And it’s back to business for me, after my trials and tribulations getting this site performing the way I want it to. Almost…
This time, here’s Bill Hilf, Microsoft’s…well, let’s let InformationWeek introduce him…
Microsoft’s leading light on open source issues. Since coming to Microsoft from IBM in 2003, Hilf has been inextricably involved with Microsoft’s strategy for dealing with Linux. He’s recently been appointed general manager of Windows Server marketing and platform strategy, which means he’s taking on an expanded role, but open source is still one of his core issues.
One of his core issues. Indeed. InformationWeek asks him:
InformationWeek: Are there any specific areas where you would see Microsoft placing things in an open source development environment as a way to further its own products or to better interoperate with things?
He replies with :
Hilf: When people buy commercial software, really what they’re buying is a guarantee. You’re buying a guarantee that what you have will perform, and has been tested and there’s someone you can call up, and if things go really bad someone’s liable if something doesn’t work. You’re buying this ecosystem of accountability. One of the challenges of open source and really the challenge with the open source business model is: it’s hard to replicate that ecosystem of accountability and that guarantee.
What he seems to be implying here is that if you use FOSS products, there’s no one to phone up and complain to if something with that product goes wrong. There’s no accountability. You can’t hold someone liable for something going wrong. What he’s also saying is that buying commercial (read : proprietary) software, then all these negatives Go Away. Not only that, but with the purchase of the commercial software, you’re getting a “guarantee that what you have will perform, and has been tested”, that you can hold the publishers of that software liable if something doesn’t work.
Oh, really? Yeah. Right.
Let’s deal with the issue of a piece of commercial software having a guarantee it’s going to work/perform, first.
On the surface, his comments implying that commercial software is some kind of “safer bet” look pretty sound, especially when you look at the license agreement for GPL’d, Open Source software. Here’s an excerpt from the GPLv3
15. Disclaimer of Warranty.
THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
16. Limitation of Liability.
IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
So basically, when you use Free Software under the GPL, there’s no guarantee that it’ll do what you want it to do, and the authors aren’t liable for any damage done by the software – if it melts your expensive hardware you can’t phone up the lawyers and sue the writers of the software. The software is provided AS IS – what you see is what you get – it’s entirely your responsibility to deal with the consequences of deciding to use the software.
So as I said, on the face of it, Bill Hilf appears to be making a valid point – oh dear – FOSS must be unreliable, there’s no guarantees!
Yeah. Right.
I wonder if Bill Hilf has taken a look at Microsoft’s EULA’s for their commercial software? Let’s take a look at, for example, the Windows XP End User License Agreement for XP Home, specifically the WARRANTY section, emphasis in red has been added by me:
15. LIMITED WARRANTY FOR SOFTWARE ACQUIRED IN THE US AND CANADA. Microsoft warrants that the Software will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying materials for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of receipt. If an implied warranty or condition is created by your state /jurisdiction and federal or state/provincial law prohibits disclaimer of it, you also have an implied warranty or condition, BUT ONLY AS TO DEFECTS DISCOVERED DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS LIMITED WARRANTY (NINETY DAYS). AS TO ANY DEFECTS DISCOVERED AFTER THE NINETY-DAY PERIOD, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY KIND. Some states/jurisdictions do not allow limitations on how long an implied warranty or condition lasts, so the above limitation may not apply to you. Any supplements or updates to the Software, including without limitation, any (if any) service packs or hot fixes provided to you after the expiration of the ninety day Limited Warranty period are not covered by any warranty or condition, express, implied or statutory. LIMITATION ON REMEDIES; NO CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES. Your exclusive remedy for any breach of this Limited Warranty is as set forth below. Except for any refund elected by Microsoft, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, if the Software does not meet Microsoft’s Limited Warranty, and, to the maximum extent allowed by applicable law, even if any remedy fails of its essential purpose. The terms of Section 17 (”Exclusion of Incidental, Consequential and Certain Other Damages”) are also incorporated into this Limited Warranty. Some states /jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitation or exclusion may not apply to you. This Limited Warranty gives you specific legal rights. You may have other rights which vary from state/jurisdiction to state/jurisdiction. YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY. Microsoft’s and its suppliers’ entire liability and your exclusive remedy for any breach of this Limited Warranty or for any other breach of this EULA or for any other liability relating to the Software shall be, at Microsoft’s option from time to time exercised subject to applicable law, (a) return of the amount paid (if any) for the Software, or (b) repair or replacement of the Software, that does not