-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
OIN spearheads review of Microsoft FAT patents
,----[ Quoye ]
| OIN announced today that three patents in the lawsuit — including those the
| deal with the creation of long and short file names — have been named for
| prior art review on the Post-Issue Peer-to-Patent website linked to the Linux
| Defenders portal.
`----
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=4112
Open Invention Network Announces Community Prior Art Review: Patents Cited in
Recent TomTom-Targeted Litigation Placed on Linux Defenders Portal
DURHAM, NC -- 04/28/09 -- Open Invention Network(SM) (OIN), a collaborative
enterprise that enables innovation in open source and an increasingly vibrant
ecosystem around Linux, today announced that U.S. patents 5579517, 5758352 and
6256642 have been placed for prior art review on the Post-Issue Peer-to-Patent
website associated with the Linux Defenders portal. These patents were
recently cited in litigation that targeted TomTom NV.
OIN's mission includes encouraging the Linux community to review
patents-of-interest that may be of suspect quality or riddled by questions
regarding prior art. Accordingly, the patents used in the recent TomTom patent
action have been posted by OIN for review and submission of prior art by the
Linux community. Submissions may be made by visiting
http://www.post-issue.org, clicking on the appropriate patent and
selecting "Submit Prior Art."
"The patent vetting activity offered by the Linux Defenders portal offers a
unique opportunity to bring to bear the collective knowledge, passion and
ingenuity of the Linux community to better explore the validity of the patents
that were the subject of the recent action against TomTom," said Keith
Bergelt, CEO of Open Invention Network. "I encourage active participation from
the entire Linux community so that other companies seeking to advance Linux
strategies can be better informed about the quality of these patents."
About Open Invention Network
Open Invention Network(SM) is a collaborative enterprise that enables
innovation in open source and an increasingly vibrant ecosystem around Linux
by acquiring and licensing patents, influencing behaviors and policy, and
protecting the integrity of the ecosystem. It enables the growth and
continuation of open source software by fostering a healthy Linux ecosystem of
investors, vendors, developers and users.
Open Invention Network has considerable industry backing. It was launched in
2005, and has received investments from IBM, NEC, Novell, Philips, Red Hat and
Sony. For more information, go to www.openinventionnetwork.com.
Open Invention Network, the Open Invention Network logo, Linux Defenders, Linux
Defenders 911 and the Linux Defenders 911 logo are the property of Open
Invention Network, LLC. All other names and brand marks are the property of
their respective holders.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/open-invention-network-announces-community,801616.shtml
Recent:
[From HPT]
http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf
Table of contents of this document is a further indictment
against the monopoly regarding its anti-competitive practises
against competition.
[quote]
Microsoft
A History of Anticompetitive Behavior and Consumer Harm
March 31, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................1
II. MICROSOFT’S HISTORY OF ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT ..........3
A. Microsoft’s Campaign To Destroy DR-DOS ...................3
B. Microsoft’s Anticompetitive Per Processor License Fees ...5
C. Microsoft’s Retaliation And Price Discrimination Against IBM
.............................................................6
D. Microsoft’s Organized Collective Boycott Against Intel ...7
E. Microsoft’s Elimination Of Word Perfect ..................7
F. Microsoft’s Deceptive WISE Software Program ..............9
G. Microsoft’s Elimination Of Netscape .....................10
H. Microsoft’s Attempts To Extinguish Java .................14
I. Microsoft’s Elimination Of Rival Media Players ..........16
J. Microsoft’s Campaign Against Rival Server Operating Systems
............................................................18
III. MICROSOFT CONTINUES TO ENGAGE IN ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT
............................................................19
A. Microsoft’s Failure To Comply With The Final Judgment ...20
B. Microsoft’s Campaign of Patent FUD against Linux and Open
Source Software.............................................23
C. Microsoft’s Ongoing Misconduct Has Sparked Further European
Commission Investigations ..................................23
IV. MICROSOFT’S FALSE PROMISES OF INTEROPERABILITY .........24
V. MICROSOFT’S MONOPOLIES HAVE HARMED CONSUMERS ............25
A. Microsoft’s Operating System Monopoly Has Harmed Consumers
............................................................25
B. Microsoft’s Office Monopoly Has Harmed Consumers ........26
C. Microsoft’s Web Browser Monopoly Has Harmed Consumers ...28
VI. CONCLUSION .............................................31
[/quote]
Section III.B discusses FUD against Linux:
[quote]
B. Microsoft’s Campaign of Patent FUD against Linux and Open
Source Software
“This is not a case of some accidental, unknowing
infringement. There is an overwhelming number of patents being
infringed.”
