Linux patent suit: In search of the Microsoft smoking gun

By | October 12, 2007, 6:43am PDT

Summary: Now that the “first ever” suit for patent infringement has been lodged against two major Linux distributors, many Microsoft watchers are looking for the smoking gun that will somehow connect Microsoft to the case. So far, at least, that gun is nonexistent.

Now that the “first ever” suit for patent infringement has been lodged against two major Linux distributors, many Microsoft watchers are looking for the smoking gun that will somehow connect Microsoft to the case.

Linux patent suit: In search of the Microsoft smoking gunI have to say that it’s hard to believe that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer’s recent railings about the likelihood of someone suing Red Hat for patent infringement were purely coincidental. His timing makes it look like he had knowledge that such a suit was in the pipeline. But so far, at least, there’s no proof that Microsoft was behind this case in any way.

However, there are still some interesting Microsoft connections to the suit, which pits IP Innovation and Technology Licensing Corp. against Red Hat and Novell. The suit claims that IP Innovation has rights to patents covering “a user interface with multiple workspaces for sharing display system objects” (patent no. 5,072,412, issued on December 10, 1991), as well as two other similar patents upon which Red Hat and Novell allegedly infringe.

So where and how does Microsoft enter the picture? As Pamela Jones of Groklaw.Net fame pointed out, IP Innovation LLC is a subsidiary of Acacia Technologies Group Inc. Acacia is “in the business of acquiring, developing, licensing and enforcing patents.” From the Acacia Web site:

“We help patent holders protect their patented inventions from unauthorized use and generate revenue from licensing and, if necessary, enforcing their patents. Our clients are primarily individual inventors and small companies with limited resources to deal with unauthorized users but include some large companies wanting to generate revenues from their patented technologies.”

Is Microsoft an Acacia client? There’s no press release I can find stating that it is. (I’ve asked Microsoft whether it is, but no word back yet.) Ironically, Novell is an Acacia client, (as of August 31) but on the storage side of the business, not the Linux one.

Update: Microsoft’s official response to the Acacia/IP Innovation suit, via a company spokesman:

“Microsoft is not a party to Acacia’s lawsuit against Red Hat and Novell, nor are we involved in any way in this litigation.”

Now here’s where things get interesting: Acacia has hired two Microsoft veterans in the past year. On October 1, Acacia hired Brad Brunell, who most recently served as Microsoft’s General Manager of Intellectual Property Licensing, as a Senior Vice President. In July, Jonathan Taub, former Director of Strategic Alliances for Microsoft’s Mobile and Embedded business unit, joined Acacia as a Vice President.

Brunell’s background is especially noteworthy here:

“Mr. Brunell, as General Manager, Intellectual Property Licensing, was responsible for inbound and outbound patent licensing. He created and managed a team of negotiation, financial and legal experts which developed outbound intellectual property licensing programs and brought in intellectual property via acquisitions, strategic partnerships and licensing.

“Previously as a Senior Director he was in a strategy role focusing on digital media adoption which included key deals with Time Warner and the Walt Disney Company, leading the negotiating team for the settlement of the Intertrust patent litigation, and putting together the Content Guard ownership structure between Microsoft, Time Warner and Thomson. He also served on the board of Content Guard, a digital rights management patent licensing company.”

All this said, there are a couple of things that don’t add up, if you’re looking for ways Microsoft might be connected to this lawsuit. Why would Microsoft want Novell, its favorite open-source-partner poster child, to be dragged into this? Why not get Canonical or Mandriva or one of the other holdouts who’ve refused to sign patent-protection clauses with Microsoft named, instead? Stay tuned, as the West Coast wakes up, for more on this one….

(bang bang (#118). Image by j / f / photos. CC 2.0)

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for more than 25 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Disclosure

Mary-Jo Foley

Freelance journalist/blogger Mary Jo Foley has nothing to disclose. WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). I do not own Microsoft stock or stock in any of its partners or competitors. I have no business ventures that are sponsored by/funded by Microsoft or any of its partners or competitors.

