12 ms·

Microsoft quietly buys Netscape browser technology (and patents)

70 points by gioele 15y ago

naner 15y ago
I suppose it's only a matter of time until they do something obnoxious with these patents. Who will be their first target: Firefox or Chrome?
- rbanffy 15y ago
  As long as Firefox's code heritage can be traced back to code released by Netscape under GPL (or Apache), Firefox will be fine. Chrome, OTOH, may have some problems. Also, it's unlikely Chrome will be Microsoft's target - it's more likely Android will. Chrome is much less of a threat to Microsoft's future and Android includes a WebKit-based browser.
  - naner 15y ago
    As long as Firefox's code heritage can be traced back to code released by Netscape under GPL (or Apache), Firefox will be fine. Regardless the license, aren't they still vulnerable to claims of patent violation?
    - simonster 15y ago
      Some licenses explicitly state that contributors license relevant software patents that they control. Whether GPL 2.1 includes a patent grant is unclear, but the Mozilla Public License certainly does.
  - recoiledsnake 15y ago
    >As long as Firefox's code heritage can be traced back to code released by Netscape under GPL (or Apache), Firefox will be fine. Does the GPL contain a patent grant and/or indemnification clause? I think only the GPL v3 does which wasn't around then.
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      As was discussed a hundred times, GPLv2 includes an implicit patent license (because it's impossible to grant the required rights without granting the usage of the patented technology and not granting those rights is a license violation).
      - stcredzero 15y ago
        GPLv2 includes an implicit patent license Has been tested in court? I think the answer is no. The logic Stallman brings up seems valid, though.
        rbanffy 15y ago
        I think it wasn't, but I think the reasoning is strong enough to prevent it form ever being tested. It's easier to settle.
      - mbreese 15y ago
        An explicit grant is much better than an implicit one (and is one reason why the university where I did my grad work refused to let us use the GPL). Besides, wasn't the Netscape code released under the NPL/MPL, partially for this reason?
        rbanffy 15y ago
        > wasn't the Netscape code released under the NPL/MPL, partially for this reason? Exactly. When I wrote the original comment, I didn't remember Netscape invented its own license.
      - tzs 15y ago
        There are two potential problems with this. 1. Given an implicit patent license between A and B, and a subsequent sale of A's patents to C, is there an implicit license between C and B? It's certainly not obvious that there would be such a license, as the basis of the original implied license between A and B is A's acting in a way that only obeys licenses A is subject to if A licenses out A's patents. C would not be in that position, and so it is harder to find implied licensing by C. 2. If there is an implicit license between C and B, what is its scope? It is quite possible that such a license would be limited to existing products that are practicing the patents.
- fleitz 15y ago
  Won't be either, watch for Moto and every other device manufacturer (save Apple who has a cross licensing agreement) that ships a browser on a phone to have to pay $22.50 to MSFT.
gkoberger 15y ago
I don't see a scenario where Microsoft will actually use these patents against Firefox or Chrome. They're doing everything they can to curry favor with web developers, and they'll destroy it in one fell swoop if they even think about it. That being said, I'm curious why they felt these patents were worth $1B. There must be something really special in there. (Disclaimer: Mozilla employee with no knowledge outside of what's been posted on the Internet about it.)
- rbanffy 15y ago
  > They're doing everything they can to curry favor with web developers Only because they need it. If they can use those patents to achieve the same effect being nice would, I have no doubt they'll use force. As far as I know them, being nice isn't in their DNA.
- ImprovedSilence 15y ago
  I'd love to believe that, but they paid a billion dollars for them, it's hard to imagine a public company shelling out that cash unless they expected to make back that money somehow...
  - sek 15y ago
    Google can sue Bing to the ground, it's a cold war anyway. They will never go directly against each other. There are just proxy wars. Maybe they did it for the same reason Google bought Motorola, to prevent a havoc AOL.
- loverobots 15y ago
  I can't imagine MS losing any goodwill they have gained in the past few years by attacking Firefox. Then we're talking about anti-trust all over again. Chrome is another story, Motorola wants to ban Windows, XBox and other sales all over EU. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57407991-17/microsoft-ends-german-partnership-over-motorola-patent-suits/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57407991-17/microsoft-ends... "on a typical $1,000 laptop, Microsoft must pay Motorola $22.50 in royalties for 50 patents related to H.264. In order to get full H.264 functionality, Microsoft must also license 2,300 other patents from 29 different companies. The company pays 2 cents for each $1,000 laptop to use those patents." They even refused the bond MS was willing to post while the matter in on appeal. Looks like MS bought specially designed nukes to use against a particular and well-armed adversary.
jroseattle 15y ago
With all the patent lawsuits flying around among the big tech companies, stockpiling patents seems like a prudent strategy from a corporate risk POV. I have no idea which patents are included in the list, nor do I know what MSFT would do with them. Just generally speaking.
- drawkbox 15y ago
  SSL, cookies + Javascript are/were Netscape patents. Better article about it: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/microsoft-buys-netscape-web-patents-from-aol-to-attack-google/2203 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/microsoft-buys-netscape... SSL http://news.cnet.com/Netscape-patents-crypto-protocol/2100-1001_3-203307.html?tag=content;siu-container http://news.cnet.com/Netscape-patents-crypto-protocol/2100-1... cookies http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=5774670&KC=&FT=E&locale=en_EP http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=... Javascript http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/255293/-z_programming_languages_javascript?fp=4194304&fpid=1 http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/255293/-z_programmin...
thereallurch 15y ago
Sweet. They only expire in 3 years or so. Brilliant move on AOL's part.

70 points by gioele 15y ago

naner 15y ago

I suppose it's only a matter of time until they do something obnoxious with these patents. Who will be their first target: Firefox or Chrome?

rbanffy 15y ago
As long as Firefox's code heritage can be traced back to code released by Netscape under GPL (or Apache), Firefox will be fine. Chrome, OTOH, may have some problems. Also, it's unlikely Chrome will be Microsoft's target - it's more likely Android will. Chrome is much less of a threat to Microsoft's future and Android includes a WebKit-based browser.
- naner 15y ago
  As long as Firefox's code heritage can be traced back to code released by Netscape under GPL (or Apache), Firefox will be fine. Regardless the license, aren't they still vulnerable to claims of patent violation?
  - simonster 15y ago
    Some licenses explicitly state that contributors license relevant software patents that they control. Whether GPL 2.1 includes a patent grant is unclear, but the Mozilla Public License certainly does.
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  >As long as Firefox's code heritage can be traced back to code released by Netscape under GPL (or Apache), Firefox will be fine. Does the GPL contain a patent grant and/or indemnification clause? I think only the GPL v3 does which wasn't around then.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    As was discussed a hundred times, GPLv2 includes an implicit patent license (because it's impossible to grant the required rights without granting the usage of the patented technology and not granting those rights is a license violation).
    - stcredzero 15y ago
      GPLv2 includes an implicit patent license Has been tested in court? I think the answer is no. The logic Stallman brings up seems valid, though.
      - rbanffy 15y ago
        I think it wasn't, but I think the reasoning is strong enough to prevent it form ever being tested. It's easier to settle.
    - mbreese 15y ago
      An explicit grant is much better than an implicit one (and is one reason why the university where I did my grad work refused to let us use the GPL). Besides, wasn't the Netscape code released under the NPL/MPL, partially for this reason?
      - rbanffy 15y ago
        > wasn't the Netscape code released under the NPL/MPL, partially for this reason? Exactly. When I wrote the original comment, I didn't remember Netscape invented its own license.
    - tzs 15y ago
      There are two potential problems with this. 1. Given an implicit patent license between A and B, and a subsequent sale of A's patents to C, is there an implicit license between C and B? It's certainly not obvious that there would be such a license, as the basis of the original implied license between A and B is A's acting in a way that only obeys licenses A is subject to if A licenses out A's patents. C would not be in that position, and so it is harder to find implied licensing by C. 2. If there is an implicit license between C and B, what is its scope? It is quite possible that such a license would be limited to existing products that are practicing the patents.
fleitz 15y ago
Won't be either, watch for Moto and every other device manufacturer (save Apple who has a cross licensing agreement) that ships a browser on a phone to have to pay $22.50 to MSFT.

gkoberger 15y ago

I don't see a scenario where Microsoft will actually use these patents against Firefox or Chrome. They're doing everything they can to curry favor with web developers, and they'll destroy it in one fell swoop if they even think about it. That being said, I'm curious why they felt these patents were worth $1B. There must be something really special in there. (Disclaimer: Mozilla employee with no knowledge outside of what's been posted on the Internet about it.)

rbanffy 15y ago
> They're doing everything they can to curry favor with web developers Only because they need it. If they can use those patents to achieve the same effect being nice would, I have no doubt they'll use force. As far as I know them, being nice isn't in their DNA.
ImprovedSilence 15y ago
I'd love to believe that, but they paid a billion dollars for them, it's hard to imagine a public company shelling out that cash unless they expected to make back that money somehow...
- sek 15y ago
  Google can sue Bing to the ground, it's a cold war anyway. They will never go directly against each other. There are just proxy wars. Maybe they did it for the same reason Google bought Motorola, to prevent a havoc AOL.
loverobots 15y ago
I can't imagine MS losing any goodwill they have gained in the past few years by attacking Firefox. Then we're talking about anti-trust all over again. Chrome is another story, Motorola wants to ban Windows, XBox and other sales all over EU. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57407991-17/microsoft-ends-german-partnership-over-motorola-patent-suits/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57407991-17/microsoft-ends... "on a typical $1,000 laptop, Microsoft must pay Motorola $22.50 in royalties for 50 patents related to H.264. In order to get full H.264 functionality, Microsoft must also license 2,300 other patents from 29 different companies. The company pays 2 cents for each $1,000 laptop to use those patents." They even refused the bond MS was willing to post while the matter in on appeal. Looks like MS bought specially designed nukes to use against a particular and well-armed adversary.

jroseattle 15y ago

With all the patent lawsuits flying around among the big tech companies, stockpiling patents seems like a prudent strategy from a corporate risk POV. I have no idea which patents are included in the list, nor do I know what MSFT would do with them. Just generally speaking.

drawkbox 15y ago
SSL, cookies + Javascript are/were Netscape patents. Better article about it: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/microsoft-buys-netscape-web-patents-from-aol-to-attack-google/2203 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/microsoft-buys-netscape... SSL http://news.cnet.com/Netscape-patents-crypto-protocol/2100-1001_3-203307.html?tag=content;siu-container http://news.cnet.com/Netscape-patents-crypto-protocol/2100-1... cookies http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=5774670&KC=&FT=E&locale=en_EP http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=... Javascript http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/255293/-z_programming_languages_javascript?fp=4194304&fpid=1 http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/255293/-z_programmin...

thereallurch 15y ago

Sweet. They only expire in 3 years or so. Brilliant move on AOL's part.