meet this Limited Warranty and that is returned to Microsoft with a copy of your receipt. You will receive the remedy elected by Microsoft without charge, except that you are responsible for any expenses you may incur (e.g. cost of shipping the Software to Microsoft). This Limited Warranty is void if failure of the Software has resulted from accident, abuse, misapplication, abnormal use or a virus. Any replacement Software will be warranted for the remainder of the original warranty period or thirty (30) days, whichever is longer, and Microsoft will use commercially reasonable efforts to provide your remedy within a commercially reasonable time of your compliance with Microsoft’s warranty remedy procedures. Outside the United States or Canada, neither these remedies nor any product support services offered by Microsoft are available without proof of purchase from an authorized international source. To exercise your remedy, contact: Microsoft, Attn. Microsoft Sales Information Center/One Microsoft Way/Redmond, WA 98052-6399, or the Microsoft subsidiary serving your country. 16. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. The Limited Warranty that appears above is the only express warranty made to you and is provided in lieu of any other express warranties or similar obligations (if any) created by any advertising, documentation, packaging, or other communications. Except for the Limited Warranty and to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Software and support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, whether express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness of responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with regard to the Software, and the provision of or failure to provide support or other services, information, software, and related content through the Software or otherwise arising out of the use of the Software. ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE. 17. EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS OR CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER INFORMATION, FOR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, FOR PERSONAL INJURY, FOR LOSS OF PRIVACY, FOR FAILURE TO MEET ANY DUTY INCLUDING OF GOOD FAITH OR OF REASONABLE CARE, FOR NEGLIGENCE, AND FOR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER) ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT OR OTHER SERVICES, INFORMATON, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED CONTENT THROUGH THE SOFTWARE OR OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE, OR OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS EULA, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF THE FAULT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), MISREPRESENTATION, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR BREACH OF WARRANTY OF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER, AND EVEN IF MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. 18. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDIES. Notwithstanding any damages that you might incur for any reason whatsoever (including, without limitation, all damages referenced herein and all direct or general damages in contract or anything else), the entire liability of Microsoft and any of its suppliers under any provision of this EULA and your exclusive remedy hereunder (except for any remedy of repair or replacement elected by Microsoft with respect to any breach of the Limited Warranty) shall be limited to the greater of the actual damages you incur in reasonable reliance on the Software up to the amount actually paid by you for the Software or US$5.00. The foregoing limitations, exclusions and disclaimers (including Sections 15, 16 and 17) shall apply to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, even if any remedy fails its essential purpose.
Okay, so what’s that one saying? Now, I have to point out that I Am Not A Lawyer. Take what I’m saying as strictly my own interpretation of that EULA. Feel free to come to your own conclusions about it – even feel free to correct me if I’m wrong – but here I go.
Microsoft warrants that the Software will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying materials for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of receipt.
That’s nice – XP Home is guaranteed to work from 90 days of date of receipt – what if I buy it and don’t install it on my computer till 91 days after I received it? Joke, joke. But “perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying materials”? I have no idea what that means. “It mostly does what it’s supposed to do for 90 days”? Maybe.
Except for any refund elected by Microsoft, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, if the Software does not meet Microsoft’s Limited Warranty, and, to the maximum extent allowed by applicable law, even if any remedy fails of its essential purpose.
Okay so if XP Home melts my computer within that 90 days, I’m not entitled to any damages apart from what Microsoft deigns to pay me.
This Limited Warranty is void if failure of the Software has resulted from accident, abuse, misapplication, abnormal use or a virus. Any replacement Software will be warranted for the remainder of the original warranty period or thirty (30) days, whichever is longer
So if my computer melts because of an accident (a tank crashed through my wall and drove over the PC?), abuse (I poured fuel on it and set it on fire?), misapplication (I dropped it into acid to see what would happen?), abnormal use (I went swimming with it?), or a virus – WAIT – a virus? If my Windows XP Home catches a virus within that 90 days then the warranty is void? Oh dear.
