MESSAGE
| DATE | 2005-05-02 |
| FROM | From: "Inker, Evan"
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Microsoft Reaches Out to Open-Source Community
|
Microsoft Reaches Out to Open-Source Community
By Darryl K. Taft
April 29, 2005
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1791085,00.asp#talkback
Microsoft Corp. has extended an olive branch to the open-source community,
calling for a sit-down to discuss how the software giant can better work
with the open-source world.
But don't expect to see an open-sourced version of Windows any time soon.
Microsoft is making nice with its open-source adversaries, while continuing
to defend its rights to hold and use its arsenal of software patents.
At a recent conference sponsored by the Association for Competitive
Technology (ACT) in Cambridge, Md., Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel,
called for bridge building between Microsoft, its competitors and the
open-source community.
"In the world of software development today there is a broad panoply of
software development models," Smith said.
"We're going to have to figure out how to build some bridges between the
various parts of our industry," he continued. "We're going to have to figure
out how we can bring the various parts of our industry closer together. Not
necessarily in the sense of changing the way software is developed, but
building bridges so that we all have the ability to collaborate with each
other. And that will mean we will need some new rotations, I think, in how
we work together, in how we license, in how we share technology or
intellectual property rights with each other."
One open-source community leader said this was the first conciliatory
statement to come out of Redmond, Wash., where Microsoft is headquartered.
Larry Rosen, former general counsel for the Open Source Initiative and a
leading open-source supporter who was present for Smith's speech, said, "I'm
pleased to hear requests for bridge building, and I have been open to it all
along. And I think it's important that the entire IT industry-both the
proprietary side and the open, free software side-at least understands each
others' positions better, if not actually come to compromises that allow
both 'sides,' and I hate to use the word 'sides' but I think it would be
very helpful to everyone to engage in dialogue."
In an interview following his keynote, Smith told eWEEK: "First you have to
start with some dialogue. We are now interested in it, and we'd like to do
this. I think we'll find we've got a lot more in common than we realize, and
I think there are many of us who would like to meet."
Meanwhile, Rosen said, "I would like to see that they engage in an
intellectually thorough discussion where we actually prove the points that
he's making or the points we're making about the value and utility of
software patents, rather than simply make the assumption and jump to the
conclusion that reform is needed. ... The test is going to be when we engage
in that dialogue are we really going to sit at the table and put things on
the table and figure out how to reach some form of compromise? We did that
over a three year period with the W3C [World Wide Web Consortium]."
Rosen noted that the open-source community helped the World Wide Web
Consortium develop a royalty-free intellectual property policy and is
working with the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information
Systems (OASIS) and would like to work with Microsoft in the same way. In
fact, Rosen said he would like to see the software industry do away with
software patents altogether.
Richard Wilder, a patent attorney and partner at the Washington, D.C., law
firm Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, said of Smith's comments, "For the kinds of
bridges he's talking about, I think you need a problem to be solved and then
you can work from there."
Eric Raymond, a Malvern, Pa.-based open-source community leader and
consultant to Sun Microsystems Inc. on the company's move to open-source
Solaris, said he too welcomes the conciliatory tone from Microsoft.
There are new ways to "open up" Windows. Click here to find out what they
are.
"Nobody in the open-source world expects Microsoft to open-source their core
products; given their business model that would be insane," Raymond said.
"But, realistically, they could do some important things. One, open up their
file formats. That is, fully document things like the Microsoft Word and
Windows Media formats, and make a binding promise not to sue people who
write software to interoperate with them," he said. "Two, put down the
patent weapon. Do as IBM has, and offer their software patents under
royalty-free, paperwork-free license to open-source projects. Three, support
open technical standards, rather than sabotaging them. Microsoft has a
history of destructive meddling at organizations like the IETF and W3C, and
of attempting to hijack standards like Kerberos by making them dependent on
proprietary 'extensions.' Simply not doing this would be a huge
improvement."
But Smith argues that Microsoft and others not only have the right to hold
their patents, but to exercise them to defend their intellectual property,
though also to work in partnership with others.
"There are a whole diverse set of ways that companies can and should use
their patent portfolio and technology base not only to protect their own
innovation, but to stimulate and share innovation with others," Smith said.
Microsoft has crafted what Smith called "outbound royalty-based patent
licenses" that the company has used to transfer technology to startup firms.
"We in the private sector not only have to do a good job of obtaining
protection for our own inventions, we also have to do more to work with each
other," Smith said. "And we have to license our intellectual property rights
to each other for a fair and reasonable term-sometimes it's for a royalty,
sometimes it's royalty free."
Sanjay Prasad , chief patent counsel at Oracle Corp., said, "A lot of people
say that patents are the tools of big business to lock out other people, and
they certainly are used by big business, but a patent has a quite a bit more
value to a small business than a big business, there is just no doubt about
that."
Meanwhile, Smith called for patent reform, a refrain of a message he had
raised earlier this year.
"The reality is that anybody who is an inventor and is successful both
relies on patents and is a target for patent litigation by others," Smith
said. "And everybody should have to pay their fair share and respect the
rules. But it helps if the system works well. And with the explosion in
patent litigation in this country we've see the increase in litigation
abuse. We've seen people inflate their ability to seek monetary awards when
it wasn't really deserved."
Microsoft is making sure its presence is felt at open-source events. Click
here to read more.
Smith called for Congress, which held a hearing on patent reform earlier
this week, to focus on four things: patent quality, patent litigation abuse,
the needs of smaller inventors-"We've been supportive of what we call the
zero fee filing system for small inventors"-and harmonization, "which
basically means among other things that the U.S. needs to move to a
first-to-file system so that like everywhere else the first person to file
an application gets the award rather than it going to the first to invent
it."
David Simon, chief patent counsel at Intel, testified before a Senate
Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this week and said, "Let me state at the
outset that the patent law is not broken. The law is fundamentally sound and
works well." However, Simon called for reforms or improvements in the areas
of patent quality, training and funding for U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
staff, access to prior art, harmonization and litigation abuses, among
others.
"More recently, the PTO, with Jim Rogan [former director of the PTO] and
John Dudas [current PTO director] providing the political leadership,
decided that now was the time to change the fundamental premise on which the
PTO would judge whether or not it was really making a contribution to
supporting industry by shifting away from what had predominantly been a
production-based mentality"-how many patent issues could be generated per
staff year of effort"-to attempting to import into the PTO as many different
quality improvement techniques and practices as possible," said Brad Huther,
a director at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and former president and CEO for
the International Intellectual Property Institute.
At this week's hearing, Dudas said that the patent law should be changed to
award a patent to the first person to file a claim. The current rules allow
patents to be granted to the first person who devised the invention.
****************************************************************************
This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the individual or entity named. If you are not the named addressee
you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive
late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not
accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
This message is provided for informational purposes and should not
be construed as an invitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or
related financial instruments.
GAM operates in many jurisdictions and is
regulated or licensed in those jurisdictions as required.
****************************************************************************
|
|
