Headline FeedsLinuxInsider Talkback
|
|
Re: Don't Be Cruel: The Microsoft Protocol License Agreement
Posted by: Philip H. Albert 2004-11-30 11:05:33
See Full Story
When Elvis sang "Don't be Cruel," he certainly wasn't referring to contracts. But contracts, like love affairs and other personal relationships, can often make the parties involved behave harshly to each other. When the rivalry involves money, as the old saying goes, business is business. I have seen many harsh contracts, but Microsoft's Royalty-Free Protocol License Agreement (RFPLA) is not really one of them. Although some commentators call it harsh, when you look it over with a sharp (and objective) legal eye, the RFPLA seems fairly reasonable.
Re: Don't Be Cruel: The Microsoft Protocol License Agreement
Posted by: Corf 2004-12-01 05:38:20 In reply to: Philip H. Albert
You note at the end that the GPL writers are still free to implement their own version of the protocol. This has always been the case, and always should be, though I fear that the presence of these licenses is to spread fear that such an implementation is illegal. Perhaps with enough licensees, Microsoft could attempt to convince a judge that the license does indeed have value. "Look at all of these people who think I do really own this idea and are willing to pay for it."
.
The benefit for Mictrosoft is great. Companies don't like to compete - it's expensive and takes effort. If you can get laywers or "FUD" to take care of competition for you, then you can just relax and rake in the profits. On the other hand, for the consumer the existance of Samba and Open Office and now Firefox is forcing Microsoft to improve their products and try to compete (begrudgingly it seems) on merit.
.
Past cases have supported the idea that protocols in themselves have no protection. Samba exists to serve Windows Shares. Open Office can read Word Format. There exist open source clients for proprietry instant message systems, and no owner of the proprietry system has tried to turn around and say "But we own the protocol - its ours! you're not licensed to implement it!"
.
Even a case of a peripheral maker's attempt to use the DMCA to prevent the peripheral being used with "anauthorised" software failed. Our governements have long supported the market for non-branded printer consumables, even where the disposable print head attached to the unbranded ink cartridge uses a proprietry protocol to talk to the printer.
.
The question then becomes - what right to Microsoft have to even sell these licenses? It is noted that they don't mention what patents they have, yet even the patenting of protocols is controversial and not implemented worldwide. Do Microsoft really own what they are selling?
.
It would be like me claiming that the view of my house is my intellectual property, and selling licenses to anyone who comes within sight of it. I'd have to charge enyone who drove down our street. In this world of Intellectual Property land grabs, that is something that I can just imagine a company trying on. The problem is, that few people would question them.
.
The benefit for Mictrosoft is great. Companies don't like to compete - it's expensive and takes effort. If you can get laywers or "FUD" to take care of competition for you, then you can just relax and rake in the profits. On the other hand, for the consumer the existance of Samba and Open Office and now Firefox is forcing Microsoft to improve their products and try to compete (begrudgingly it seems) on merit.
.
Past cases have supported the idea that protocols in themselves have no protection. Samba exists to serve Windows Shares. Open Office can read Word Format. There exist open source clients for proprietry instant message systems, and no owner of the proprietry system has tried to turn around and say "But we own the protocol - its ours! you're not licensed to implement it!"
.
Even a case of a peripheral maker's attempt to use the DMCA to prevent the peripheral being used with "anauthorised" software failed. Our governements have long supported the market for non-branded printer consumables, even where the disposable print head attached to the unbranded ink cartridge uses a proprietry protocol to talk to the printer.
.
The question then becomes - what right to Microsoft have to even sell these licenses? It is noted that they don't mention what patents they have, yet even the patenting of protocols is controversial and not implemented worldwide. Do Microsoft really own what they are selling?
.
It would be like me claiming that the view of my house is my intellectual property, and selling licenses to anyone who comes within sight of it. I'd have to charge enyone who drove down our street. In this world of Intellectual Property land grabs, that is something that I can just imagine a company trying on. The problem is, that few people would question them.
Re: Don't Be Cruel: The Microsoft Protocol License Agreement
Posted by: Kagehi 2004-11-30 11:49:20 In reply to: Philip H. Albert
The license is more Microsoft FUD, plain and simple. They want people to get confused and assume that somehow MS has rights to protocols, even when they didn't invent them. Why else create a license that has the sort of rediculous requirements this has? I mean, what the heck purpose would there be in attaching the Microsoft name, in any way shape or form, to a program that impliments HTTP, just so that it conforms to this license when talking to a Microsoft based web server, for example? None. They have no legal right to the protocol in the first place, so the existance of such a notice only engenders potential confusion over who, if anyone, even owns it. This in turn makes it easier for them to glue on some ultimately unnecessary, but proprietary junk on the protocol (also conveniently covered as outside the scope of the license), then sue people for trying to design something that is interoperable, but doesn't use the open standard. Apparently they still haven't figured out that such nonsense is illegal, you can't prevent companies from producing interoperable software and people despise proprietary protocols when developing web applications. Everything they have done since Linux started to gain market share has been either FUD or some idiot attempt to do an end run around the legal issues. This is imho, just another tactic in there, "the GPL isn't actually legal and neither is open source", battle front. If you can't convince them with non-existant facts, baffle them with pure high grade bullshit.