Biography

Mary-Jo Foley

Mary Jo Foley has covered the tech industry for 25 years for a variety of publications, including ZDNet, eWeek and Baseline. She has kept close tabs on Microsoft strategy, products and technologies for the past 10 years. In the late 1990s, she penned the award-winning "At The Evil Empire" column for ZDNet, and more recently the Microsoft Watch blog for Ziff Davis.

Got a tip? Send her an email with your rants, rumors, tips and tattles. Confidentiality guaranteed.

103
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Linux patent suit: In search of the Microsoft smoking gun
dsfwrryd1301-24353654314296078269402150143345 12th Nov
sdivxw,good post!
0 Votes
+ -
This is why Novell ...
n0neXn0ne 12th Oct 2007
The Microsoft Novell deal wheels are starting to come off

"It is particularly relevant given that, according to Novell?s NTAP information, Microsoft?s covenant not to sue Novell users will be extended to ?all GPL v3 users as soon as GPL v3 code is integrated into SUSE Linux Enterprise.?

That statement runs contrary to the claims made by Microsoft in July ... http://tinyurl.com/33my4g
0 Votes
+ -
MS will be the Novell savior.
SoToasty1 12th Oct 2007
Why would Microsoft want Novell, its favorite open-source-partner poster child, to be dragged into this?

Maybe they want to come riding in on their white horse to save Novell from the evil Patent Trolls. It sure would make a great selling point. Then they could say, hey RedHat. If you sign this Patent Protection deal for umpteen gazillion dollars, you will be protected. Then they can go to all the other distros and extort money from them too.

Look for an article in the not so distant future where MS says they are shielding Novell from this lawsuit.
0 Votes
+ -
don't forget -
zoroaster 12th Oct 2007
Microsoft would rather see all the others file Chapter 7 (or at least Chapter 11). How's that song go... 'never smile at a crocodile'?
0 Votes
+ -
token competition
Hrothgar - PCLinuxOS User 15th Oct 2007
kill the competitors and keep the token "insert name of useless unheard of distro here" as the official competitor to prevent DOJ house calls.
0 Votes
+ -
Even if...
Tim Patterson 12th Oct 2007
Even if there is a Microsoft connection here we may never know. After it was shown that MS was behind the SCO extortion attempt I'm certain they would make sure that there would be no visible links in future attacks.

This would be the perfect strategy for MS. Have others do the dirty work. This way MS doesn't sue thus avoiding exposing any of the skeletons in their closet through a counter-suit.

As far as Novell being a target, maybe this is a shot across Novell's bow concerning future adoption of GPLv3 as that license throws a huge monkey-wrench into MS' plans to co-opt Linux vendors.
0 Votes
+ -
You can be damn sure that
Linux User 147560 12th Oct 2007
someone somewhere is digging right now for the smoking gun... and if it comes out. Oh man, gonna be a shootout in Dodge. devil
0 Votes
+ -
Even if...
aussieblnd@... 12th Oct 2007
Red Hat and Novel have the Right to face the accuser and they can request full public disclosure. Acacia will have to disclose who the Client is and show that the client requested the action. They can not sue anyone for something they (Acacia) does not ownor have rights to.
If the patient owner of no. 5,072,412, issued on December 10, 1991 is Microsoft then they are the clients.
0 Votes
+ -
Owner of patent
Endoscopy 15th Oct 2007
According to the patent office the owner of record is Xerox. Whether they sold it to MS or not they created it.
Go to the patent office and search when you have a patent number or other technical detail.
0 Votes
+ -
Suspicious mind.
Anton Philidor 12th Oct 2007
For months if not years Mr. Ballmer has been speaking often of IP infringements by open source, including Linux specifically.

Mr. Ballmer makes one more reference and a brief time later a company files suit against Linux.

Of course, that's likely proof Mr. Ballmer ordered the suit.