Except for the Limited Warranty and to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Software and support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, whether express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability
Oh look! Windows XP Home is provided AS IS too! Not only that, but WITH ALL FAULTS! Not only that but Microsoft and its suppliers disclaim all warranties for things like “conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability”. So they can’t guarantee that XP Home is reliable or that it’ll always be there for me either?
ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE.
This one made me genuinely laugh out loud when I first read it. They can’t guarantee that I’ll get “quiet enjoyment” or “quiet possession” – whatever that means – out of using XP Home, and I must say, never a truer word has been said about that particular OS in the times I’ve had to do something with it. In fact I recall quite a few times where I’ve, er, uttered enraged invective, to put it mildly, at XP, so it’s really lucky they had that in there or I’d have amassed a fortune by now. The other bit about “non-infringement” has me wondering if they mean they can’t guarantee that XP Home doesn’t infringe on someone elses patent or technology, and isn’t that what Microsoft themselves are attempting to use to scare folks away from using FOSS? The rest of that section 17 looks quite similar to me in its terms to section 16 of the GPLv3.
From section 18…
the entire liability of Microsoft and any of its suppliers under any provision of this EULA and your exclusive remedy hereunder …. shall be limited to the greater of the actual damages you incur in reasonable reliance on the Software up to the amount actually paid by you for the Software or US$5.00.
This is Microsoft saying that their liability amounts to how much you paid for Windows XP Home Edition, OR a grand total of US $5.00. But it’s not only Microsoft who have to bear that heavy burden, note that their suppliers also come under this shield.
Let’s remind ourselves what Bill Hilf stated :
When people buy commercial software, really what they’re buying is a guarantee. You’re buying a guarantee that what you have will perform, and has been tested and there’s someone you can call up, and if things go really bad someone’s liable if something doesn’t work.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but, that Microsoft EULA isn’t any more of a guarantee of software reliability or fitness for purpose than any software distributed under the GPL.
Paying for Microsoft’s commercial software does NOT mean you’re buying any kind of better guarantee than Free and Open Source software at all, if my reading of the EULA is anything like accurate.
Here’s the WARRANTY section from the EULA of Microsoft Vista Ultimate Edition for comparison:
LIMITED WARRANTY
A. LIMITED WARRANTY. If you follow the instructions and the software is properly licensed, the
software will perform substantially as described in the Microsoft materials that you receive in or with
the software.
B. TERM OF WARRANTY; WARRANTY RECIPIENT; LENGTH OF ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES.
The limited warranty covers the software for one year after acquired by the first user. If
you receive supplements, updates, or replacement software during that year, they will be
covered for the remainder of the warranty or 30 days, whichever is longer. If the first
user transfers the software, the remainder of the warranty will apply to the recipient.
To the extent permitted by law, any implied warranties, guarantees or conditions last
only during the term of the limited warranty. Some states do not allow limitations on how
long an implied warranty lasts, so these limitations may not apply to you. They also might not apply
to you because some countries may not allow limitations on how long an implied warranty, guarantee
or condition lasts.
C. EXCLUSIONS FROM WARRANTY. This warranty does not cover problems caused by your acts
(or failures to act), the acts of others, or events beyond Microsoft’s reasonable control.
D. REMEDY FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY. Microsoft will repair or replace the software at
no charge. If Microsoft cannot repair or replace it, Microsoft will refund the amount
shown on your receipt for the software. It will also repair or replace supplements,
updates and replacement software at no charge. If Microsoft cannot repair or replace
them, it will refund the amount you paid for them, if any. You must uninstall the
software and return any media and other associated materials to Microsoft with proof of
purchase to obtain a refund. These are your only remedies for breach of the limited
warranty.
…
G. NO OTHER WARRANTIES. The limited warranty is the only direct warranty from
Microsoft. Microsoft gives no other express warranties, guarantees or conditions.
Where allowed by your local laws, Microsoft excludes implied warranties of
merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement. If your local laws
give you any implied warranties, guarantees or conditions, despite this exclusion, your remedies are
described in the Remedy for Breach of Warranty clause above, to the extent permitted by your local
laws.
H. LIMITATION ON AND EXCLUSION OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY. The
Limitation on and Exclusion of Damages clause above applies to breaches of this limited G. NO OTHER WARRANTIES. The limited warranty is the only direct warranty from
Microsoft. Microsoft gives no other express warranties, guarantees or conditions.
