10 ms·

I'm having trouble calibrating my view of Microsoft in recent years, partly because of a story I heard a while ago. I'd be grateful if someone could give me a r

I'm having trouble calibrating my view of Microsoft in recent years, partly because of a story I heard a while ago. I'd be grateful if someone could give me a reality check on this: Some years back, one criticism I heard against Microsoft was that they threatened to assert patent infringement against Linux, but refused to tell the alleged offenders which particular patents Microsoft considered to be violated. And the end result was Microsoft (imho) legally extorting some Linux vendors for licensing fees. If that story is true, then is Microsoft still engaging in that behavior or similar?

CrankyBear 6y ago
They did, but they started moving away from it. Their big change came two years ago when they opened up their patent portfolio to the Open Invention Network. That meant any company working with Linux can use their patents without royalties. For more on that see: https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-does-microsoft-joining-the-open-invention-network-mean-for-you/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-does-microsoft-joining-th...
signal11 6y ago
Not sure about Linux (and I have no inside info, just public sources), but around 2013-2014, the tech press was full of reports that Microsoft was making billions[1] from Android, by charging OEMs $5-15 per unit for patents Android allegedly violated. This report[2] from October 2018 seems to indicate that Microsoft no longer does this: > Ten to 15 years ago we were very focused on the competition between Linux and Windows,” says Microsoft’s chief IP counsel, Erich Andersen, in an interview with Yahoo Finance. “But today Microsoft is a very different company. With the rise of our Azure [cloud services] business, Microsoft has become one of the largest contributors to open source in the world. . . . We’re in a position where, as [CEO] Satya [Nadella] says, we love Linux. We love open source. That’s a big part of the future of our business.” [1] https://google.com/search?q=microsoft+android+patent+fees https://google.com/search?q=microsoft+android+patent+fees [2] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-may-relinquishing-billions-android-patent-royalties-141047213.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-may-relinquishing-b... Anyone with first-hand knowledge care to comment?
- jacquesm 6y ago
  > But today Microsoft is a very different company Said the fox to the chickens. Come real close and let me tell you a story.
  - tomnipotent 6y ago
    Pretty much the entire leadership from that era has cycled out. Ship of Theseus. Is Microsoft still a 800lbs gorilla that does 800lbs gorilla things? Yes. But let's not pretend they employ the same strategies today that made them the bad guys at the turn of the millennium.
    - hinkley 6y ago
      They were monsters for at least 20 years. It has been 6 since Ballmer left, and it takes a few years for an organization to start rebound from the personality of the previous boss. 6 years and a single CEO does not constitute a rebirth. When the next CEO is still doing the same thing, you can talk about what Microsoft is.
      - BoorishBears 6y ago
        While you're stuck with your notions for the next 6 years or however long until you feel they need to behave, other people, including your competitors, get to enjoy the fruits of evaluating Microsoft for what it is now, not what it was. Reminds me of when Visual Studio Code came out and some people denied themselves of what would end up being one of the best editors to come out in a while just because they refused to use something with such a Microsoft-ey name...
        hinkley 6y ago
        We are in a world where there are so many options there aren't enough hours in the day to keep up with them all. Do you know why we're in this world? We are in this world because Microsoft stumbled. They aren't just a large company that people have an old grudge against. They're very specifically the people who kept us from having the option to not consider a particular company and still have any reasonable options at all.
jacquesm 6y ago
They did that and more. For instance, to bankroll the SCO lawsuits. I'll never forgive them for any of this, as far as I'm concerned they are untouchable, I don't care whether they 'changed course', if a company has condoned such tactics then they no longer deserve my support.
- vikramkr 6y ago
  Companies change more than people do. Am I supposed to trust Google blindly with all my data now because they used to say they wouldn't be evil? Am I supposed to continue trusting boeing because they used to be an engineering driven culture, while ignoring the fact that there are different people in charge now?
  - asddubs 6y ago
    all publicly traded companies are amoral and they don't rehabilitate like a person might. Microsoft is simply following the money, they haven't changed, and neither has google really. the behaviour may have changed, but it makes no sense to attribute it in the same way you would to a person
    - dogma1138 6y ago
      It’s not that companies are amoral in a negative sense, but that you shouldn’t anthropomorphize them. All companies are there to make a profit, some might have a business model that is in line with your personal moral benchmarks, but just that it’s a business model. Both public and private companies can have business models that are driven by the morality of their founders and key employees but it’s still a business model. Cygnus wasn’t more moral than say Oracle, they just had developed a business model around FOSS services that was unique, since they didn’t held any IP they didn’t had the tools that some people may consider immoral such as protecting their patents through law suits or worse rent seeking based on IP they hold. Same goes for other companies today that primarily rely on FOSS software I don’t consider Ubuntu, Red Hat (even before the acquisition) or even Purism to be “moral” companies just because they can’t or don’t hammer someone with law suits or rake in royalties. I also don’t consider opposition to companies that do to be a simple moral issue. I can and do have my own opinions about companies that I feel practice more rent seeking than actual innovation or any sort of productive activity but I don’t see it to be a particularly moral stance to want them to go into financial trouble because in the end the losers will be their employees and shareholders. I much rather see companies like Oracle for example be successful based on true productivity than go into financial trouble.
