The evil, satanic M$ Corporation has decided to further its monopolistic, proprietary aims by…donating code to Samba. Worst. Monopolists. Ever.
I especially like the remarks about Microsoft being “less than happy with it’s server rival”. As though Samba servers are somehow displacing Windows Server in the office space.
If anything, Samba HELPS windows stay in the office, so they should have no problem selling hundreds of seats of Windows for workstations and missing out on one server license.
“Now if they’d only stop threatening OSS over patents, and just tried to make money with it the same way everyone else does by building it into products (they’re nearly there I think), I think we could finally bury the hatchet :-)”
Yeah, just like when they used BSD licensed network code back in the NT4 days rather than write their own winsock drivers like they eventually did. The freetards really liked the fact that Microsoft profited off that, didn’t they?
Well, what next? Wine? ReactOS? I do wish they’d give the NTFS spec to ReactOS so that the latter can support it in addition to FAT32/VFAT.
Oh, and I do wish they’d stop collecting royalties from Android makers. Either go all out and sue Google (instead of getting into a battle w/ Mot over just the Xoom – go after Google wholly re: Android’s supposed violations) or simply compete in the marketplace like everyone else.
I agree, Ballmer is a scum for suing OEMs and not Google itself. As i said before, Microsoft in the mobile segment is like that guy who says you shouldn’t date the girl you date, because he’s being trying to get her since forever, and you 'd better stay away or else. Of course, such guys end up with a kicked butt, and so will Microsoft end up when Google steps in with their recently acquired Motorola and IBM patents. Or when the DoJ wakes up and smells the anti-competitive behavior that’s going on.
Can anyone try to guess what’s happening inside Ballmer’s head? Were the Android lawsuits an attempt to delay Android and buy time? (obviously, it failed, if anything, he angered the very OEMs he depends on) Was it an attempt to destroy Android? (this never works, did Apple managed to destroy Windows with patent lawsuits back in the early 90s?). Would Bill Gates ever do something like that? (no, he is a born winner, and not a born loser like Ballmer)
Does that mean Samba 4 will finally be out of alpha?
If Ballmer wanted to destroy Android, he should have met w/ Steve Jobs and Apple execs, since destruction of Android was high on Steve’s agenda. Running an extortion racket on Google’s OEM customers, instead of going after Google itself, smacks of mafia-like behavior.
I do hope that Motorola and Amazon both win their lawsuits against M$. Fact remains that Windows 8 hasn’t taken off on tablets, and their only chance the way I see it is to encourage the OEMS to make tablets of Atoms or Fusions instead of ARMS, so that they can at least leverage PC software and offer that to customers, as opposed to being way behind both iOS and Android.
wha? Windows 8 hasn’t been released yet, has it?
“Oh, and I do wish they’d stop collecting royalties from Android makers. Either go all out and sue Google (instead of getting into a battle w/ Mot over just the Xoom – go after Google wholly re: Android’s supposed violations) or simply compete in the marketplace like everyone else.”
Well no, they can’t collect royalities from Google because they do not “sell” Android directly. Collecting royalities from patents is a valid practic actually, and is what patents are for, ensure that R&D pays off, by making others participate in your efforts financially if they profit off it.
Microsoft also does not sue where not necessary (aka where it’s negotiable) and they don’t press non-resonable fees. You can now say that it’s evil, but then you’re questioning software patents, not Microsofts manner to operate there.
“and so will Microsoft end up when Google steps in with their recently acquired Motorola and IBM patents.”
That’s highly questionable. MMI’s patent portfolio is primarily consisting out of industry standard, FRAND-pledged patents. These are worthless for sue-and-counter-sue tactics (see Samsung’s recently failed attempt on the same issue). Also, if that was a sure case, there wouldn’t have been so many Android OEMs and ODMs signing Microsoft deals afterwards.