Where allowed by your local laws, Microsoft excludes implied warranties of
merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement. If your local laws
give you any implied warranties, guarantees or conditions, despite this exclusion, your remedies are
described in the Remedy for Breach of Warranty clause above, to the extent permitted by your local
laws.
H. LIMITATION ON AND EXCLUSION OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY. The
Limitation on and Exclusion of Damages clause above applies to breaches of this limited warranty.
Different wording to the XP EULA, but, effectively means the same: Running the software such that it works “substantially” as advertised depends on you, the user., reading the manual, reading this EULA and following all relevant instructions. You have a lmited warranty on Vista for 1 whole year [ slightly more generous than XP Home Edition I note], during which the warranty will go BOOM if you don’t treat the software nicely or some other accident or event outside MicroSoft’s control occurs. Microsoft will replace or repair the software at no charge, and if they can’t, they’ll pay you back – if any – money you paid for the software. Oh and once again, they can’t warrant that Vista is fit for any particular purpose, or fit for merchantability. Oh, and they can’t warrant that it’s not “infringing”, again.
When people buy commercial software, really what they’re buying is a guarantee. You’re buying a guarantee that what you have will perform, and has been tested and there’s someone you can call up, and if things go really bad someone’s liable if something doesn’t work.
Yeah. Right.
Lets see what he said next:
You’re buying this ecosystem of accountability. One of the challenges of open source and really the challenge with the open source business model is: it’s hard to replicate that ecosystem of accountability and that guarantee.
Can anyone please tell me what the phrase “ecosystem of accountability” means? And also, given what I showed you above, aren’t both the GPL (Free Software) and the EULA (Microsoft’s commercial software) at least replicating that guarantee? I just had a thought. Perhaps “ecosystem of accountability” really means “atmosphere of Blame”.
He then says:
The first question that I ask, because I’m deeply involved with that decision chain is, what does this do to help or hinder that ecosystem of accountability, the testing model, the support model, the backstop? That has to be a counterbalance to any value that we might get out of a community software development model, and thoseare decisions that we kind of walk through.
I am, so far, unable to parse this paragraph. To me this is meaningless babble. I’d love for someone to translate that into plain English for me.
Red Hat’s been really the only proof that somebody can provide an overlay support service, and even then, I don’t know that it’s even that significant of a proof.
So, you now say that with Open Source software, you can buy accountability? Haven’t you just contradicted yourself? And I’d hardly call Red Hat’s growth insignificant:
Red Hat Reports Second Quarter Fiscal Year 2008 Results
- Revenue of $127.3 Million, up 28% Year-over-Year
- Net Income of $18.2 Million, up 64% Year-over-Year
Red Hat’s been really the only proof that somebody can provide an overlay support service, and even then, I don’t know that it’s even that significant of a proof.
Yeah. Right.
I’ll skip the last few sentences of that paragraph…
InformationWeek: In order to participate in communities like that, how do you cut through the muddle of the Richard Stallmans of the world and overcome the popular resistance, and also cut through the resistance that you’ve gotten from people like Red Hat who you might want to partner with?
Hilf: We just had a bunch of our global account managers in with us, people who handle our super big customers, and they said, these customers don’t even know who Richard Stallman is, they don’t even care. They’ve chosen Linux or Apache or open source in general because of a few simple reasons: either price, or functionality, they want a more modular system or they want something that has a smaller footprint, there are certain needs that they have that are satisfied by that type of software.
Turning to the product that we’re releasing, we said what do people really like about Linux servers, what do they really like about Unix servers? They like having a modular system that has a small footprint. They like having a great command line environment that allows a power user to do a lot of scripting and command line things that are not UI-based. That’s what we built [Windows Server 2008] with Server Core and PowerShell and new technologies that support PHP better in IIS 7 [Internet Information Services]. For us, it’s not a religion, there’s literally feature requests from customers showing up in some of our competitive products, we said great, people want this stuff.
They’ve “chosen Linux or Apache or open source in general” because of quite a few, varied reasons, and it’s not a case of “price”, OR “functionality”, either. Other reasons for choosing Apache might to do with it being a truly Open Source project, for example. Can anyone see the code for IIS and change that code to their own needs? Oh, and for the vast majority of people, FOSS isn’t a religion either.