However that sounds, I'm paraphrasing:

"I have to say that it???s hard to believe that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer???s recent railings about the likelihood of someone suing Red Hat for patent infringement were purely coincidental. His timing makes it look like he had knowledge that such a suit was in the pipeline. But so far, at least, there???s no proof that Microsoft was behind this case in any way."

I guess my mind is insufficiently suspicious.
0 Votes
+ -
then they aren't being clever they are being incredibly hamfisted and stupid.

2 former Microsoft employees working for this company?, the litigation guy only joining a month ago?, it's hardly Machiavellian is it?

Does the DOJ still keep an eye on Microsoft, or have they been totally castrated power wise?.
0 Votes
+ -
Undercover operation
Anton Philidor 12th Oct 2007
Why would an organization which makes money by licensing IP have to hire Microsoft representatives before it could continue to do so?

Did Mr. Ballmer say, "Okay, we'll help, but only if I can send some of my people to watch you every step of the way."?

Or were these people sent in surreptitiously to help without anyone suspecting they might be advancing the interests of Microsoft.
"And don't tell anyone you worked at Microsoft."
"What's Microsoft?"
"Perfect!"


Enough people have left Microsoft and taken employment elsewhere for that not to be suspicious in itself.
0 Votes
+ -
Has the DOJ been castrated?
Rick S._z 12th Oct 2007
Obviously Yes. The MFJ (Modified Final Judgement) seems, in my opinion, to have been written by and for Microsoft: After a lot of talk about "don't penalize OEMs, on the basis of price, for things they do with other vendors' software" it left the door wide open for Microsoft to reward and punish, at will, via REBATES.
The amount of Microsoft "co-marketing" money which they "negotiate" with the OEMs is entirely up to Microsoft, and isn't monitored for abuse by the Court or the DOJ.

They still abuse their unregulated monopoly power, obviously: And this "co-marketing" money is exactly why you NEVER, EVER see a Linux PC offered for sale at ANY big-box electronics store.
- - - - -
You might find it interesting that Microsoft contributed a 5-figure campaign contribution to John Ashcroft for Senate. (He lost to a dead man, but was installed as Attorney General afterwards.) MS was also a *huge* contributor to the GWB campaign. I feel that they definitely got a great return on this "investment".

I think that The DOJ (and for that matter, the FDA, and a number of other Federal agencies) doesn't work for you anymore-- it works for campaign contributors.
0 Votes
+ -
No
Linux User 147560 12th Oct 2007
more like paid off. devil
It was a case of zealotry, displayed by the judge himself, calmed and fair justice applied by a more responsible administration. With Janet Reno's record, i'd be a bit hesitant to say the next administration downplayed anything.


the MMR (modified monopoly requirements) were not legal to begin with and the whole thing was political from start to finish. You have several wannabes going to the courts over and over and none of which had a competing OS that I know about. I'm not sure why the anti trust part came in and was narrowed to one platform in which there was no competition to begin with and all other desktop computer makers conveinently put in another category and declared non viable systems. those are jackson's words. I wonder then, is OS X still a non viable OS? Especially now that it's running on intel. Is Linux a non viable OS? And if so, what's that got to do with Microsoft. That OS was not ready for prime time until within the last year or so and even then it's not ready according to as many or more people than those that say it is.


So Microsoft was charged as a monopoly against non existent competition and the evidence was applications? Meanwhile QT, Java, Abobe and Google dominate much of the IT space for web apps and in some cases approach a monopoly. Who has contended with Flash until Silverlight (which is great btw and everyone needs to see a demo. Check out www.ddjvista.com.


The judge was an overzealous biased one shown to be unfit for the bench and the whole thing was a huge mistake in terms of law being applied. We've seen real monopolies and have them right now. AT&T was a real monopoly, they had 100% of the market and held all customers captive to their services. THAT is a monopoly and it was granted by the U.S. government. The postal service is another example of a monopoly since it also has 100% of the mail delivery market and competition is illegal. There are many other examples in which a monopoly has 100% market and competition is illegal.

