Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> September 16, 2004
>
> Sun-Microsoft deal raises Open Office questions
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Microsoft Corp. on Wednesday said that it is looking for ways to work
> | more closely with developers of the Open Office open source project,
> | while at the same time, apparently reserving the right to sue them,
> | according to a legal agreement between Microsoft and Open Office's
> | major sponsor, Sun Microsystems Inc., made public this week.
> `----
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/09/16/HNopenoffice_1.html
In this case, the problem for Microsoft is that there are public
specifications of the XML parsers and schemas available, and OpenOffice
is the "Reference Model" for compliance to this schema. Furthermore,
many of the interfaces and technologies are patented (defensively) but
licensed only under OO licenses.
This means that Microsoft must license the technology from Sun.
Microsoft also knows that the source code is publicly available, and
knows that they have no legitimate patent claims against OpenOffice.
Microsoft would have had to declare the patent infringements in
question at the time that this agreement was signed. Failure to do so
could nullify the patent. Furthermore, defensive patents, if enforced,
could backfire, not only triggering nullification of patents, but could
even result in reallocation of patents back to the original authors of
the original "device" and the original claim, or nullification.
Microsoft has the burdon of proof to show that the original author
didn't intuitively derive the technology based on publicly available
information published prior to publication of the patent related
information.
For Sun, the settlement is a good way to promote the transation from
OpenOffice to StarOffice. The challenge in the matter is who paid who?
Did Sun pay Microsoft a huge amount of money (a multibillion dollar
settlement), or did Microsoft pay Sun? Who was paid? How were they
paid?
If the patent was violated, and it was known to be a direct violation,
then the individual or organization contributing the infracting
software could be prosecuted under criminal laws. Even this would
require prove that the individual had full knowledge of the patent, and
had used code obtained from the patented and published software. A
difficult burden to prove.
On the other hand, the settlement may force Microsoft to attempt to go
to trial in open court, which they may opt not to do. After all, if
Microsoft tried to assert technology claims that had in any way been
implemented by prior arts, it would be amazing.
> They have already had Novell planting landmines for a while, submitted as
> pathces to the main branch, e.g.:
> http://reverendted.wordpress.com/2006/08/19/vba-macros-update/
This could be a really ugly mess. What is it that Microsoft seems to
think that they have patented? BASIC was developed by DEC almost 40
years ago. The use of scripts within applications such as word
processors was implemented in EMACS 30 years ago. The implementation
of scripting in Object Oriented graphics implemented in the Xerox ALTO
almost 30 years ago. The interleaving of applications using frames was
implemented as part of X11R3 20 years ago. We could go on. In fact,
it would be really fun to have a trial, because the case would be
completely loaded with "prior art". All of this prior art would become
a permanent part of the patent office record. An extended public trial
against a major customer could trigger congressional investigations
into the abuse of software patents.
Perhaps Congress may even decide that this whole concept of software
patents was such a bad idea, that they will nullify all patents, and
possibly even revoke the ability to patent all software.
Or perhaps Congress would simply decide that code covered by
nondisclosure can be intuitively derived until it is published.
Wouldn't THAT put a kink in Microsoft's plans.
|
|
