Professional Lawyers: behind Microsoft's Linux infringement theory

Article title: professional lawyers: behind Microsoft's Linux infringement theory. Linux is a technology channel of the IT lab in China. Includes basic categories such as desktop applications, Linux system management, kernel research, embedded systems, and open source.

Microsoft recently published a statement about Linux patent violations, authorizing Fortune magazine to publish a statement that may have scored all the score of the SCO trial team, but John Rabena, the IP lawyer, does not think this will end.

On the contrary, Microsoft may be seeking to sign more Novell-type agreements with larger Linux players. Rabena says he is an intellectual property attorney at Sughrue Mion's office in Washington, DC. In this SearchEnterpriseLinux.com interview, he provided a legal opinion on Microsoft's 235 patents that were violated by Linux and/or open source software.

SearchEnterpriseLinux.com: Out of curiosity, I would like to ask if there are more than 235 patents under infringement?

John Rabena said: Yes, it is definitely a lot. For example, an IP address infringement is usually a patent. On average, there are already many five patents.

Who are these patent litigation targets? Why?

Rabena: Up to now, the biggest target is users of large Linux and open-source software. Is a company that uses, builds, and develops their services on the Linux platform. By targeting them, Microsoft can establish more businesses similar to Novell with these companies, and reach certain types of global agreements with providers.

Is there a precedent? Does the company routinely say that it acknowledges that they have infringed a patent when it does not elaborate on what they are talking about?

Rabena: this is a very early strategy adopted by Microsoft. It is not clear whether Microsoft has really analyzed every so-called patent-infringement company using Linux software.

The fact is that they have not specified a patent and have not yet put forward practical significance, so I guess this may be because Microsoft wants to seek a broad agreement in the industry. If this agreement is not reached, I guess they will begin to put forward more details about patent infringement.

I am not concerned about Microsoft's failure to point out specific patents, because to some extent, if they want to continue something, they will.

What are Microsoft's short-term goals for these patent infringement claims?

Rabena: it is very difficult to speculate on Microsoft's ideas. It may be that they want a broad agreement covering the entire field of software patents. In this sense, they may not need to go back and forth to discuss the details of the infringement and reach an agreement directly. If Microsoft starts to address the details, it will select some representative patents and start a clearer conversation through negotiation or litigation.

Microsoft wants more protocols of the Novell type, but the Free Software Foundation has carefully modified the General Public License version 3rd, which may prevent the emergence of such agreements in the future. Do you think there will be a positive conflict?

Rabena: It seems that Microsoft is telling the company that they will reach an agreement with GPL, and they will then face Microsoft's threats. Perhaps in this way, Microsoft can reach a high level of agreement with the GPL organization.

They may seek more protocols similar to Novell in a broad scope. They may be looking for some high-level protocols.

So what are your suggestions for companies that are still using open source software today? Are there any measures they should take to determine if their software infringes on patents?

Rabena: there are some things they can do. The negotiation capability is a problem here. If the user can get compensation from the software supplier, it is ideal. In other words, they may provide compensation to users if they infringe a patent.

Users need to understand this, just because you have signed an open-source agreement and used this software, the providers will not follow you; but this does not mean that other patent holders will not be behind you. They may be right behind you. There is always such a risk, even open source.