Stierlitz 6y ago
> It's been a long, strange trip but it's always driven by two motives: Making good products and money. Actually, they are going after Android handset makers. Who are paying Microsoft for each handset sold didn't you know Microsoft owned Android?. https://www.theregister.com/2014/10/07/how_much_is_that_microsoft_android_tax_again/ https://www.theregister.com/2014/10/07/how_much_is_that_micr...
- mburns 6y ago
  https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/10/10/report-microsoft-making-patents-royalty-free-android-oems/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/10/10/report-microsoft-ma...
- CrankyBear 6y ago
  Old news. They're not doing this anymore.
rbecker 6y ago
Sounds like you could mean the Microsoft Android patent licensing deal: https://www.theregister.com/2014/04/08/microsoft_holds_200_android_patents/ https://www.theregister.com/2014/04/08/microsoft_holds_200_a... We don't know the exact specifics of any of the patent deals, though, because neither Microsoft nor its new Android-flogging partners are telling. For the most part, we don't even know which patents Redmond is actually licensing. Few things are as scummy as legal extortion, with contract clauses that prevent that extortion from becoming public. At the very least, refusal to reveal which patents something allegedly infringes, should result in any subsequent patent claims being invalidated. It's like being accused of trespassing, but the property owner refuses to tell you what part of the land is theirs.
AdmiralAsshat 6y ago
> Some years back, one criticism I heard against Microsoft was that they threatened to assert patent infringement against Linux, but refused to tell the alleged offenders which particular patents Microsoft considered to be violated. And the end result was Microsoft (imho) legally extorting some Linux vendors for licensing fees. How would this work in court? "We're charging you with breaking some laws, but we're not going to tell you which ones. How do you plead?"
- Harimwakairi 6y ago
  It doesn't work in court. FUD works in business because people are (necessarily) risk-averse. If a giant company whose legal team is larger than your entire payroll says they will find some way to sue you for doing X, are you really going to gamble your business to do it? Even if you're fairly sure they're blowing smoke, that's a hard decision to make.
- dllthomas 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial
  - AdmiralAsshat 6y ago
    By astonishing coincidence, I happen to be reading that right now! https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/the-trial-25 https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/the-trial-25
- kmeisthax 6y ago
  They'd be laughed out of court in a summary judgment. A patent infringement claim requires, at bare minimum, alleging that a patent has actually been infringed. So you have to actually say what patents you own and are alleging infringement of. Obviously, Microsoft disclosed what patents they believed were being infringed when they decided to actually take people to court. They decided not to disclose that when negotiating licenses, which is actually legal. Contracts can include non-disclosure agreements that would prohibit you from telling Linus what parts of Linus to change, and you're allowed to vaguely threaten people as a negotiating tactic, as long as there actually exists some underlying infringement which Microsoft could reasonably have believed to have occurred. (Otherwise, it would be extortion.) Patents are public information, including what patents Microsoft has been issued, so the law would assign device manufacturers the burden of determining which of Microsoft's patents have or have not been infringed by their products. Microsoft is not legally required to do their work for them and tell them what they're infringing. All of the parties involved could have conducted patent reviews of the Linux kernel or AOSP to find and remove the infringing bits Microsoft was suing over. Instead, they decided to individually settle because the engineering and legal resources required to fix Android's apparent patent problem were less than just paying Microsoft for a license.
mekoka 6y ago
A person can make mistakes, make amends and grow into a better person, or they could start good and turn to the dark side. In either case we expect their character to project a certain amount of consistency. An individual that continuously swings between good and bad is likely to be considered unreliable. People tend to anthropomorphize companies. But companies are not people, they're organizations. They're driven by a mix of individuals who come and go and whose values, vision, motivation and influence shape the direction and actions of the organization at time T. Because of this uncertainty, never trust an organization with anything forever and learn to be comfortable with the idea that it will change. The promises of one CEO have no guarantee to be upheld by the next.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
thrwyoilarticle 6y ago
Working in a large company (albeit much smaller than Microsoft) gave me an appreciation that there are many disparate voices in a company but it only takes one to sour a relationship. So then you have situations where one department is doing their job by trying to engage with the Linux community while another is doing their job by closing things off. Legal requirements and culture can make it hard for some of those voices to change course. In companies like these I see the main role of the executives being to marshall the voices in a shared direction, vision and understanding. A consequence of this is that an unintentional mis-step by someone of relatively low seniority can be seen as intentional strategy from the overall entity.
mr_toad 6y ago
It’s all true, and well documented. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_v._IBM https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_v._IBM
simonblack 6y ago
There are two different things here. The first is regarding MSFT patents in Linux itself, and the SCO vs IBM/Linux courtcase of the early 2000s involving Linux. That was basically killed off by a 'put up or shut up' action by IBM and the Linux supporters against SCO/MSFT and their supporters. The second is regarding MSFT patents in Android which is based on Linux. In that case MSFT threatened to sue manufacturers who were using Android. They found it cheaper to pay royalties to MSFT than having to battle through the courts. https://www.howtogeek.com/183766/why-microsoft-makes-5-to-15-from-every-android-device-sold/ https://www.howtogeek.com/183766/why-microsoft-makes-5-to-15...