By definition, Microsoft never was and never will be a monopoly.

So as for LU's comment's, maybe he should consider that Microsoft built and earned it's market against competitors, not handed to them by the government. Like SUN for example....but they don't count cause they were unable to use governemnt backed startup and market into anything all that successful.
0 Votes
+ -
A few points:
Jkirk3279 16th Oct 2007
There are Open markets and Closed markets.

For example, the old Soviet Union was a closed market. I've seen photos of a Soviet factory
for making fluorescent lights.

Broken glass everywhere ! Terrible inefficiency.

But it's not like they would just BUY their fluorescent tubes from Europe, oh, no. That would
be admitting that Communism is terribly inefficient at motivating people and providing
services.

As you mention, the US Postal Service was a Government Monopoly. That was another
example of a Closed market.


Of course, the Postal Service isn't really a monopoly anymore. FedEx will deliver letters and
packages for you at competitive rates.

I think Government monopolies should be very limited, but in a new market where you
desperately NEED to establish acceptable standards, a limited-time monopoly may actually
help buffer the effects of "market forces".


Now, then, there are the much more common "Open Markets".

In an open market, supposedly independent companies work to satisfy their customers and
compete with each other.

And it's illegal for competitors to join together in "price fixing" or other anti-competitive
activities.

Microsoft was accused, and found guilty, of using their influence anti-competitively.

Many people testified under oath that their companies had been intimidated by Microsoft.

The most famous example is the threat to discontinue selling Windows OEM licenses to
Compaq.

At the time, there was NO credible alternative OS that Compaq could just drop in and
continue business as usual.

Compaq couldn't run Mac OS, even if Apple had agreed to help them.

Linux? It's 2007, it's been about ten years since that happened. Maybe Linux is
strong enough NOW to compete, but is it friendly enough?

I mean, most people don't want to have to re-learn a command line!

(Fortunately my DOS nightmares have finally ceased.)

Then of course, BE OS was ported to Intel in March 1998.

If I were the CEO of Compaq, I don't know if I would have taken that leap, even though I think
BE OS was pretty good.

So there's no question that Microsoft used their power to intimidate and dominate.

The only question is, why do some people insist on white-washing history?

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/1998/pulpit_19981022_000588.html
0 Votes
+ -
good post but
BobF_z 17th Oct 2007
You don't have to "re-learn the command line" to use Linux, I very rarely need the command line on my Linux workstations, and as a matter of fact I tend to be on the "DOS" command line on XP more.

With Vista I see MS has now added symbolic links, so even Microsoft don't consider the command line to be dead, as a matter of fact in corporate environments it's where I seem spend most of my time, if you want to set up scheduled jobs for instance.
0 Votes
+ -
DOJ still keep an eye on Microsoft
aussieblnd@... 12th Oct 2007
" have they been totally castrated power wise?. "

They Got the Chop and now have very high squeaky voices!
0 Votes
+ -
Not really...
Linux User 147560 12th Oct 2007
"I guess my mind is insufficiently suspicious." - Not really Anton, you just have an excellent ability to not see what is in front of you.]:)
0 Votes
+ -
Do some maths
putt1ck 12th Oct 2007
Several sums in fact.

First a subtraction sum: take MJ's query of Microsoft regarding whether they are an Acacia client. Take away their lack of denial in their response = they are an Acacic client and therefore a large one.

Then add up all the value in the claim (approximmately 0 even in a court which favours IP holders) and measure that against the cost of making the claim = no benefit in filing with no realistic expectation of winning.

Then look at the best value result in a court that decides to favour ta claim based on this patent. You could sue IBM, MS and Apple (loads of money, likely to lend weight to the suit) or go after Redhat and Novell (comparative minnows).

So the gains have to be in something else. Like "be nice to us we're your biggest client"; like "find something, anything to make a case against some of those nasty open source companies for us and weaken their defences".

