Microsoft vs Foss

Microsofts Foss Patent usurpation Holly Stark ITT Technical IT 302 Abstract This paper takes an in depth heart at the claims from Microsoft that FOSS (Free and Open Source Softw are) committed perceptible infringement in 2006. It excessively discusses how the events substantiate impacted FOSS, whether negatively or positively and how the actions work changed both since 2006. Microsofts Foss Patent Infringement Free software is terrific and corporate America seems to love it. Its often high-quality stuff that substructure be downloaded separated off the Internet and and so copied at will.Its versatile it brush aside be customized to perform almost any large-scale computing labor movement and best of all its crash-resistant. More than half the companies in the Fortune viosterol are conceit to be utilize the free operating agreement Linux in their data centers. In 2006, Microsoft cast a shadow over Free and Open Source Software by alleging that they had violated 235 homelys much(prenominal) as the Linux kernel, Samba, OpenOffice. org and others. Fosss legal representative Eben Moglen cont blockadeed that software is a numeric algorithm and, as such, not perceptibleable. Parloff, R. 2007) But what of Microsofts claims? Are they well-grounded? But first to answer that you need to understand what a patent really is. A patent is essentially a limited monopoly whereby the patent holder is granted the exclusive right to make, use, and sell the patented creation for a limited period of time. Granting exclusive rights to the inventor is intended to advocate the investment of time and resources into the development of new and useful discoveries. Once the barrier of protection has ended, the patented innovation enters the public domain.The problem of the patentability of software has move around one of the most debated issues with regards to open source software. The Supreme Court utter in a unanimous opinion that patents have been issued too quick for the past two decades, and lots are probably invalid. For a mixing of technical reasons, many dispassionate observers suspect that software patents are curiously vulnerable to court challenge. This ruling works in FOSSs favor. Patents can be invalidated in court on numerous cause others can easily be invented around. Still others might be valid, besides not infringed under the particular circumstances. FOSS has some well cognise patrons on the job(p) in its corner as well. In 2005, six of them IBM (Charts, Fortune 500), Sony, Philips, Novell, blood-red Hat (Charts) and NEC set up the Open Invention meshwork (OIN) to acquire a portfolio of patents that might pose problems for companies like Microsoft, which are known to pose a patent threat to Linux. So if Microsoft ever sued Linux allocator Red Hat for patent infringement, for instance, OIN might sue Microsoft in retaliation, stressful to enjoin distribution of Windows. Parloff, R. 2007) A preliminary legal anal ysis of FOSS freedoms conducted seems to fire that the novel licensing model used by FOSS is legally valid, a occurrence that lends substantial credit to the movement. Other indications as to the soundness of the licenses are also encouraging a ruling in Germany that has recognized the validity of the customary Public License (GPL) ( J. Hoppner,2004), which further serves to stress that FOSS is a global phenomenon that is revolutionizing the stallion field of software development.Microsoft realized that something had to change when it comes to patents. They basically had three choices. They could do nothing, it could start suing other companies to stop them from using its patents, or, they could begin licensing its patents to other companies in exchange for either royalties or access to their patents (a cross-licensing can). They chose to do the latter. In celestial latitude 2003, Microsofts new licensing unit opened for business, and soon the company had signed cross-licensin g pacts with such tech firms as Sun, Toshiba, SAP and Siemens.On November 2, 2006, Microsoft went public and announced a compact with Novell to collaborate to help Microsofts Windows, a proprietorship operating system, work with Novells Suse Linux, which is establish on open-source code. In addition, the software makers struck a deal on patents designed to give customers peace of mind about using Novells open-source products. This partnership made Novell the only company in the attention that was able to provide the customer not only with the code to triumph Linux, but also with a patent covenant from Microsoft. Evers, Joris 2006) Some thought that it showed that Microsoft was kind of being forced to see Linux as a profound competitor and the FOSS model as a viable business model. (Upfold, shaft of light 2006) My personal opinion is that this was an attack on the open source community. Microsoft hasnt actually changed its tune its still actively attacking free software and try ing to abolish GNU/Linux while promoting Windows and other proprietary software as though they are complementary to free software, which they are not. Its PR nonsense and Microsoft is good at PR.Since then, Novell was interchange in 2010 to Attachmate Corp. and a concurrent sale of certain intellectual property assets was sold to CPTN Holdings LLC, a consortium of technology companies organized by Microsoft Corporation. It plays right into the hand of Microsofts PR campaign, which strives for a fusion where Microsoft controls both sides of the competition and then derails the side which is less favorable to Microsoft. Microsoft has done that over and over again for many years and victims include giants like IBM and Apple.While FOSS licenses generally protect end user freedom in the realm of copyright, they have no in force(p) protection against threats from software patents, especially from entities outside the FOSS community. In responding to the threat from software patent hol ders, the FOSS community has created innovative licensing schemes. ( Davidson, S. J 2006) Permissive licenses, such as the Apache licenses, have different patent rights clauses from reciprocal licenses, such as the MPL and GPL. In dealing with potential patent claims, GPL 2. has a Freedom or shoemakers last termination clause any patent must be license for everyones free use or not licensed at all. GPL 2. 0 does not allow the development of software that requires any kind of license payments for third party patents. (Hacker. J. n. d. ) GPL 3. 0 was drafted to cope with global software patent threats and to provide compatibility with more non-GPL FOSS licenses. The current GPL draft 3. 0 keeps GPL 2. 0s copyleft feature and includes new provisions addressing evolving computing issues, such as patent issues, free software license compatibility, and digital rights management (DRM). McMillan, R 2007) As of today, Microsoft is still attacking free software with two types of tactics. The tactics mostly include litigation and the use of so-called Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt (FUD) tactics designed to overturn the popular perception of the open source philosophy. This year alone they have won several cases either outright, in appeal or countersuits against Motorolas Android features. The rest of the FOSS community seems to be on edge and time lag to see what happens next.