CrankyBear 6y ago

They did, but they started moving away from it. Their big change came two years ago when they opened up their patent portfolio to the Open Invention Network. That meant any company working with Linux can use their patents without royalties. For more on that see: https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-does-microsoft-joining-the-open-invention-network-mean-for-you/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-does-microsoft-joining-th...

signal11 6y ago

Not sure about Linux (and I have no inside info, just public sources), but around 2013-2014, the tech press was full of reports that Microsoft was making billions[1] from Android, by charging OEMs $5-15 per unit for patents Android allegedly violated. This report[2] from October 2018 seems to indicate that Microsoft no longer does this: > Ten to 15 years ago we were very focused on the competition between Linux and Windows,” says Microsoft’s chief IP counsel, Erich Andersen, in an interview with Yahoo Finance. “But today Microsoft is a very different company. With the rise of our Azure [cloud services] business, Microsoft has become one of the largest contributors to open source in the world. . . . We’re in a position where, as [CEO] Satya [Nadella] says, we love Linux. We love open source. That’s a big part of the future of our business.” [1] https://google.com/search?q=microsoft+android+patent+fees https://google.com/search?q=microsoft+android+patent+fees [2] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-may-relinquishing-billions-android-patent-royalties-141047213.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-may-relinquishing-b... Anyone with first-hand knowledge care to comment?