Those who don't quite understand: Microsoft cannot make their claims in a court without near certainty of winning. Previous claims, preferably successful, will lend weight to a case and definitely lend PR weight to their wild claims about infringements. The reason they cannot make their claims? Because the other side waits, holding far more patents than Microsoft - one claim against open source (or 235) = thousands of claims against Microsoft.
0 Votes
+ -
Acacia makes money by licensing IP, no?!
Anton Philidor 13th Oct 2007
So if Microsoft is a "client" the company has either hired Acacia to collect licensing revenues, or is paying Acacia. If Microsoft has hired Acacia to negotiate, that would be easy to establish, and Microsoft might as well have the disadvantages of suing for itself. If Microsoft is paying Acacia for IP, that would also likely to be easy to identify, and, again, not improve the PR situation.

Then, Microsoft might have no connection with Acacia. Though, as with SCO, the company might be willing to make referrals.

Of all the permutations, expressed mathematically or not, the Acacia is a front for Microsoft possibility is perhaps the least likely.
0 Votes
+ -
What?
John Zern 13th Oct 2007
Take away their lack of denial in their response = they are an Acacic client and therefore a large one

But yet if they did claim they were not a client, then wouldn't you assume that they were, as the sheer fact that they were denying it meant that hey were ("methinks thou dost protest too loudly")?

Because the other side waits, holding far more patents than Microsoft

And you know this how?
It sounds to me that if I can prove that I was the first to open a door with my thumb and little finger, or turned on my monitor with my pinky, that I could be a very, very rich man.
"Why would Microsoft want Novell, its favorite open-source-partner poster child, to be dragged into this?"

ANSWER:

The patent FUD-content of the Microsoft | Novell cross-marketing and interop pact was nullified by the subsequent wording added to GPLv3.

To the extent having a Linux product spinning off some revenues to Microsoft, the pact still benefits Microsoft salepeople. But SCO died and MS needs a proxy to sustain the black cloud over Linux.

Novell is on the list because its enterprise versions of Linux (and the Community version, openSuSE, too) are the very best and most threatening at the sales front. Red Hat only slightly less so. Both daunting and unstoppable.
0 Votes
+ -
I am inclined to agree
genefitz1976 12th Oct 2007
If, in fact, Microsoft is at least in part, behind this, it is not a worry for them, even messing with thier Novell partner, because what happens if they lose, and Novell has to pay Microsoft, Microsoft can always fund "a new project" with Novelle. But it will, maybe not kill, but injure Red Hat. It is a win/win for the Microsoft Machine.
The odd thing is that only Red Hat and Suse are noted in the lawsuit when everyone who does or has used Linux, or even seen Linux in action knows that the multiple desktops and such are a part of every distro's window manager, whether it be Gnome, KDE, Ice, Enlightenment, Fluxbox, etc.
It makes you question why only the business "Powerhouse" distros are being targeted.
Simply put, and I don't intend to insult anyone, but if Microsoft loses a few hundred, or even a few thousand home users, it is not that big of a deal. If they start losing their huge business contracts to the Open Source OS, it is going to start hurting them, greatly.
Make no mistake, Giants are huge, but if you hack away at them, especially their most important means of support, they will eventually fall.
0 Votes
+ -
Loyalty...
Tim Patterson 12th Oct 2007
In any case this will unnecessarily mobilize the community in defense of FOSS and consequently the defense of Novell. Let's hope Novell can learn to appreciate the community whose work Novell is now dependent on. They should think twice before betraying the community in the future.
0 Votes
+ -
Loyalty...
aussieblnd@... 12th Oct 2007
Ahh darn now ya went and got yer buddie fired!
As with all labs they just kill all the rats off and get more!
0 Votes
+ -
I met a member of the MS Linux killer team
mikifinaz1@... 12th Oct 2007
I was at the Borders bookstore in Redmond Washington and ran across a face that I had seen while working at Microsoft. Just before the Linux vs. Windows assault began.

I asked him what he was up to and he said that he and a number of other lab rats at MS had been assigned to a full team that was devoted to finding a way of killing Linux.

