So if I understand correctly, the situation is: MS is pledging not to assert patents on "Linux", but the kernel code for exfat isn't upstreamed into the official Linux kernel code, so the pledge doesn't apply to any patents on exfat (patents which MS has already used in past lawsuits). Have I got that right?
I'm confused. An entire paragraph scraped from a ZDNet article [0] states:
>>In a conversation, Erich Andersen, Microsoft's corporate vice president and chief intellectual property (IP) counsel -- that is, Microsoft top patent person -- added: We "pledge our entire patent portfolio to the Linux system. That's not just the Linux kernel, but other packages built on it."
And I note "entire patent portfolio" to the Linux system. Wouldn't that then include the exfat related patents?
IMHO, a party that owns or invents a patent that it does not use and never intends to use in any real products and they only litigate with said patent makes it a true patent troll.
Leaving aside the desirability of software patents, the "real products" element is not a useful way to define who is a "troll." Economically, one of the functions of the patent system is that it allows specialization and division of labor. It allows you to take the results of R&D efforts and wrap it up into a property right that can be the subject of market transactions. ARM doesn't make CPUs; it sells IP that a wide variety of companies can incorporate into "real products." ARM's expertise is in CPU design. It's economically efficient to let it focus on that, instead of forcing it and every other R&D house to also master manufacturing, supply chain, etc.
(I'd also posit that this is a good thing for consumers because it is a force pushing back against vertical integration. In the long run, I think it'll turn out to be a bad thing for consumers that the market is moving from ARM supplying IP to dozens of manufacturers, to a handful of companies with like Apple and Samsung moving CPU design in-house within a vertically-integrated supply chain.)
ARM is a great example, thank you for pointing it out. Wasn't aware they didn't manufacture anything themselves but the benefit of their utility is pretty obvious.
No, words need to mean something. Patent troll is an organization that buys up patents just to enforce them while not actually using the patent itself within its own business model.
Microsoft is a patent gorilla, but it's not a troll.
I'd count anyone who wields trivial patents, or patents where previous work exixts and which should not have been granted in the first place, a patent troll too.
How do you feel about the patent for compact discs? James Russell invented the technology along with prototypes but never put it into production first-hand, electing instead to license the technology to other companies. There's no debating that companies profited handsomely from putting this technology into the consumer market. It built off prior work (LaserDisc) and the patent holder was a non-practicing entity (as someone else pointed out in this thread).
Microsoft’s use of Linux on Azure cloud was in violation of patents in the OIN patent pool, which includes patents held by Google and IBM. Now, not only are they not in violation without having to pay for licensing, but they are also getting a lot of great PR.
It's right there in the article: Only patents relating to the upstream kernel are included. The "Linux System Definition" is the baseline for the non-aggression pact.
The exfat system is not part of the Linux System Definition because it is not part of the upstream kernel, so it isn't covered by the non-aggression pact, so Microsoft did not include the exfat patents.
In other words, put your money where you mouth is. But I have read that they make $2 billion a year on this. So why would they give that up when people are giving them credit without actually changing something crucial like that? It's too much money.
I think it comes down to legal manipulations rather than PR. If someone can find a legal way to force Microsoft to stop the exfat stuff, maybe with some other Linux related patent litigation, then they will. But it might need to be worth $2 billion which is a pretty big ask. On the other hand other large corporations have a lot invested in Linux and certainly some of those executives must be able to see through this PR so maybe they can do something.
I wonder if there is any possibility of dropping exfat entirely over the next few years.
It seems you didn't bother to read the article so I'll summarize (even though it's all of 4 paragraphs, I'll shorten it down to two):
Exfat code is not included in the upstream kernel (no one has merged it yet since it is obviously a patent mine). Microsoft's lawyers only included those patents that pertained to code included in the "Linux System Definition", essentially upstream software, ergo no exfat patents were included. That is fine because it was the basis of the arrangement.
They are now asking Microsoft to merge the exfat code into the upstream kernel itself, so that it will also be governed by the patent non-agression pact.
Microsoft did a good thing (whatever it's motivation).
Some people want Microsoft to do more.
There is always a danger in this that Microsoft think that their MicrosoftHeartsLinux strategy isn't working and go back to what they were doing before. The 'nothing we do is ever good enough for them,' outcome.
I remember reading that something like 40% [0] of Azure servers now run Linux. It's in Microsoft's best interest to embrace Linux, and they've been doing a damn good job the last few years. It simply takes time for the momentum of a ship as large as MS to change course.
This article doesn't contain a single negative word about Microsoft's recent actions (the negative bit goes along with an Internet Archive link from 2013), and indeed it calls one of those recent actions a step forward.
Sure it requests another step to more fully achieve the outcome people may think is implied by MS joining OIN, but there's nothing wrong with making that request.
