Are they? I'm quite happy to be enlightened, but I've never heard of a patent-based attack against users of widely used open-source tools (the example here is Hadoop). Except for the SCO debacle.
For the younger among us, SCO (with Microsoft funding) did try suing all sorts of people over what they considered their ownership of Unix. They got their badly flayed ass handed to them in every case, because IBM spent multi-millions on a legal dream team that totally discredited their arguments (thanks IBM!).
I know Microsoft have had a welcome change of leadership and are starting to engage in open-source, but this program suggests they haven't given up on their old tricks. Instead of indemnifying only their own customers, they should join with IBM, Google, and Facebook and use their patents and legal clout to defeat ALL patent attacks on open-source software. Then I'd start believing the leopard had changed it's spots.
I'm not as interested in the part about indemnifying use of open source software. It's not worthless though: Google did something similar for Android developers when Oracle started suing (which is a much more recent example than SCO, so it does still happen). Also, my guess is that mid-to-large organizations do see patent suits on a regular basis and that most of them are never made public. So we wouldn't necessarily know how common this is.
Either way, the "patent pick" part is more interesting to me. It gives you some protection for stuff you write yourself. Quick story: I was working at a BigCo about 10 years ago and was told I couldn't embed some HTML in a javascript string and dynamically inject it into the DOM because "that was patented" and "we've been sued for doing that before." Patent pick could help defend against bullshit like that (assuming the litigant is not an NPE).
> For the younger among us, SCO (with Microsoft funding) did try suing all sorts of people over what they considered their ownership of Unix. They got their badly flayed ass handed to them in every case, because IBM spent multi-millions on a legal dream team that totally discredited their arguments (thanks IBM!).
Right, but they also managed to successfully push back against much wider scale adoption of Linux. Not that it worked out to their advantage in the longer run but at the time they could not have known that, they were clearly trying to bury Linux.
SCO didn't lose all the lawsuits they bullied many small business into settling out of court for quite a bit of money.
If I recall correctly they largely used this in the case against IBM. Before that victory it was unclear to many what would happen and more than a few people thought that it would kill Linux or that everyone using computers would owe SCO money or some other dystopian ending was possible.
Are they? I'm quite happy to be enlightened, but I've never heard of a patent-based attack against users of widely used open-source tools (the example here is Hadoop). Except for the SCO debacle.
For the younger among us, SCO (with Microsoft funding) did try suing all sorts of people over what they considered their ownership of Unix. They got their badly flayed ass handed to them in every case, because IBM spent multi-millions on a legal dream team that totally discredited their arguments (thanks IBM!).
I know Microsoft have had a welcome change of leadership and are starting to engage in open-source, but this program suggests they haven't given up on their old tricks. Instead of indemnifying only their own customers, they should join with IBM, Google, and Facebook and use their patents and legal clout to defeat ALL patent attacks on open-source software. Then I'd start believing the leopard had changed it's spots.