Slashdot Log In
Microsoft EU Decision Protects OSS Projects From Suits
Journal written by rfc1394 (155777) and posted by
Zonk
on Thu Oct 25, 2007 04:15 PM
from the at-least-we-hope-it-does dept.
from the at-least-we-hope-it-does dept.
rfc1394 writes "An article in Australia's IT News mentions that under its antitrust agreement with the European Union, 'Microsoft will publish an irrevocable pledge not to assert any patents it may have over the interoperability information against non-commercial open source software development projects.' Essentially, in addition to getting them to comply with the anti-trust decision, the EU has forced Microsoft to back off of its saber-rattling when it comes to EU open source projects. That protection in no way extends to US projects, of course."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading ... Please wait.

you gotta love eu bureaucrats (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, the right decision was made in spite of (and not because of) the European Commission.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As happens all too infrequently in the USA now days. *sigh* It used to be at least a LITTLE better here (USA), but , sadly not so much anymore.
Not trying to '
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The commission members are appointed by the democratically elected governments of t
Re: (Score:2)
only eu bureaucrats could pull such 2 stunts in just one gig. when a bureaucracy works, it really shines.
While better than nothing, this settlement doesn't go far enough as open source projects that are profitable still has to pay MS royalties, only .4
Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats (Score:4, Insightful)
Think of it as follows. TrollTech charges something like 3900 USD, which translates into a Microsoft revenue stream (assuming 0.4%) of about a million dollars. Trolltech has a small business of up 200,000. After that you pay full dollar. So Trolltech is charging profitable open source companies more than Microsoft...
Don't know about you, but this does make Mono attractive on Linux. Mono on Linux is pretty good, and on Windows
Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats (Score:5, Interesting)
Cool. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
proper attire is mandatory (Score:5, Funny)
Which is good, because the OSS crowd is more into t-shirts and jeans.
in no way extends (Score:3, Insightful)
This, of course, insures profitable OSS projects will not be based in the US. Damn shame. Some of us like Tech jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it ensures nothing of the sort... "profitable" (read, for-profit) OSS projects aren't protected; only non-profit ones. I'm sure M
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they give away their software they are non-profit. If they have a different branch that sells support not software they should be safe. I can see no real way for MS to go after a com
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
All will depend on the correct split between the "non-profit project" and the "for-profit service".
There should be no need for any split, unfortunately this ruling almost makes it mandatory.
FalconRe: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:in no way extends (Score:5, Funny)
Nah, it just means that you guys in the US will have to keep living the American DRM.
Well at least... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Between the US and the Japan/China eating Europe's (Score:4, Insightful)
lunch
What exactly is it the US produces now, other than food? Knowledge? With both China and India graduating more and more engineers and scientists the US's lead may not last long. One thing they both need are accountants and US accountants can make a boat load of money showing Chinese and Indian companies how to setup an accounting system. Actually as my sister is a CPA, Certified Public Accountant [wikipedia.org], and runs her own business, I've thought of suggesting she learn Mandarin Chinese then go to China.
FalconRe:Between the US and the Japan/China eating Europ (Score:4, Funny)
1) Music/movies (we outsell the rest of the World in these combined).
2) Advanced weapons sales
3) Software of any sort
4) Basic research and devt. (not readily marketable AND given for free to the rest of the world. We are the absolute leader in "pure" research investment, though starting to slow down for obvious reasons).
5) Applied research, design, and devt. (sattelites, pharmaceuticals, consumer electronics, you name it)
6) Agriculture (including the GM foods that EU farmers are scared of).
7) Exporting Democracy!
AUstralians for change (Score:3, Interesting)
EU membership (Score:2)
Turkey is having a hard time getting membership
That is where Europeans are messing up. Turkey has elected politicians who toned down the rhetoric in the hopes of joining the EU. However if Turkey isn't allowed to join hardliners could gain control of
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Define "Non-commercial" (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm... Is it just me or is this just mealy mouthed enough to get projects into HUGE trouble down the road when they are distributed commercially? Just what is Microsoft's definition of "non-commercial"?
They can still go after end users and distributors (Score:5, Interesting)
These were also my first thoughts in reading the summary. From the article, the European Commissioner for Competition Policy says (emphasis is mine):
Presumably all this means is that Microsoft won't be going after developers, but it may still be going after anyone who makes use of those developers' efforts. It's some good news for developers, but it's not exactly a let off the hook if you can't tell your users with any confidence that they won't be sued by Microsoft for obscure patents that wouldn't hold up in the face of anyone who could afford to defend themselves. If anything, this might give Microsoft more power to spread FUD about OSS. They're just narrowing the target, basically saying that it's okay to develop OSS, but they might not let people use it without paying up.
Hopefully the linked article isn't representative of what the actual arrangement is. For the thing to be of any use, Microsoft really needs to be pledging that they won't enforce whatever patents they claim to have at all.
Re:They can still go after end users and distribut (Score:3, Informative)
Therefore: "commercial software distributors and end users."
Might read: "commercial software distributors and [commercial software] end users."
Re: (Score:2)
non-commercial only (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Non-commercial development, not non-commercial use (Score:2)
Open source can still be commercial. All open source is is a business model, there's closed source proprietary and open source business models, along with others.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bill gets tired of EU, a conversation. (Score:5, Funny)
Bill: Man, I am getting so tired of the EU. I am going to have to buy Europe. Bring me my checkbook.
Accountant: Sir, it's a little out of your price range.
Bill: (Staring blankly) Price range?
Accountant: Yes, sir. It costs more than you have, especially since most of your money is in dollar currency.
Bill: (Picks up phone.) Steve, get in here. And bring your chair.
Seems Muddled (Score:2)
What makes a project non-commercial? If one unemployed guy runs a pro
Re: (Score:2)
With FLOSS, it's not useful to talk of a project as commercial or noncommercial in most cases. The distribution can be commercial or noncommercial,
Actually, it only protects developers (Score:2)
I wonder if the E
What about open source distributors and users? (Score:2)
Apparently.... (Score:4, Funny)
Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
I hear a "giant sucking sound"...
How do you establish whether an OSS project is "here" or "there" anyway, when the developers are all over the place?
Re:Three... Two... One.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just look at how the RIAA tricked the various US attorney generals into accepting all those CDs for schools and libraries as a 'penalty' when they were just unloading dead inventory.
Re:EU and software patents? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually EU doesn't have anything to do with patents right now. A few years down ago EU Commission tried to bring legislation that would have introduced EU wide harmonization of patents and brought unified judicial system. As the European Parliament didn't accept the directive, the attempted legislation was withdrawn. More about the subject. [wikipedia.org]
How ever there is European Patent Organization [wikipedia.org] which works by the power of European Patent Convention. EPO is fully independent organization and isn't part of EU. EPO actually is the only organization in Europe causing real grief in regards of patents. They award software patents even if they don't have any power to do so. Many big corporations and also smaller companies have applied basically pure software patents from EPO. How ever as the EPO really doesn't have power to award these kind of patents, the situation is that those patents are more or less worthless. They also will stay worthless even if EU would make software patents legal as those patents were filed and awarded before they were legal.
In my company we have talked and researched the software patent issue some what. My own point of view is that software patents are worthless and as long as the member state we operate doesn't allow software patents, we don't have any reason to worry. I really do hope that this situation will stay the same as the business of software company is to make software and solve customers problems, not pay big fat checks to lawyers.