Since Linux is better than Windows it looks like the outgrowth is now a legal asault.
0 Votes
+ -
But I didn't know what you were ranting about until now... When you were looking for frozen peas (wink, wink) in the non-fiction section, I was suspicious, but when you started calling me Billy Boy and "The Man" and frothing at the mouth you ran out of the store. They say acid stays with you for years, dude.
Your warnings that coffee's tea killer team is in action also leaves me puzzled.
0 Votes
+ -
Dude, I knew you were high when I saw you...
aussieblnd@... 12th Oct 2007
Starbucks affect? I think I heard of that one!
0 Votes
+ -
I met a member of the Ubuntu Linux team
John Zern 12th Oct 2007
I was at the Borders bookstore in Redmond Washington and ran across a face that I had seen while working at Ubuntu.

I asked him what he was up to and he said that he and a number of other lab rats at Ububtu had been assigned to a full team that was devoted to finding a way of rewriting their code as they admitted that far too much of it was code stolen from Microsoft.
0 Votes
+ -
John... - 10
Linux User 147560 12th Oct 2007
How in the hell could they steal Windows code? Especially since ALL Linux GPL code (meaning just about everything Linux) source code is open and freely accessible to ANYONE that wants to look at it. devil
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong.
xuniL_z 13th Oct 2007
There is proprietary code in every distribution of Ubuntu.


Creating proprietary code under GPL is perfectly legal and it's been done myriad times.

Don't go crowing about stuff that's not even true.

And in case you haven't kept up, how many times has Microsoft code leaked out or been stolen or employees went on to work for Linux companies.

It's about like saying the Linux kernel was written from scratch w/o any minix or unix code in hand. yeah, right Linus.
0 Votes
+ -
If you think there is MS code in Linux
Linux User 147560 13th Oct 2007
you better get your arse in gear and find it. Because IF you did, it would be very profitable for you. Get the point. Microsoft HAS A LINUX LAB! If they found THEIR source code in Linux, you better believe they would be howling like banshee's about it.

As for proprietary, yes there are some aspects that are. But the kernel isn't one of them. And that is in fact what Linux is. A kernel. The rest allows for the kernel - human - machine interface to happen. devil
0 Votes
+ -
Better to ask WHY
rjacksix 15th Oct 2007
Better to ask WHY they would steal code from a system that has been bandaged, is bloated?!?! wink

Please no flames, this is LEVITY...
0 Votes
+ -
You sound like MS's Lord Haw Haw
s_carter2000@... 12th Oct 2007
John,

So which micrsnot misinformation dept do you work for
0 Votes
+ -
With a wit
xuniL_z 13th Oct 2007
that comes out with micrsnot, it's obvious you're not old enough to work for anyone. Go home to Mommy troll.
0 Votes
+ -
And when you finally came to realize
Intellihence 12th Oct 2007
the truth the fact was/is LINUX Walks & the bs shocks !
0 Votes
+ -
Ubuntu Linux team
aussieblnd@... 12th Oct 2007
was funny the firt time!
0 Votes
+ -
To all the responders:
John Zern 14th Oct 2007
Hello, read the article I was responding to: Just making a point of how easy it is lay claim to pretty much anything, as how convenient that this guy ran into someone from MS who laid out all therr plans to him...

wink
They probably have as much chance as Apple did suing MS for the look and feel of Windows.
Hmm, a very quick Google shows
that tvtwm was released in 1990.
There certainly could be earlier
virtual window managers, too. It
seems that this one should be easy
to shoot down via prior arts, or
so it seems to me (IANAL).

-Nick
0 Votes
+ -
Others from 1980's
Me_too 12th Oct 2007
What about Double DOS for one?
0 Votes
+ -
Coincidence
Yagotta B. Kidding 12th Oct 2007
I'm inclined to acquit MS of this one. IPI has over 200 patent lawsuits, including at least two against Microsoft. To me, this is just a case of a rabid dog: eventually, it bites everyone.