— Microsoft General Counsel and Intellectual Property and
Licensing Vice President Horacio Gutierrez [128]
[/quote]
Here is an indicting observation about the anti-competitive
practises through unsubstantiated patent violations in Linux:
[quote]
The open source Linux operating system is the principal rival to
Microsoft Windows. Linux has been taken up by both corporate
customers and, increasingly, by private individuals for home use
(e.g., with netbooks). In a recent interview with CNET, Steve
Ballmer identified Linux as one of the top two competitive
threats to Microsoft in the enterprise segment. [129]
Consistent with its behavior in response to other competitive
threats, Microsoft has used unfair and anti-competitive tactics
to try and slow the uptake of Linux. In particular, Microsoft
has made and continues to make broad, unsubstantiated claims that
software developers distributing Linux or other open source
software, as well as their customers, are infringing
Microsoft’s patents. [130] However, although Microsoft has
claimed that as many as 235 patents may have been infringed
[131], it has consistently failed to identify which patents are
at issue.
[/quote]
It warns of possible future legal action by Microsoft, as a part
of its FUD campaign against Linux and Open Source to kill Linux,
requirement for additional licensing for "immunity". According
to this next paragraph, licensing fees have a certain ring of
action for protection similar to action by organised crime:
[quote]
Microsoft’s tactic is to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt
(“FUD”) as to whether developers and users of open source
software may be the target of future patent infringement
suits, and thereby chill consumer enthusiasm and demand for Linux
and open source solutions.
Indeed, Microsoft’s unwarranted threats have brought such
pressure to bear on Linux users that some have felt compelled to
enter into royalty-bearing patent licenses with Microsoft. [132]
Microsoft’s campaign of FUD effectively works to impose a “tax”
on the use of the most viable alternative software to Windows:
faced with an intimidating and powerful potential litigant known
for its hardball tactics, Linux users are driven to pay the
licensing fee despite the speculative nature of the IP claims.
Microsoft’s bullying tactics therefore raise the overall cost
and slow down market penetration by innovative technologies
intended to compete with Microsoft’s monopoly products.
[/quote]
Interesting is the comment about the US Law in regard to software
patentability.
[quote]
Moreover, there is a strong likelihood that Microsoft’s patent
FUD campaign may be unfounded in law. Recent U.S. jurisprudence
clarifies that the scope for patenting business methods, which
lie at the heart of many software patents, is much narrower than
was previously thought to be the case. [133] In addition, one of
the thresholds for patentability – that an invention is not
obvious to a person skilled in the art – has recently become
harder to meet. [134] As such, many of the patents held by
Microsoft are likely to be of questionable validity today.
[/quote]
According to this next paragraph, patents are a methodology to
deter competition.
[quote]
Furthermore, given the myriad of software patents in existence,
consumers may often be unable to determine with certainty whether
their use or distribution of certain software products actually
infringes another company’s IP rights. Therefore, contrary to the
broad and categorical statements of Mr. Gutierrez as to the
intentional nature of any alleged patent infringements, it is
widely recognized in the industry that, regardless of whether
proprietary or open source software is used, there is a high
likelihood that patent infringements will have been committed
inadvertently. Microsoft has sought to exploit the current
absence of clarity in patent law in order to deter consumers from
taking up offerings competing with Microsoft’s own products.
[/quote]
Below mentions Microsoft suing TomTom regarding Microsoft's
questionable patents.
[quote]
In an apparent escalation of its patent FUD strategy, Microsoft
sued the navigational system vendor, TomTom, for patent
infringement at the end of February 2009. Three patent claims
related to Linux are included in the lawsuit. [135] At least two
of them are related to highly questionable patents on long file
name support in Windows, which have been partially invalidated by
an EC patent court on the grounds that Microsoft’s patent claims
were “not based on inventive activity”. [136] While Microsoft has
publicly claimed that its action is not directed against Linux or
open source, and the case was settled in March 2009 pursuant to a
mostly confidential agreement, this represents an aggressive
development of Microsoft’s use of spurious or highly questionable
patent claims to intimidate and eliminate competition from Linux
in order to maintain or strengthen its dominant position in the
OS market.
[/quote]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkn3pngACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4snwCeOv6lFRIB6OkaDp5D4TPm3wBO
/DEAn0MA3J74wPV/3n+0r+0ES0m5M8O8
=sLd5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
