If I held Microsoft stock (which I don’t) I would be furious.
Here is Steve Balmer focusing on Linux, making the tired claim that there is so-called Intellectual Property in Linux that violates patents held by Microsoft. Meanwhile Microsoft gets hit with a hefty patent violation of its own; 1.5 billion (yes, that is a “B”) for the use of the mp3 patent without payment of royalties. It appears that patent obligations are for others, not for Microsoft to worry about.
But wait, you say, the current international patent system is a mess and this ruling is indicative of that, this is actually an unfair decision against Microsoft which will impact any number of companies, like Apple, who use mp3 based technology. Furthermore, you say, patent verdicts are often reversed upon appeal so we ought not to snicker gleefully in our beer just yet. And I would say you are right, but still I would expect Mr. Balmer to be honest; if there is a patent infringement of Microsoft code, he should point it out. If I were a shareholder, that is the least I would expect. After all, isn’t that his job? To protect shareholder value? So why is he not doing that? Why is he not pointing to the code that violates intellectual property? And why does Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft’s VP of intellectual property and licensing, say, “We believe there is overlap between our IP portfolio and several open source components.”
Overlap? You mean the clean-room engineering of Samba? Could you please be specific Mr. Gutierrez and Mr. Balmer? Meanwhile, time to review your own patent portfolio and “IP” practices to see if there might be a better way to provide value for your shareholders, like innovating. A quick look at your stock price the last few years should be enough to warn you both that shareholders cannot possibly be happy.
While I am no longer a fan of Microsoft, I remind the author that Microsoft actually took a responsible step and "assigned" itself to the defendant's list of the case rather than wait for Alcatel-Lucent to come knocking on their door with a summons. Also, Microsoft has paid royalties on the MP3 codec via Fraunhoffer as many others do. Why would Microsoft have had any reason to believe they were violating a patent? I'm sure that Microsoft has willingly and knowingly violated patents in the past; however, with MP3 technology so prevalent, how would they hide from the licensor. How come you don't blast Apple Computers, Inc. while you're at it? Or how about any MP3 player/encoder that uses the technology licensed through Fraunhoffer? Not that I'm vouching for Microsoft but, if they are ordered to pay $1.5B if their appeal is struck down, we may find serious consequences across the computer industry, even in the FOSS arena. I hope, for the industry's sake that this ruling is overturned on appeal.
Yes, Microsoft showed good will with the mp3 patent, but they immediately squander that good will when the fail to act in the shareholder's interests. The point is, if someone is violating your patents, don't you have an obligation to point out how and where? Otherwise the consequences are judgments like the one Microsoft is currently facing. These judgments are not necessarily expensive in and of themselves, but they are starting to add up. 683 million here, 1.5 billion there and all of a sudden you are talking about real money.
Jeremiah, you're comparing apples and oranges. Actually you're mad about oranges and trying to use apples as an example.
Here is how your argument sounds:
"Microsoft won't say exactly what IP infringements they think exist in Linux, and meanwhile they got hit with a major IP infringement fine after they thought they had licensed the technology properly! Can you believe it?!?!"
As much as you want there to be a correlation, there isn't.
1) Microsoft paid for an IP license which it later learned (in a court of law) was not sufficient and ended up paying a huge fine (maybe).
2) Microsoft wants others to pay for IP licenses for its technology
#1 doesn't implicate #2, even if Microsoft is being a putz about its IP claims which may be nothing but bluster.
"they immediately squander that good will when the fail to act in the shareholder's interests." What interest is that?
"The point is, if someone is violating your patents, don't you have an obligation to point out how and where? Otherwise the consequences are judgments like the one Microsoft is currently facing"
Again, IANAL, but I think it would be highly suspicious if Microsoft licensed IP to some Linux company and then sued them for IP infringement. The difference here is that Microsoft paid a license to a 3rd party, believing that it was living up to its obligation, and then the first party came back and said "Nope, that license wasn't enough."
Yes, Microsoft should come clean about what IP it is talking about as being present in Linux.
To me, all Steve Ballmer is doing is just more chair throwing and hissy-fit crying than anything. Microsoft is in deep trouble; they have time and again, knowingly and repeatedly, continued to break anti-trust laws and cases brought against them. Now because more and more people are starting to see the good of Linux, now Microsoft is in a panic. (I wonder what Douglas Adams would say to this sort of panic.) Anyway, if Mr. Ballmer thinks that any code of Microsoft's was infringed on, then why doesn't he show it to us?
Because there probably isn't any infringed code. Like I said, this is our monkeyboy just throwing chairs as usual.