If MS wants a tame patent troll as a proxy, they're more likely to use Intellectual Ventures.

That said, I'm inclined to suspect that IPI has made a mistake here. The feature they're claiming to own has a lot of prior art predating their patent, and Red Hat is sitting on a hellacious legal warchest.
0 Votes
+ -
Fair Game
kozmcrae 12th Oct 2007
"IPI has over 200 patent lawsuits, including at least two against Microsoft."

That's a good point. And good research too. But one way around that would be some sort of "deal" with IPI. Microsoft is notorious for turning enemies into temporary allies. The only "partner" Microsoft wouldn't turn on would be their stockholders. Everybody else is fair game, everybody.
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft patent war by proxy
Elwood Diverse 12th Oct 2007
As we watch free/open software advocates quickly mobilize to address this attack at Groklaw, you've got to wonder why, other than via the Microsoft starter gun, IP Innovation, would start such a suit when these patents have just about reached end-of-life. Failure to pursue licensing agreements much earlier possibly dooms its effort here.
We should assume that Microsoft has pushed them into the suit. It will be interesting to see if the patents at issue will be invalidated in the process. Clearly, Microsoft would rather see someone else's patents attacked, rather than their own. The free software advocates will get some practice to prepare for the war against MS patents next.
0 Votes
+ -
This company also sued Apple...
wolf_z 12th Oct 2007
...and got Apple to pay them to go away. That provides them with a precedent AND a war chest.
0 Votes
+ -
Yeah but...
DonRupertBitByte 12th Oct 2007
Look at "The SCO Group"-they hired a high profile lawyer firm to attempt to enforce the Linux extortion scheme, and the flaky "evidence" still wasn't enough.

Moral of the story? Money can buy great lawyers, but if your evidence is sketchy, not even experienced lawyers may be able to save you.
0 Votes
+ -
Yeah but...
boguscomputer 12th Oct 2007
Money can buy great lawyers, but if your evidence is sketchy, not even experienced lawyers may be able to save you.

However, when the evidence was clear against MS, a visit from Steve B to the Vice President on, "an unrelated matter" got the judge thrown out that week, and essentially no punishment doled out.

Money can buy great vice presidents, or so it appears.
0 Votes
+ -
Winds of change
DonRupertBitByte 12th Oct 2007
Remember, the heat on Microsoft vanished when we had a change of presidents several years ago.

Granted, Judge Jackson didn't handle himself well either, of course. However, even if he had, I still think Microsoft would have gotten off like they did.

Of course, in Europe, that doesn't work, just like USA-based software patents don't...
0 Votes
+ -
Huh?
genefitz1976 12th Oct 2007
Okay, I did a search of all three patents on the US Patents and Trademark office website and all three of these patents were filed by Henderson, Jr.; D. Austin (Palo Alto, CA), Card; Stuart K. (Los Altos Hills, CA), Maxwell, III; John T. (Sunnyvale, CA), and with the assignee being Xerox Corp.
Now, don't get me wrong, my copier is pretty snazzy, but I have never seen anything on my copier likened to Red Hat. Now I don't know who the actual plaintiff is, but I don't really see it, unless this is one of those "We got the patent in case we ever figure out how to do it," things.
I do, however think it kind of odd that the people, or company that this company is trying to represent is not noted. It sounds fishy from the beginning, and seems to be even fishier as I read on.
I do, however note the coincidence that Microsoft makes these claims a day or two before the release of the lawsuit.
I don't trust it.
I don't think this will do too much, nor do I think it will go anywhere. not to sound too optomistic on the Linux side, but honestly, unless this company cah prove that they stole the code, the graphical end, or even the idea from them, they don't really have much of a chance.
And any difference, even a slight difference, can prove to be a case killer. It has happened before.

Just a thought.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Linux patent suit: In search of the Microsoft smoking gun
dsfwrryd1301-24353654314296078269402150143345 12th Nov
sdivxw,good post!

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix