[LUAU] Did Microsoft give up?

[Jim Thompson]

On Feb 22, 2008, at 12:33 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>> [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Jim Thompson
>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:13 AM
>> To: noc at hdk5.net; LUAU
>> Cc: buug at weak.org; San Diego's BSD Users Group;
>> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>> Subject: Re: [LUAU] Did Microsoft give up?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 21, 2008, at 7:20 AM, NetOpsCenter wrote:
>>
>>> Aloha,
>>>
>>> I just saw on TV news that Micro$oft has announced that it is
>>> opening its code for development of its operating system.
>>> Does this mean the Open Source Community has proved itself the best
>>> way to go?
>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Its more "get the EU off our backs" and "control the message".
>
> Actually, yes and no.  It depends on your POV.  If your goal is
> to see MS shrivel up and blow away, then of course it's bad.
>
> Basically what is happening is that Microsoft's sales and marketing
> dept. has figured out that overt slams against Open Source (like
> the intellectual property arguments) aren't doing anything to keep
> Open Source applications out of the corporate customers anymore.
> Perhaps 5 years ago it helped slow Open Source penetration but
> it's not working now.
>
> So they are now starting to get concerned with future problems
> that will arise when they go to make pitches and sell their
> systems into shops that have significant amount of Open Source
> already in use.
>
> If they go into, for example, Sams Auto Parts and Sams has this
> large MySQL-based parts catalog system that they have been using
> for the last 5 years and have no intention of getting rid of,
> what MS is worried about is that if their own programs aren't
> compatible with MySQL (or firefox or whatever) then Sam's will
> not even consider buying their stuff.
>
> So, what MS is trying to do is "fixate" a lot of standards that
> the Open Source community has already reverse-engineered.  Take
> for example, Samba.  Samba servers are now so prevalent (and servers
> based on samba code - think embedded stuff) that Microsoft cannot
> make changes in the Microsoft Networking code anymore that will
> make the Microsoft stuff incompatible with Samba servers, or
> people will just not deploy their stuff.
>
> Microsoft for example got very shaken with the response to their
> change of the fast file caching code in Vista.  It made Vista
> systems dog-slow copying files to Samba servers.  Microsoft
> thought, when they were designing Vista, that they could make an
> arbitrary change and everyone would blame the Samba server for
> getting it wrong.  Instead, the trade press and reviewers all
> blamed Microsoft for screwing up their Vista networking code,
> and that contributed to the slower Vista adoption rate.  Of course,
> the Samba developers made a change right away that fixed it,
> but what Microsoft learned is that in the future they would have
> to be compatible with Samba when they released product.
>
> Thus, the opening of these interfaces.  Microsoft's hope is
> that if they make the docs available now, then if there's changes
> that need to be made in Samba that they will be quietly made
> now and so that the next time Microsoft makes a change, it will
> not reflect badly on their stuff because everyone will be operating
> under the same set of guidelines.
>
>> here are the key, tangible actions Microsoft details in their
>> announcement:
>>
>> * Ensuring open connections to Microsoft’s high-volume products,  
>> where
>> high-volume means:
>>
>> 	Windows Vista (including the .NET Framework), Windows Server 2008,
>> SQL Server 2008, Office 2007, Exchange Server 2007, and Office
>> SharePoint Server 2007, and future versions of all these products.
>>
>> Note that you'll need 'new software' to get the "open connections".
>>
>
> Not true.  MS released 30K of doc pages of older stuff and opened
> many things.  It's just that this is isn't interesting since few
> people use those protocols, interfaces and formats anymore.

You're talking about something different here.

My statement stands.

>> * Documenting how Microsoft supports industry standards and  
>> extensions
>> * Enhancing Office 2007 to provide greater flexibility of document
>> formats
>> * Launching the Open Source Interoperability Initiative
>> * Expanding industry outreach and dialogue.
>>
>> Looking deeper into the announcement, much of what Microsoft’s doing
>> is providing a more accessible platform for third-party developers to
>> tap into their ecosystem of multi-billion dollar software franchises.
>
> This is a precise description of the Samba code.  Without Windows,
> the samba server would be of no account.  The reason that the Samba
> code is so valuable is precisely because that multi-billion dollar
> Windows software franchise exists.

Jebus, its not about Samba at *all*.   Its about plugging new, foreign  
code into Office and Sharepoint.

>> For example, the company is launching APIs for Word, Excel, and
>> Powerpoint, and publishing tens of thousands of pieces of
>> documentation to its MSDN site.
>>
>> They're playing the same game with a new mask.
>>
>> They'll license their patented protocols to all comers "at low,
>> reasonable rates".
>>
>
> Except that those protocols are worthless unless used.

But Microsoft uses them, you just pointed out that they are very, very  
large.

> What exactly do you expect from a commercial entity?  A business  
> that comes up with a new idea is going to patent it and try to make  
> money from it.

Not a foregone conclusion, especially if you mean "make money via  
patent licensing (or litigation)".

Many companies don't do this.

Moreover businesses don't come up with new ideas, people do.

> As for protocol patents, the world standards bodies like IETF have  
> been under enormous pressure to make
> absolutely sure that any corporate contribution to standardized  
> protocol development is not covered under a patent.  They have
> mistakenly let a few slip through, but I do not think we will see a  
> repeat of the Unisys GIF extortion racket in the future.

While the IETF has a "no patent licenses required", and W3C has a zero- 
cost royalty policy, other standards bodies (such as IEEE) only  
require that the patent be licensed on a non-discriminatory basis.

And it just gets worse from there (ITU, for example).   Your statement  
rings false.

> And if any open source developer is stupid enough to write to a  
> protocol interface that isn't standardized by one of the
> standards bodies, then the public nature of Open Source should take  
> care of making sure his stuff isn't adopted.

Unless its useful.  As a somewhat dramatic example, where would the  
"web" be without people developing a new protocol called HTTP, *long*  
before it was standardized.

There are hundreds more examples like this, too.

>> They have stated that they won't sue open source developers that  
>> make products that connect to theirs.
>
> Consider that there is no such thing as a global patent, if those
> developers aren't in the US it's likely MS wouldn't have grounds
> to sue even if the developer did use one of their protocols.

"no such thing as a global patent", true, but treaties tend to make  
this "all but true".
The Patent Cooperation Treaty was concluded in 1970, amended in 1979,  
and modified in 1984 and 2001.

It is open to States party to the Paris Convention for the Protection  
of Industrial Property (1883). Instruments of ratification or  
accession must be deposited with the Director General of WIPO.

The Treaty makes it possible to seek patent protection for an  
invention simultaneously in each of a large number of countries by  
filing an "international" patent application. Such an application may  
be filed by anyone who is a national or resident of a Contracting  
State. It may generally be filed with the national patent office of  
the Contracting State of which the applicant is a national or resident  
or, at the applicant's option, with the International Bureau of WIPO  
in Geneva. If the applicant is a national or resident of a Contracting  
State which is party to the European Patent Convention, the Harare  
Protocol on Patents and Industrial Designs (Harare Protocol), the  
revised Bangui Agreement Relating to the Creation of an African  
Intellectual Property Organization or the Eurasian Patent Convention,  
the international application may also be filed with the European  
Patent Office (EPO), the African Regional Industrial Property  
Organization (ARIPO), the African Intellectual Property Organization  
(OAPI) or the Eurasian Patent Office (EAPO), respectively.

The international application is then subjected to what is called an  
"international search." That search is carried out by one of the major  
patent offices appointed by the PCT Assembly as an International  
Searching Authority (ISA). The said search results in an  
"international search report," that is, a listing of the citations of  
such published documents that might affect the patentability of the  
invention claimed in the international application.  At the same time,  
the ISA prepares a written opinion on patentability.

The international search report and the written opinion are  
communicated by the ISA to the applicant who may decide to withdraw  
his application, in particular where the said report or opinion makes  
the granting of patents unlikely.

And then there is the Patent Law Treaty of 2000: <http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/plt/trtdocs_wo038.html#P71_4394 
 >

So your statement rings hollow.   (Do you know anything about Patent  
law?)

>> They have also stated that they won't sue open source developers or
>> non-commercial  distributors of software that uses their protocols.
>> If you're RedHat, or a company that uses Debian or Ubuntu, you still
>> have to license their patents.
>>
>
> Sounds fine to me.  I don't know about you but I've been  
> increasingly concerned about how much money has been creeping into  
> open source distribution lately.
>
> When people are paying the same amount for a copy of Linux as they  
> are for a copy of Windows, to me it defeats the entire point of Open  
> Source - you might as well just buy the commercial stuff.

Thats because you think the value of Open Source is low cost, not  
Freedom.

Jim