Plus, a patent portfolio isn’t of value directly. Finding patent violations in Windows Phone for patents for which Microsoft is not licensed isn’t going to become an easy play, otherwise MMI would have pursued that path a lot earlier.
“I do hope that Motorola and Amazon both win their lawsuits against M$.”
Amazon has signed a patent deal with Microsoft. I assume you mean Barnes and Nobles?
“Does that mean Samba 4 will finally be out of alpha?”
I’d rather go for NFS v4.1, which WS8/W8 will support ( http://blogs.technet.com/b/server-cloud/archive/2011/10/31/windows-server-8-heterogeneous-storage-support.aspx ) than Samba super unstable alpha configuration, tbh.
“and their only chance the way I see it is to encourage the OEMS to make tablets of Atoms or Fusions instead of ARMS, so that they can at least leverage PC software and offer that to customers, as opposed to being way behind both iOS and Android.”
Unlike iOS or Android, W8 will feature Office on ARM and there will be the standard Windows API (porting Windows API on x86 -> ARM should be easy as long as there isn’t any assembly involved) plus a runtime which is going to run on any Microsoft desktop/laptop/smartphone/tablet platform.
Also, at the post, notice how SJVN deliberately misquotes:
SJVN: “Microsoft submits open-source code under the GPLv3 to Samba.”
Original MS mailing: “These patches have been approved for release as 'GPLv2 or later’ [...]”
Google also has acquired 13000 IBM patents. And Motorola haven‘t showed us all the full potential of their patent portfolio. Back then when they countersued Microsoft, there wasn‘t WP7, so they had to sue regarding the Xbox 360, and since Motorola doesn‘t make consoles, they didn‘t have many console-related patents, and so they had to resort to FRAND patents. But now that Microsoft has WP7, they can sue over that. I mean, MMI has been making cellphones since the dawn of cellphones, so they ‘ve got to have some patents against WP7. Be it UI design ideas, code neccessary to make a cellphone OS etc. Also, have you seen the patents Microsoft is asserting? Most of them are junk patents which you can easily code around them, as long as you know which patents to code around. This is Microsoft‘s second problem, everytime they use a patent, they ‘burn‘ one of their patents, because Google codes around them in the next release. This is why they offer so low patent licensing options (less than the charge for WP7), because they really dont want to go to court.
Granted that Motorola has been in the handset business for yonks, and presumably has a worthwhile patent portfolio (though Florian Mueller appears to think otherwise, and he knows better than you or me).
But once again, you’re pulling the rest out of thin air, aren’t you? “Every time Microsoft use a patent, they 'burn’ it?” Aside from the fact that continually having to 'code around’ patents (and presumably you have to 'design around’ them too, and occasionally 'bend the architecture around’ them) is a monumental pain in the behind and tends towards a fugly code base, I don’t see this 'burning’ thing.
It seems to be impossible to explain the concept of transactional value to you (for some reason that temporarily escapes me). Microsoft licenses a patent. The licensee pays them money in return. That is 'burning’ a patent in the same way as a three star chef 'burns’ a steak tournedos, except that it isn’t, because you can only use a steak tournedos in a single transaction whereas you can extend a license indefinitely.
Is there some significant set of patents that Microsoft hold that offend your particular philosophy? Because I don’t see them acting in any way that other companies with a patent portfolio don’t. And even if they are, it’s hard to see how cheering on Googorola from the sidelines for doing exactly the same thing (if they ever do) isn’t monumental hypocrisy.
I like how Allinson and the rest are so cock-a-hoop at being patted on the head by Big Brother that they’re complimentary about Microsoft contributions to Hadoop.
Gosh, I wonder whose technological base Hadoop might possibly threaten? (Clue, it’s irrelevant to Microsoft. We’ve got our own equivalent of Map/Reduce.)
Apparently being the Darling of the Loons is a fickle proposition these days, as I’m sure Google will find out when they do something obscene like port Mono to Android (or any other equivalent no-no you can think of).
