Microsoft is refusing to interoperate well unless FOSS agrees to these patent deals, not just so it can collect money, but so it can get your brains to work for them. It also achieves a goal of FOSS costing more. Ever hear of the Microsoft tax? And it also allows Microsoft to put its heavy thumb on FOSS and reset its terms. You don't want to code for Microsoft and share your skills and your money? Don't wish to give up control or change your development model? Then they'll maybe sue you, and for sure they won't interoperate with you well. Only sellouts get to interoperate really well. What's that smell? Antitrust, maybe?
If you think I'm making that part up about wanting FOSS to code for Microsoft, here's Mr. Phelps again:
Microsoft has abandoned the fortress mentality around its intellectual property and is opening up channels of collaboration, including licensing to startups, the software giant’s licensing chief said Wednesday.
Speaking at the annual venture conference of the Council for Entrepreneurial Development at North Carolina ’s Research Triangle Park, Marshall Phelps said that even a $7.5-billion annual research budget fails to deliver all the pieces to Microsoft.
“Few, if any, companies can hold all the pieces of R&D in their own hands,” he said. “The days of go-it-alone R&D labs are over.”...
Likewise, contrary to the “myth” that Microsoft uses patents to bludgeon competitors, Mr. Phelps, deputy general counsel for intellectual property, said the company is seeking to use intellectual property to form alliances. “Proprietary software is not going away, open source is not going away.” Though licensing accounts for only .0025 percent of the company’s annual revenue, “as a vehicle for cooperation with other firms, it’s worth its weight in gold.”
They have patents (they claim) and FOSS has the brains. So they want to "use" their patent threats to force FOSS programmers to code for them. Or else. They have a demonstrated inability to write compelling software nowadays, I'd say. It's kind of like the university arrangement they've used for a long time -- the universities do the research, and then Microsoft makes the money. You did notice that all three who signed on the dotted line now code for Microsoft, didn't you?
Well, that's business the Microsoft way, their idea of what's fair.
I told you they wanted your brains. That and the death of the Open Source model in the enterprise space, as those dudes call it, and to prostitute the GPL, if it refuses to die.
But I see some stealth legal tricks. Remember the deal SCO successfully complained to the EU Commission about in the '90s, whereby it had to pay Microsoft forever for stuff they didn't want and that hobbled their ability to innovate the way they wanted? It took Santa Cruz a while to wake up and realize the legal game was not working for them and that Microsoft was controlling them to their detriment in the marketplace.
I think that there is another submarine tactic afoot. Read Microsoft's Patent Pledge for Non-Compensated Developers. That is the submarine intended to kill FOSS as we know it, I believe. They want to force vendors to stupidly agree that their best coders can't code for them any more or can only code on Microsoft's terms. Or else. And you wonder why Red Hat resists?
The real question is why Novell would sign such a deal.
Microsoft, I discern, would like it if there never again was a Linux, in short, and I guess they figure they have more money than anyone else and enough lawyers to blacken the skies anywhere on earth, so they apparently think they can force the deals with patent threats, litigation being about as pleasant a prospect as a root canal. It's worse when they have more lawyers and more money than you do.
Red Hat isn't willing to be muscled, though, and neither is Ubuntu or Mandriva, nor should they have to be. Why not? Well, there are rules for monopolies. You can't actually muscle your competition past a point without that awful antitrust smell resulting in some investigatory problems. The EU Commission has made it clear that Microsoft is supposed to share specifications with the FOSS players so interoperability becomes a non-issue. Period.
I think Microsoft would prefer to muscle some patent-linked deals they can present as an alternative to the Commission looking at this. But here's a description of what is *not* a true partnership: I'm a monopoly, and I say sign here or I'll kill your business with stupid patent litigation you can't afford and I can.
Anyway, I think it's too late for Microsoft. They came up with this patent threat strategy before the Supreme Court ruled on KSR. Microsoft's patent licensing schemer...er, dream ...depends on the patents being valid and something the other side actually wishes to use and can't work around. Post KSR, I find that a doubtful proposition. Now Microsoft is frantically trying to sign people up for the old dream before everyone wakes up and notices that the entire patent landscape has changed.
In any case, Red Hat can't sign a Novell-like patent deal, even if it did want to, which it doesn't, thanks to the GPLv3. Thank you for that, by the way, all you GPLv3 authors. So even were it tempted, it can't happen ever again.
As for Linux-Watch's breathless predictions, hey, that's who predicted Ubuntu would be next to embrace Microsoft's patent deal offer. Also, it's not true, according to my sources, that Red Hat talks broke down because of the Novell deal being announced. Extrapolate.
Posted by I-Man | July 4, 2007 7:06 PM
By: waitin-on-news
04 Jul 2007, 07:29 PM EDT
Msg. 188949 of 188949
what's with VCSY's CEO Richard Wade putting out a PR on 06-06-06 about the lawfirm who is in talks with Microsoft and now Microsofts deadline is Friday the 13th? Is he sending a message to someone?
TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2006
Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. Retains Law Firm in connection with Licensing of United States Patent No. 6,826,744
Fort Worth, TX, June 06, 2006 – Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. (VCSY) announced today that it has retained the law firm of Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro on a contingency basis to act in connection with the licensing of United States Patent (U.S) No. 6,826,744, the underlying Patent under VCSY’s SiteFlash™ and SiteFlash-derived products.
U.S. Patent No 6,826,744 is a system and method for generating computer applications in an arbitrary object framework. The method separates content, form, and function of the computer application so that each may be accessed or modified separately. The method includes creating arbitrary objects, managing the arbitrary objects throughout their life cycle in an object library, and deploying the arbitrary objects in a design framework for use in complex computer applications.
