Microsoft EU Decision Protects OSS Projects From Suits

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."

you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[unity100 (970058)]

only eu bureaucrats could pull such 2 stunts in just one gig. when a bureaucracy works, it really shines.

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[CodeBuster (516420)]

Unfortunately, the bureaucracy has a way of expanding in order to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[Dogtanian (588974)]

only eu bureaucrats could pull such 2 stunts in just one gig. when a bureaucracy works, it really shines.

Well, perhaps. But also remember that it was the faceless, unelected, bureaucratic EU Commission that tried to use its power to force software patents (in their original form) through the European Parliament a couple of years back.

Re:

[Daimanta (1140543)]

And failed. If all goes well, the system apparently works.

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[Dogtanian (588974)]

And failed. If all goes well, the system apparently works.

That's naive; the system was still stacked in favour of the Commission's findings/wishes in that it effectively required an overwhelming rejection of them by the parliament itself for them not to go through. The fact that the Commission could re-present these after their initial rejection and (second time around) could effectively have won by default does not reflect well on this aspect of the EU, even though things worked out in this case.

In short, the right decision was made in spite of (and not because of) the European Commission.

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[SerpentMage (13390)]

That is actually pretty darn reasonable... You can develop open source software and IF you make a buck then you need to pay some minor royalities.

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 .NET is the way to go. So once your company makes a million bucks you need to start forking 3900 total (not per developer) over some money to Microsoft. Fair deal actually...

Re:you gotta love eu bureaucrats

[gomiam (587421)]

No. It still considers software unpatentable. Which makes me wonder how on Earth will Microsoft be able to collect that 0.4% in patent royalties from European software developers selling their software to European customers.

Cool.

[dino2gnt (1072530)]

So, can projects threatened by patent infringement suits now move development to the EU?

proper attire is mandatory

[User 956 (568564)]

Microsoft EU Decision Protects OSS Projects From Suits

Which is good, because the OSS crowd is more into t-shirts and jeans.

in no way extends

[sgt scrub (869860)]

That protection in no way extends to US projects, of course.

This, of course, insures profitable OSS projects will not be based in the US. Damn shame. Some of us like Tech jobs.

Re:in no way extends

[mrbluze (1034940)]

This, of course, insures profitable OSS projects will not be based in the US. Damn shame. Some of us like Tech jobs.

Nah, it just means that you guys in the US will have to keep living the American DRM.

Re:

[wolff000 (447340)]

"I'm sure MS will have a heyday with the definition of "non-profit"."

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 company that only sells support.

Re:

[BSAtHome (455370)]

That might actually be a hard thing to "heyday" with. A FLOSS project in itself, if it is a real FLOSS project, does not generate the revenue stream but only costs. The for-profit bit is for services. This could very well be the way out for all. Being compensated for the physical copy (as per GPL) cannot be construed as for-profit. The services rendered are arguably not for the software, but the application of the software. An example would be a consultant charging for performing install-services. The consu

AUstralians for change

[adept256 (732470)]

As an Australian, I think this whole argument goes beyond Microsoft or any other GloboCorp. We are facing a tumultuous election campaign over here. There's much venom between the parties vying for election. This issue highlights a much over-looked aspect of Australian politics; do we take our values and principles from the EU? or from south-east asia? Should Australia join the EU? or should we go down the ASEAN route?

Define "Non-commercial"

[penix1 (722987)]

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.'

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

[jesterzog (189797)]

These were also my first thoughts in reading the summary. From the article, the European Commissioner for Competition Policy says (emphasis is mine):

"I told Microsoft that it should give legal security to programmers who help to develop open source software and confine its patent disputes to commercial software distributors and end users. Microsoft will now pledge to do so."

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.

non-commercial only

[innocent_white_lamb (151825)]

non-commercial open source software only? So any commercial use of that software will still open you up to infringement claims? If so, what's the point. MS is not worried about little Joey using FOSS in his basement for "non-commerical purposes". The use of that same software in a data center is apparently not covered by this agreement, so again... what's the point?

Re:

[BiggerIsBetter (682164)]

Non-commercial development, not non-commercial use.

Re:

[BiggerIsBetter (682164)]

Which gives you an "out" when MS comes hunting for end-users to extort. Contribute your fixes back to the community, and call yourself a developer.

Bill gets tired of EU, a conversation.

[Facetious (710885)]

Scene opens at Imperial Headquarters, Redmond. Imperial march plays and quiets as conversation begins.

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.

Apparently....

[zappepcs (820751)]

Several of the 'startups' on the MS buy list are currently known as governments or regulatory bodies across the globe. Who would have thought that? Each day that passes makes me more certain that nuclear war will not end the human race... we will starve to death when the food vending machines finally suffer that one last BSOD.

Re:Three... Two... One..

[Zonk (troll) (1026140)]

Whats the EU equivalent of Sourceforge? =D

BerliOS [berlios.de].

Between the US and the Japan/China eating Europe's

[falconwolf (725481)]

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.

Falcon

Re:Between the US and the Japan/China eating Europ

[megaditto (982598)]

A few things we still kick ass in:

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!

Re:EU and software patents?

[Iloinen Lohikrme (880747)]

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.