jacquesm 6y ago
> But today Microsoft is a very different company Said the fox to the chickens. Come real close and let me tell you a story.
- tomnipotent 6y ago
  Pretty much the entire leadership from that era has cycled out. Ship of Theseus. Is Microsoft still a 800lbs gorilla that does 800lbs gorilla things? Yes. But let's not pretend they employ the same strategies today that made them the bad guys at the turn of the millennium.
  - hinkley 6y ago
    They were monsters for at least 20 years. It has been 6 since Ballmer left, and it takes a few years for an organization to start rebound from the personality of the previous boss. 6 years and a single CEO does not constitute a rebirth. When the next CEO is still doing the same thing, you can talk about what Microsoft is.
    - BoorishBears 6y ago
      While you're stuck with your notions for the next 6 years or however long until you feel they need to behave, other people, including your competitors, get to enjoy the fruits of evaluating Microsoft for what it is now, not what it was. Reminds me of when Visual Studio Code came out and some people denied themselves of what would end up being one of the best editors to come out in a while just because they refused to use something with such a Microsoft-ey name...
      - hinkley 6y ago
        We are in a world where there are so many options there aren't enough hours in the day to keep up with them all. Do you know why we're in this world? We are in this world because Microsoft stumbled. They aren't just a large company that people have an old grudge against. They're very specifically the people who kept us from having the option to not consider a particular company and still have any reasonable options at all.

jacquesm 6y ago

They did that and more. For instance, to bankroll the SCO lawsuits. I'll never forgive them for any of this, as far as I'm concerned they are untouchable, I don't care whether they 'changed course', if a company has condoned such tactics then they no longer deserve my support.

vikramkr 6y ago
Companies change more than people do. Am I supposed to trust Google blindly with all my data now because they used to say they wouldn't be evil? Am I supposed to continue trusting boeing because they used to be an engineering driven culture, while ignoring the fact that there are different people in charge now?
- asddubs 6y ago
  all publicly traded companies are amoral and they don't rehabilitate like a person might. Microsoft is simply following the money, they haven't changed, and neither has google really. the behaviour may have changed, but it makes no sense to attribute it in the same way you would to a person
  - dogma1138 6y ago
    It’s not that companies are amoral in a negative sense, but that you shouldn’t anthropomorphize them. All companies are there to make a profit, some might have a business model that is in line with your personal moral benchmarks, but just that it’s a business model. Both public and private companies can have business models that are driven by the morality of their founders and key employees but it’s still a business model. Cygnus wasn’t more moral than say Oracle, they just had developed a business model around FOSS services that was unique, since they didn’t held any IP they didn’t had the tools that some people may consider immoral such as protecting their patents through law suits or worse rent seeking based on IP they hold. Same goes for other companies today that primarily rely on FOSS software I don’t consider Ubuntu, Red Hat (even before the acquisition) or even Purism to be “moral” companies just because they can’t or don’t hammer someone with law suits or rake in royalties. I also don’t consider opposition to companies that do to be a simple moral issue. I can and do have my own opinions about companies that I feel practice more rent seeking than actual innovation or any sort of productive activity but I don’t see it to be a particularly moral stance to want them to go into financial trouble because in the end the losers will be their employees and shareholders. I much rather see companies like Oracle for example be successful based on true productivity than go into financial trouble.

Stierlitz 6y ago

> It's been a long, strange trip but it's always driven by two motives: Making good products and money. Actually, they are going after Android handset makers. Who are paying Microsoft for each handset sold didn't you know Microsoft owned Android?. https://www.theregister.com/2014/10/07/how_much_is_that_microsoft_android_tax_again/ https://www.theregister.com/2014/10/07/how_much_is_that_micr...

mburns 6y ago
https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/10/10/report-microsoft-making-patents-royalty-free-android-oems/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/10/10/report-microsoft-ma...
CrankyBear 6y ago
Old news. They're not doing this anymore.

rbecker 6y ago

Sounds like you could mean the Microsoft Android patent licensing deal: https://www.theregister.com/2014/04/08/microsoft_holds_200_android_patents/ https://www.theregister.com/2014/04/08/microsoft_holds_200_a... We don't know the exact specifics of any of the patent deals, though, because neither Microsoft nor its new Android-flogging partners are telling. For the most part, we don't even know which patents Redmond is actually licensing. Few things are as scummy as legal extortion, with contract clauses that prevent that extortion from becoming public. At the very least, refusal to reveal which patents something allegedly infringes, should result in any subsequent patent claims being invalidated. It's like being accused of trespassing, but the property owner refuses to tell you what part of the land is theirs.

AdmiralAsshat 6y ago

> Some years back, one criticism I heard against Microsoft was that they threatened to assert patent infringement against Linux, but refused to tell the alleged offenders which particular patents Microsoft considered to be violated. And the end result was Microsoft (imho) legally extorting some Linux vendors for licensing fees. How would this work in court? "We're charging you with breaking some laws, but we're not going to tell you which ones. How do you plead?"

Harimwakairi 6y ago
It doesn't work in court. FUD works in business because people are (necessarily) risk-averse. If a giant company whose legal team is larger than your entire payroll says they will find some way to sue you for doing X, are you really going to gamble your business to do it? Even if you're fairly sure they're blowing smoke, that's a hard decision to make.
dllthomas 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial
- AdmiralAsshat 6y ago
  By astonishing coincidence, I happen to be reading that right now! https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/the-trial-25 https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/the-trial-25
kmeisthax 6y ago
They'd be laughed out of court in a summary judgment. A patent infringement claim requires, at bare minimum, alleging that a patent has actually been infringed. So you have to actually say what patents you own and are alleging infringement of. Obviously, Microsoft disclosed what patents they believed were being infringed when they decided to actually take people to court. They decided not to disclose that when negotiating licenses, which is actually legal. Contracts can include non-disclosure agreements that would prohibit you from telling Linus what parts of Linus to change, and you're allowed to vaguely threaten people as a negotiating tactic, as long as there actually exists some underlying infringement which Microsoft could reasonably have believed to have occurred. (Otherwise, it would be extortion.) Patents are public information, including what patents Microsoft has been issued, so the law would assign device manufacturers the burden of determining which of Microsoft's patents have or have not been infringed by their products. Microsoft is not legally required to do their work for them and tell them what they're infringing. All of the parties involved could have conducted patent reviews of the Linux kernel or AOSP to find and remove the infringing bits Microsoft was suing over. Instead, they decided to individually settle because the engineering and legal resources required to fix Android's apparent patent problem were less than just paying Microsoft for a license.

mekoka 6y ago

A person can make mistakes, make amends and grow into a better person, or they could start good and turn to the dark side. In either case we expect their character to project a certain amount of consistency. An individual that continuously swings between good and bad is likely to be considered unreliable. People tend to anthropomorphize companies. But companies are not people, they're organizations. They're driven by a mix of individuals who come and go and whose values, vision, motivation and influence shape the direction and actions of the organization at time T. Because of this uncertainty, never trust an organization with anything forever and learn to be comfortable with the idea that it will change. The promises of one CEO have no guarantee to be upheld by the next.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

thrwyoilarticle 6y ago

Working in a large company (albeit much smaller than Microsoft) gave me an appreciation that there are many disparate voices in a company but it only takes one to sour a relationship. So then you have situations where one department is doing their job by trying to engage with the Linux community while another is doing their job by closing things off. Legal requirements and culture can make it hard for some of those voices to change course. In companies like these I see the main role of the executives being to marshall the voices in a shared direction, vision and understanding. A consequence of this is that an unintentional mis-step by someone of relatively low seniority can be seen as intentional strategy from the overall entity.

mr_toad 6y ago

It’s all true, and well documented. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_v._IBM https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_v._IBM

simonblack 6y ago

There are two different things here. The first is regarding MSFT patents in Linux itself, and the SCO vs IBM/Linux courtcase of the early 2000s involving Linux. That was basically killed off by a 'put up or shut up' action by IBM and the Linux supporters against SCO/MSFT and their supporters. The second is regarding MSFT patents in Android which is based on Linux. In that case MSFT threatened to sue manufacturers who were using Android. They found it cheaper to pay royalties to MSFT than having to battle through the courts. https://www.howtogeek.com/183766/why-microsoft-makes-5-to-15-from-every-android-device-sold/ https://www.howtogeek.com/183766/why-microsoft-makes-5-to-15...