Microsoft Desperate says Target of Patent Suit OpenOffice.Org

[JPettus]

May 14, 2007 (Computerworld) -- OpenOffice.org today called Microsoft Corp.'s assertion that its open-source application suite violates 45 of its patents "a desperate act."

"It's just hard to put into credible terms," said Louis Suarez-Potts, a community manager at OpenOffice.org and a seven-year veteran of the all-volunteer group. "I don't understand what motivated Microsoft to risk so much with a position that can only serve to alienate customers, as well as those millions of people who use Linux."

In an interview with Fortune that was posted on the magazine's Web site yesterday, Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, spelled out the company's position. During the interview, Smith claimed that OpenOffice.org, the open-source alternative to Microsoft's own Office suite, violates nearly four-dozen patents. Smith did not specify the patents Microsoft believes have been violated by the application collection, nor did a follow-up statement that a Microsoft spokesman issued today.

OpenOffice, which is available in editions for both Windows and Linux, can be downloaded and used for free. A version written for Apple Inc.'s Mac OS X Aqua interface should be ready for beta testing later this year. Microsoft Office 2007, meanwhile, comes in versions for Windows and Mac OS X and is priced starting at $149.

"This is an extraordinary and desperate act," said Suarez-Potts, who works at Collaborative Network Technologies Inc. in Canada. "I think it will backfire. Microsoft's using a shotgun against open source."

Suarez-Potts said he saw evidence of the scattershot approach in Microsoft's focus on GPLv3, Version 3 of the Free Software Foundation's General Public License. A Microsoft spokesman today said, "The latest draft of the GPLv3 attempts to tear down the bridge between proprietary and open-source technology that Microsoft has worked to build with the industry and customers."

But OpenOffice doesn't even use the GPL license, Suarez-Potts noted. "We use the LGPL," he said, referring to the GNU Lesser General Public License.

Previously, the only head-butting between Microsoft and OpenOffice.org has been over document formats, with the former pushing its Open XML and the latter promoting the open-source Open Document Format for Office Applications.

"Incredible and amazing -- those are the words I have for this," Suarez-Potts concluded.

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. The fact that they won't specify the patents in public is pretty telling

They don't want an SCO situation, in which millions work to demonstrate the falsity of their claims. So they'll hold it as long as possible, hoping that a know-nothing judge will nod at their claims.

[wtmusic]

2. What's SCO? nt

[JPettus]

5. A Company that Owns a Flavor of UNIX

and who filed a lawsuit a few years ago at IBM and a few customers who were using Linux, claiming that Linux code infringes on their patents for their own UNIX code.

So far, they've not won a single charge.

[toddaa]

6. SCO v. Linux

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO-Linux_controversies

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

8. An early Unix distribution.

They sued major Linux distributors, claiming patent infringements, in one of the most senseless, ham-fisted and psychotic legal actions ever seen.

They lost. Their claims were ludicrous on their face, they were ludicrous in the breach and their filings and attempts at "evidence" were straight from the playbook of the noted legal firm of Dewey, Cheatem and Howe. All in all, in retrospect, it was legal comedy gold. IBM's lawyers, especially, had their dirty, dirty way with SCO at length and in seeming leisure.

[JPettus]

12. Most of the claims were thrown out

But I think there are still like 85-86 different claims that are waiting for SCO to actually provide proof to go to court. And, I think it's been pretty much acknowledged that the lawsuit was a last ditch attempt to get a cash influx into the company to stay afloat. They didn't really expect to get much from it but hoped to bluster their way through.

Microsoft, on the other hand, is looking to beat Linux into submission. They can't be happy that Dell is now offering to pre-load Ubuntu Linux on boxes instead of Windows Vista at the customer's request.

[wtmusic]

18. They made their own bed

by not adequately testing Vista, and making the transition from XP easier. MS's survival has always depended more on market reach & intimidation than on the quality of their products. IMO it's getting to the point where even diehards have had enough.

Thanks for the info.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. If they go to court...

They run a real risk of destroying Software patents, because if they lose, it will affect more than just them.

I think that this simply points out the existence of real desperation on the part of Microsoft. They see erosion in server space to Linux and the BSD's, they see a real lack of enthusiasm for Vista, with a growing interest in Linux desktop, and they are starting to flail.

They are so cute when they flail.

Remember: It was Microsoft who footed a lot of legal bills for SCO. A case can be made for them instigating that whole situation.

[Dr.Phool]

10. I've never used Linux,

But I'm planning on buying a second hard drive, and installing it, just to see how it works.

[JPettus]

13. You will Love it

I've used a number of different distributions of Linux and some are better than others. But I tried Ubuntu and fell in love. I've converted everything over and use it fulltime now. I can do pretty much everything in Ubuntu that I could in Windows.

[JPettus]

14. That's very true.

I had forgotten that until you just mentioned it.

[JPettus]

9. I don't see how they can hope to prove anything

Without revealing their code, or at least the portions they believe to be infringed. They won't do this. This is simply their way to try to bully and intimidate someone into compliance.

[jsamuel]

4. can you post a link please?

[JPettus]

7. Found it on one of my email newsletters

And since Microsoft's Ballmer has been whining about Linux infringement on Microsoft's intellectual property, I was wondering when they would finally get down to claiming what, exactly, was being infringed and by who.

Here is the article: http://cwflyris.computerworld.com/t/1544708/367707/63321/2/

[w13rd0]

11. I have set up a number of clients...

...with OpenOffice as an alternative to Office. I'm now in the process of selling many on Ubuntu desktop. The only weakness in OpenOffice is a lack of an "Outlook" parallel. Yes, there are other Open projects that would fit the bill, but these corpoclients are so used to MS "wrapped" approach to doing things. An increasing number of private and business entities will explore these options, as the cost of constant upgrades to hardware makes them feel increasingly nickle and dimed by yearly "upgrades" on their software, that in turn, just bog down their new hardware.

[JPettus]

15. I use the Evolution email client

It gives me all the regular desktop features of Outlook. The only potential problem might be sharing calendars and such on Exchange Server.

[JPettus]

17. One More Thing

Evolution has been purchased by Novell, and I suspect since they are working on interoperability issues with Microsoft, that getting Evolution to play nicely with Exchange may be on the To-Do list.

[arendt]

16. It will be interesting to see how IBM reacts. They have embraced Linux. n/t

[JPettus]

19. Absolutely

And Linux is just about to the point where it can start replacing the regular Windows corporate desktop. Almost, but not quite. There will likely be a real need for Linux techs starting in the next 3-5 years, between the new mixed server environments and the possibility of Linux as a corporate desktop.

[liberalmike27]

20. MS

Microsoft may be realizing an increasing trend toward people using free software. As an anecdotal example, as my number of computers grew, I realized I didn't want to pay $50 for each one for antivirus software, so I sought a free version. I run AVG antivirus, and ZoneAlarm as a firewall. The same thing goes to Office, as it costs a fortune, way more than it should. For the most part, while people may want it, most home users only have a need for a couple of the programs, and only occasionally use them.

If they really wanted to do some damage, they'd start offering them all for a quarter of the price. They'd still make money, and people would keep buying them. Let's face it, as the product improves, people are less likely to upgrade, either business or home users. So to break into newer markets, they need to lower prices to people who would buy it if it were cheaper. More diversity in versions would be good too. I like Outlook, but the cheaper versions don't have it, and you have to buy a more expensive version to get it. The most outrageous thing is that they charge about 75% of the new product price just to upgrade to a new version. Usually only about 15% of the product changes, and those are often cosmetic, then require learning where all the features are again. Upgrades should never cost more than 25% of the new whole product price.