“Back then when they countersued Microsoft, there wasn‘t WP7, so they had to sue regarding the Xbox 360”
Motorola’s first counter-sue was filed after WP7 was released. As a matter of fact, they are attempting to assert patents against Vista, W7, Exchange, WP7, WM6.5 and so on, already. (don’t forget, Motorola also delivered business solutions!)
It’s however still unlikely that they can make the case as most of their patents are (F)RAND of which they assert.
Working around them is also not really possible, as they even have patents for phone-to-server sync which you cannot 'work around’.
Virtually all FRAND terms stipulate that the FRAND no longer applies if the license sues the licensee for any reason.
Thus Microsoft lost any right to Motorola’s patents by suing them for patents themselves.
licensee sues the licensor*
And I’ll bet that Ballmer is sobbing into his latte.
Unless and until one of these fabled Motorola patent licenses has an effect, it’s pointless for us ignorant schlubs to talk about it, isn’t it?
Well, the whole thing can be summarized to the following:
If Microsoft‘s patents are not essential and can be coded around, then Google will just code around them. If Microsoft‘s patents are essential to make an acceptable smartphone, Google will just countersue with the MMI patents AND the 13000 IBM patents. What makes you so sure that both the MMI and the IBM patents don‘t have one essential patent to one of Microsoft products? Oh, and if Microsoft‘s patents are essential to make an acceptable smartphone and the countersue fails and there is no way to code around them, Google will just complain to the DoJ that Microsoft holds a monopoly over smartphones, and the patents are going to be spun off into a seperate company.
I might start to like WP7 sometime, but patent lawsuits are a losing strategy. Just name one conpany that litigated with patents and won in the long run. Apple vs Windows in the 90s? SCO vs Linux? They all secured some cash/licenses in the start of the patent war but lost in the long run.
Yup, it can indeed be summarized in the following. Purple monkey dishwasher.
“What makes you so sure that both the MMI and the IBM patents don‘t have one essential patent to one of Microsoft products?”
Nothing at all. Let’s see, shall we?
Meanwhile, you’ve provided no evidence whatsoever that Microsoft’s manipulation of the patent system is any different to manipulation by any other company.
Oracle, for example?
And you still haven’t answered my question about how, precisely, the Voldemort patent manipulation is so terrifically important to you.
I mean, I’m trying to frame this in your terms, I really am. But if I was a self-confessed pirate, I relly wouldn’t care, as long as the result was more goodies to pirate.
“Virtually all FRAND terms stipulate that the FRAND no longer applies if the license sues the licensee for any reason.
Thus Microsoft lost any right to Motorola’s patents by suing them for patents themselves.”
Jeez, did you even Wikipedia the term?
“Oh, and if Microsoft‘s patents are essential to make an acceptable smartphone and the countersue fails and there is no way to code around them, Google will just complain to the DoJ that Microsoft holds a monopoly over smartphones, and the patents are going to be spun off into a seperate company.”
That doesn’t work. Microsoft is willing to license these patents. There is no global monopoly to be held by patents. Yet in fact, patents do even exist to establish a micro-monopoly in a market segment.
“If Microsoft‘s patents are essential to make an acceptable smartphone, Google will just countersue with the MMI patents AND the 13000 IBM patents. What makes you so sure that both the MMI and the IBM patents don‘t have one essential patent to one of Microsoft products?”
Nothing. As said, it’s indeed possible to succeed. But even then, Google can’t counter-sue for 3rd parties. How’s that going to work?However, keep in mind that it is a lot harder to find patent violations in closed-source products than in i.e. Android. I am still doubtful actually Google will release ICS source eventually. As Google already switched to at least cathedral-styled development, what would there be to gain from open source Android 4? More patent trials, more copyright trials (see Oracle asserting copyright on 700 Java source files in Android, this were impossible if it was closed source… or kernel headers, same thing), more piracy in Android? Nothing but cyanogen which Google already stroke once by forcing them to remove all their apps from it is then dependant on the source.OSSing Android 4.0:(+) Few tech hipsters on cyanogen are happy(-) These hipsters were not to switch to competition anyways(-) Oracle has more material to use in their upcoming trial(-) New patents can be discovered a lot easier(-) Copyright assertions from BlueJ or kernel developers could be incoming(-) Competitors like Amazon with the Kindle Fire or Baidu with Baidu Yi can continue to live of Google’s development costs without paying back to Google.(-) Piracy in Android is made more feasible
“I might start to like WP7 sometime, but patent lawsuits are a losing strategy.”
How is WP7 related to patent lawsuits? Microsoft does not knock competitors out of the market, as Apple attempts to, it simply cashes in patent licenses, which is a valid business practic. If you now say, this is evil because patents are evil so Microsoft shouldn’t be doing this; then you’re confusing an anti-software patent laws position with a company who acts within exactly that law.
“But even then, Google can’t counter-sue for 3rd parties”
Yeah, but with the Motorola purchase, Google is a 3rd party, currently under litigation from Microsoft. So, yeah, Google and Microsoft will butt heads eventually.
Nice implicit example of tl;dr there, Mr K…
... although I have a certain sympathy. Pretty much none of your original argument has been left standing, has it?
So, let’s try the bit in ChrisTX’s last para, concerning the difference between a personal hatred of the patent system (or as it applies to software; either one is fine) and the transference of that hatred to a specific company.
I mean, does that even make sense?
I hate herbal tea, but the fact that Microsoft stocks it in their canteen is hardly going to put me off WP7.
Now, if you were to discontinue your paeans of joy for Apple products on the basis that they have a particularly slimy operation going on with Foxconn, then I’d accept a certain logical consistency. But noooo …. some half-baked solipsistic legalistic twaddle about licensing fees is so much more important than the lives of down-trodden production line labourers, isn’t it?
“Yeah, but with the Motorola purchase, Google is a 3rd party, currently under litigation from Microsoft. So, yeah, Google and Microsoft will butt heads eventually.”
Not my point here. Google/MMI vs Microsoft can end how it wants, it’s not going to have influence on patent licensing of Microsoft’s patents to ODM/OEMs which are not part of Google. If Google can’t invalidate any of Microsoft’s patents, a deal is all they can get (usually what sue/countersue then runs into). And honestly, I doubt that Google’s portfolio would allow them to dictate Microsoft terms as not to collect royalities from 3rd parties over Android.
People do realize that Google, Apple, Microsoft and all their partners sell bundles of patents en mass to each other, right?
Want all of Microsoft’s mobile patents? Give them $5 per handset and you get them. Want all of Apple’s mobile patents? Same deal. What about Google? Yup, same deal.
Actually, you are wrong.
Apple does not regularly sublicense their patents to competitors on a FRAND basis. They have no intention of allowing competitors to use stuff they patented. That’s perfectly allowed in patent law, there is no requirement to license patents.
Yes. I’m fairly certain that it’s common practice to have a “no sue” clause in FRAND license terms. Once the licensee sues the organization providing the license, the license no longer applies. That’s definitely language in all of Microsoft’s FRAND terms, for instance.
Regardless, Motorola is not going to sue someone with patents that aren’t legally enforceable because of licenses. It just wouldn’t make any sense.
Microsoft has shown to be incredibly vulnerable to patent lawsuits and I’m sure they aren’t as difficult to sue as you are claiming. They so many products it would be difficult NOT to find one that infringes on a patent Google owns.
“Nothing. As said, it’s indeed possible to succeed. But even then, Google can’t counter-sue for 3rd parties. How’s that going to work?”
Google can indemnity and counter-sue on a 3rd parties behalf. Microsoft actually does this for their own OEMs.
That’s pretty standard practice in the software industry, but they haven’t provided this protection yet to any of their OEMs. That doesn’t mean they won’t in the future however.
You must be signed in to leave comments.