InformationWeek: Why not, say, broadly, well, let’s do an interoperability agreement with the Linux community in general rather than saying, here’s a deal with Xandros, here’s a deal withNovell (NSDQ: NOVL), etcetera?
Hilf: Customers are using distributions of Linux, because Linux the kernel is literally just a kernel and no one runs just a kernel, so they buy or are using distributions. That’s why when we do these partnerships we want to use, we want to partner with the people who are distributing the product that customers use, the closest point of attachment to what the customer’s using.
Oh, please. The best way for Microsoft to go about breaking up the Free and Open Source software movement, is to use a divide-and-conquer strategy precisely like what is now being attempted, whereby a small number of Linux Distribution makers have been “persuaded” to sign up with Microsoft’s “we won’t sue you over our patents” deals, whilst the majority haven’t. This basically is just another way of creating Fear. Fear over whether Microsoft will start throwing patent lawsuits around like it has threatened to do over Linux.
InformationWeek: I’m curious as to where do these patent claims come from? Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) has said there’s X numbers of patents that Linux may infringe. Where does that intellectual property come from? Is it based on ownership of Xenix back in the day, is it based on things that are currently in Windows?
Hilf: We published a patent map, which shows, literally, we listed out every number and we listed out every category it fits in and we published that so everyone can see it, because everybody kept asking us, well, what are the patents? (Note: a Microsoft spokesman later clarified Hilf was referring to a categorized tally of possibly infringed patents published earlier this year in a Fortune article, not a detailed list of every specific patent, which Microsoft declined to provide to InformationWeek.)
Classically, our preferred plan is to license our technology in a very proactive and productive way versus litigate. So what we try to do is say in a very, very nice way, there’s a model here that allows us to be essentially paid some degree for our inventions in a way that says at least for all the money we invest, the $7 billion every year in research, there’s a way to see some return on that if someone’s using our technology.
Tell all of us precisely which patents are being infringed. In short, “Where’s the beef?”.
Right now what we’ve been trying to establish with one to another from Novell to Linspire to Xandros, Turbolinux, a way to license technology so that’s both cost effective and makes sense for us so we’re protecting inventions that we have and move forward. It allows us to move forward and take that issue off the plate, versus have a rat hole of litigation nightmares and lawsuits.
And here we go again with the veiled threats hidden behind the “really, we’re just trying to be nice, we really don’t want to go down the litigation route, honest!” sentiment. As I stated above, you, Microsoft, either tell everyone which patents are being infringed, or the only other conclusion which can be drawn from your thus far refusal to do so is that you are trying to create FUD about Linux and associated Distributions. Novell, Linspire, Xandros, and TurboLinux aren’t the most popular guys in the FOSS scene at the moment, because they’ve fallen into this trap.
InformationWeek: There are companies or organizations you’ve reached out to and they say no, we wouldn’t like to do anything. If you talk about infringement there, but if you don’t do anything, isn’t that weakening your claim to hold valid patents?
Hilf: Would or could we ever litigate, yeah, sure, it’s always an option. But it’s the last option in the decision tree for us. Would we have to enforce it? Possibly yes.
Yeah. Right.
Fess up which patents are being infringed. Either that, or stop trying to spread FUD about it. It’s really as simple as that.
The key to that is to separate, people’s, individuals’ and groups’ belief about software patents as an issue and then what is the current way that we do patent law in at least the United States. You may disagree with it, but there’s a law for how we deal with patents. They often get wrapped up together as the same issue, but they’re not the same.
Again, my English parser is unable to process that paragraph. To me that’s again just a confusing mess of meaningless babble. Can someone with a better grasp of English than I translate that one for me?
And final paragraph:
As a company, we’re hyperactively involved with patent reform and trying to find models that work best for the industry. But it is key, as you have these conversations, particularly with the open source community, keep in the back of your mind, what is the current model for doing business, right, wrong or indifferent, and then what is the opinion about software patents as an issue.
Really, the best model that would work best for the software business, would be to get rid of software patents. It’s that simple. Oh, sorry, but that would take away a MAJOR method of threatening everything else which isn’t part of the “Microsoft Stack”, wouldn’t it.
Update : Someone sent this link in : http://www.cyber.com.au/about/comparing_the_gpl_to_eula.pdf – it’s an excellent read, comparing the XP EULA to the GPL, I highly recommend you read it.
