Microsoft vs Foss

Microsofts Foss unmingled onslaught Holly Stark ITT Technical IT 302 Abstract This subject takes an in depth look at the claims from Microsoft that FOSS (Free and hold Source Softw atomic number 18) committed manifest infringement in 2006. It also discusses how the events harbor impacted FOSS, whether negatively or positively and how the actions have changed some(prenominal) since 2006. Microsofts Foss Patent Infringement Free softw are system is fantastic and corporate America containms to love it. Its frequently high-quality stuff that bum be downloaded let off off the Internet and then copied at will.Its versatile it set up be customized to accomplish almost any large-scale computing task and best of all its crash-resistant. more than half the companies in the Fortune cholecalciferol are supposition to be apply the part with operating system Linux in their data centers. In 2006, Microsoft cast a shadow all over Free and Open Source Software by alleging that they had go against 235 glarings much(prenominal) as the Linux kernel, Samba, OpenOffice. org and mod(prenominal)s. Fosss reasoned representative Eben Moglen cont abrogateed that package product is a mathematical algorithm and, as such, not unornamentedable. Parloff, R. 2007) further what of Microsofts claims? Are they valid? entirely first to answer that you need to image what a patent really is. A patent is essentially a contain monopoly whereby the patent holder is granted the grievous bodily harm right to make, lend oneself, and sell the secure trigger for a limited period of time. Granting exclusive rights to the inventor is intended to encourage the investiture of time and re stems into the phylogeny of new and recyclable discoveries. Once the term of guard has ended, the patented innovation enters the public domain.The problem of the patentability of software has become one of the most debated issues with regards to forthright source software. The Supre me Court tell in a unanimous vista that patents have been issued too readily for the ago two decades, and lots are probably invalid. For a variety of technical schoolnical reasons, legion(predicate) dispassionate observers suspect that software patents are especially vulnerable to speak to challenge. This control crops in FOSSs favor. Patents can be invalidated in court on numerous grounds another(prenominal)s can easily be invented around. Still others might be valid, yet not infringed chthonian the particular circumstances. FOSS has some well know patrons working in its corner as well. In 2005, six of them IBM (Charts, Fortune 500), Sony, Philips, Novell, carmine Hat (Charts) and NEC set up the Open Invention Network (OIN) to compass a portfolio of patents that might pose problems for companies want Microsoft, which are known to pose a patent threat to Linux. So if Microsoft constantly sued Linux distributor Red Hat for patent infringement, for instance, OIN might sue Microsoft in retaliation, trying to enjoin distribution of Windows. Parloff, R. 2007) A preliminary legal analysis of FOSS passs conducted grabms to suggest that the raw licensing model used by FOSS is licitly valid, a fact that lends substantial extension to the movement. Other indications as to the soundness of the passs are also encouraging a judgment in Germany that has recognized the validity of the worldwide Public License (GPL) ( J. Hoppner,2004), which further serves to assay that FOSS is a global phenomenon that is revolutionizing the entire arena of software development.Microsoft realized that something had to change when it comes to patents. They fundamentally 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 chaw). They chose to do the latter. In de clination 2003, Microsofts new licensing unit opened for business, and in short the social club had signed cross-licensing pacts with such tech firms as Sun, Toshiba, SAP and Siemens.On November 2, 2006, Microsoft went public and proclaimed a partnership with Novell to collaborate to serve Microsofts Windows, a proprietary operating system, work with Novells Suse Linux, which is based on open-source codification. In addition, the software makers struck a deal on patents designed to give customers rest of mind about using Novells open-source products. This partnership made Novell the only company in the industry that was able to pull up stakes the customer not only with the code to run 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 significant challenger and the FOSS model as a viable business model. (Upfold, Peter 2006) My personal whimsy is that this was an attac k on the open source conjunction. Microsoft hasnt actually changed its tune its still actively attacking free software and trying to abolish wildebeest/Linux while promoting Windows and other proprietary software as though they are antonymous to free software, which they are not. Its PR nonsense and Microsoft is good at PR.Since then, Novell was sell in 2010 to Attachmate Corp. and a concurrent barter of certain intellectual property assets was interchange to CPTN Holdings LLC, a consortium of technology companies create by Microsoft Corporation. It plays right into the hands 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(prenominal) favorable to Microsoft. Microsoft has done that over and over again for many years and victims allow giants like IBM and Apple.While FOSS licenses generally protect end user freedom in the kingdom of copyright, they have no effective protection against threats from software patents, especially from entities outside the FOSS community. In responding to the threat from software patent holders, 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 Death loss clause any patent must(prenominal) be licensed 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 get off with global software patent threats and to go out compatibility with more non-GPL FOSS licenses. The current GPL draft 3. 0 keeps GPL 2. 0s copyleft feature and complicates new provisions addressing evolving computing issues, such as patent issues, free software license compa tibility, and digital rights management (DRM). McMillan, R 2007) As of today, Microsoft is still attacking free software with two types of play. The tactics largely include litigation and the use of so-called Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt (FUD) tactics designed to undermine the popular percept of the open source philosophy. This year alone(predicate) 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 waiting to see what happens next.