Ubuntu Defies Microsoft

June 19, 2007 | by Christopher Nickson

Open source name Ubuntu has refused to join others in signing an interoperability agreement with Microsoft that could save them from a patent infringement suit.

Ubuntu, one of the leading names in open source, has announced it won’t add its name to the list of open source vendors who have made interoperability deals with Microsoft.
 
Linspire, Novell and Xandros have already inked agreements with the giant, which have included assurances that Microsoft will not pursue patent infringement suits against them. This stems from recent assertions by Microsoft that Linux infringes on Microsoft patents.
 
Ubuntu, though, is proving defiant.
 
“Allegations of ‘infringement of unspecified patents’ carry no weight whatsoever,” claimed Ubuntu founder and CEO Mark Shuttleworth. “We don't think they have any legal merit, and they are no incentive for us to work with Microsoft on any of the wonderful things we could do together.”
 
Four years ago, a survey by OSRM regarding Linux patent infringements reportedly found a total of 283, only 27 of which pertained to Microsoft, none of which have been court-validated.
 
However, in May Microsoft claimed it had identified 235 patent violations by open source, although it’s refused to identify any of them. Microsoft has indicated that it has no desire to pursue legal claims against open source developers or end users over intellectual property. Instead it’s looking to Linux vendors to pay for patent licensing.
 
Shuttleworth has said that patent licensing companies pose a greater legal threat than Microsoft, and that any agreement with Microsoft wouldn’t protect Linux vendors from suits from licensing companies. Patent licensing companies use patents solely to generate licence revenues and do not sell products based on the patents.
 
This story was amended 6/21/2007

Post Your Comment...Comments

Jenny Lyndross on Jun 20th, 2007 at 6:42 AM:

The study you are referring to was commissioned by OSRM and performed by Dan Ravisher of PUBPAT. Ms. Jones commented on her blog regarding the results, but was not involved in any part of its production. These facts were widely reported and are readily available with even the most casual of research.

Wolf Schneider on Jun 20th, 2007 at 9:46 AM:

Not only UBUNTU but als RedHat and MANDRIVA refusing the patent scare.
With the onset of GPLv3, the MS patent FUD will be moot, since MS gave out coupons of indemnification!
MS' refusal to produce the alleged infringing patents makes even the casual observer doubt the validity of said patents.
AND with the recent Supreme Court ruling, MS' patents are even on shakier ground.

Archimerged on Jun 20th, 2007 at 10:13 AM:

In case this story gets any diggs, please click on the link and bury it. Instead, digg this one: http://digg.com/linux_unix/Laura_Dido_BIFF_smear_P...

(I apologize for misspelling Laura DiDio's name in the digg title. AFAIK there isn't any way to correct it).

See also the Groklaw story: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200706190...

David Ferguson on Jun 20th, 2007 at 12:30 PM:

The study also DIDN'T say Microsoft had 280 patents infringed by Linux. It said it had a few that might or might not be valid. And now that the US Supreme Court has raised the bar on obviousness, those few claims may not be valid.

johnny miller on Jun 20th, 2007 at 12:43 PM:

do staff writers do any research at all? one asks in curiosity...

Xetheriel Angelknight on Jun 20th, 2007 at 7:30 PM:

As per Jenny Lyndross's comment above, here is the Groklaw story for all to read:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200706190...

Holt Wong on Jun 21st, 2007 at 8:46 AM:

It's pretty worrying that a tech news site would make such statements about a study with little or no research as to the reliability of their sources. You clearly neither looked at the study nor got your information from someone who had. This does not bode well for your reputation and credibility as a news source.

Peter Shaw on Jun 21st, 2007 at 9:03 AM:

This is another example of sloppy, sensation seeking journalism that impresses few. It is easily debunked, as previous commentators have done so well.

-P.
New Zealand

Toby on Jun 21st, 2007 at 9:48 AM:

Looks like they updated the story to reflect new information. Thanks DT for following up on this. Props for that!

R Peters on Jun 21st, 2007 at 1:13 PM:

Why does Digital Trends News continue to employ Christopher Nickson, when he is so obviously wrong? A simple check of the web would have cleared up many of the "mistakes" in the article (e.g., the Groklaw reference) Is accurate reporting optional? Please reply Digital Trends News!!!

Toby on Jun 21st, 2007 at 1:58 PM:

@ R Peters,

You are retarded. They came in and updated the story. There are soooo many news organizations that would not even do that.

Hugh on Jun 21st, 2007 at 2:18 PM:

The problem is that the SCO has fed so much misinformation out there, that all of these publications are reporting it. If Groklaw had a PR budget or newsletter, the press would know better.

quazar on Jun 21st, 2007 at 8:49 PM:

Mr. Christopher Nickson, please do more research before publish this kind of junk articles. Indeed, here at Panamá (yes, Central America), we are aware and very clear about those SCO and Micro$of patent blah blah blah FUD! (and yes, we are using open source software)

Comment on this article




Please keep your comments relevant to this article. Email addresses are not displayed, they are only required to verify you are human.

When you submit your comment, an email will be sent to your email address with a confirmation link. Once you have clicked on that confirmation link your comment will be posted.

HTML is not allowed.