This release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. With the exception of historical information contained herein, the matters discussed in this press release involve risk and uncertainties. Actual results could differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statement.
About VERTICAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.
Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. (OTCBB: VCSY) is a provider of administrative software, Internet core technologies, and derivative software application products through its distribution network. VCSY's main administrative software product is emPath(r), which is developed and distributed by NOW Solutions, Inc., the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary. VCSY's primary Internet core technologies include SiteFlash, ResponseFlash, NewsFlash, and the Emily XML Scripting Language, which can be used to build web services. Information on Vertical and its products can be obtained on the World Wide Web at www.vcsy.com.
SOURCE: Vertical Computer Systems, Inc.
Vertical Computer Systems, Inc.
(817) 348-8717
PRinfo@vcsy.com
Posted by I-Man | July 4, 2007 7:38 PM
Joe, i'm glad all men aren't so slow to catch on!
(this discussion on the VCSY board should help educate others on just what is happening)
By: stillwtr19
05 Jul 2007, 12:37 PM EDT
Msg. 188970 of 188994
Ben, China will be paying the attorney fees for their part in all this what I do not understand is why this has not been concluded. It must be more complicated then we realize. Its possible that this directed verdict had stipulations and agreements that China had to comply with to conclude the Judges directed verdict. So, was there a specific time frame to comply with the rulings? China would obviously have to comply or appeal the directed verdict. IMO
--------------------------------------------
By: waitin-on-news
05 Jul 2007, 12:44 PM EDT
Msg. 188977 of 188994
(This msg. is a reply to 188970 by stillwtr19.)
stillwtr, it might now tie into the Microsoft case somehow, imo
? Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Microsoft Corporation
PR Newswire (Fri, Apr 20)
? Now Solutions Successfully Resolves Its Lawsuit Against Ross Systems
PrimeNewswire (Wed, Apr 18)
----------------------------------------------
By: yo-eleven
05 Jul 2007, 12:45 PM EDT
Msg. 188979 of 188994
(This msg. is a reply to 188977 by waitin-on-news.)
waitin - that does indicate a linkage, doesn't it. Unless it's just a coincidence or indication Wade can only think of one thing at a time.
Posted by char | July 5, 2007 1:58 PM
MS is looking for IP deals where they get money for licensing their patents. They threaten very expensive patent lawsuits and settle without detailing the patents at issue.
MS absolutely hates interoperability. All IT money belongs to MS. interoperability permits some other company to make money in IT. MS has always hated interoperability from the days of DOS (DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run) through today with the competing office document formats. Their's has patent ed technology.
MS, with their annual 7.5B USD R&D budget and the open availability of all of FOSS's interfaces, protocols, formats, source, etc., does not need any help to become interoperable.
Ever wonder why other companies have to become interoperable with MS and MS never feels the need to become interoperable with other companies?
So, it boils down to a patent shakedown and throw in some useless interoperability features. If any of these interoperability tools become useful, MS knows how to change APIs to patent protected APIs.
Posted by philc | July 5, 2007 9:29 PM
Microsoft IS interested in interoperability, but only with companies who respect patents and intellectual property. Why would MS want to work with and collaborate with companies that choose to ignore Microsoft's patents?
Love them or hate them, it's the law (in the U.S. anyway), and MS has not only the right, but the obligation to protect their patents.
JR
Posted by John R | July 6, 2007 4:29 AM
Are you on drugs?
JBoss is part of Red Hat and to my knowledge has made no such deal with Microsoft. Perhaps a link to this alleged agreement would be helpful.
Posted by anonymous | July 6, 2007 8:47 AM
Microsoft's extreme preoccupation with IP rights has always struck me as a bit strange - or at least disingenuous. Some years ago, a fellow I worked for was always "financially challenged", and often resorted to purchasing via liquidation auctions. One day, he bid on and acquired a bunch of used magnetic tape media in a bankruptcy sale - some of which was actually useful to us and some was not. He let the word out that the media we could not use was available for sale "cheap" (2x our cost) especially to schools and such. One day we received a call from a person inquiring about the media and whether it was for sale: the caller explained that he needed some for a "school project". The next day, two kids peddled up on bicycles, and one identified himself as the caller. We placed two stock-forms boxes randomly filled with "Dectapes" in front of the two, and they began to paw through the reels, looking at the labels pasted thereon: it very quickly became clear that they were much more interested in the program source code they knew had been stored ON the tapes than they were in acquiring erasable media for other use. One of the boys even offered his opinions of certain program code that he felt was useless, and other code that he felt was valuable. In the end, they piled up about $600 worth of media - for which we were asking about $32 - and then discovered that, between them, they could only muster $15.45. It was a warm, somewhat muggy Seattle day, and my employer was thinking of a cold pitcher of beer at the tavern next door. So he said "That's good enough" and sent the boys on their way. So Kent Larson(?) and Bill Gates packed their treasures - including several copies of source code for a very early spreadsheet or balance-sheet program - into their white paper lunch sacks and peddled away. And my employer stepped next door to a tavern aptly named "The Dirty Shame."
Posted by Jordan | July 6, 2007 1:52 PM
Can anyone explain me if there would be any settlement between Microsoft and VCSY ? because i see on othes board that Micrsofot had agree to pay $500 millions to VCSY for patent.
Posted by Alberto | July 12, 2007 5:36 PM
Any info about the settlement with VCSY ?
Posted by Alberto | July 13, 2007 3:07 PM