Daily Tech headline: “Microsoft Wants Royalties From Linux and Open-Source”. Since I have been around before there was a Microsoft (Gates and Ballner included), I just could not let this go by with a comment on the issue as why Microsoft, their legion of company lawyers and their claims are full of fresh slimy bull defecation. Software piracy followed by eventual M&A of the legal owner of the targeted software, while under the protected of relentless legal muscle, is the secret to the MS rise to power in the workstation/server operating systems world. Read on to get some ancient but brief history behind the MS empire.
Long before there was Apple, DOS, PCDOS,MSDOS,Windows etc, there was Ham Radio Operators. Following the launch of an experimental sub-orbital satellite with repeater circuitry exclusively for Ham Radio operator messages, Hams soon discovered that they could not effectively manage message streams from the satellite using standard manual frequency control procedures. So a group of enterprising Ham/engineers designed elementary automatic control systems using the new Intel 8008 microprocessors. The hardware for these new control systems developed by the Hams was configured on individual PC Cards with each card plugged into a 100 pin connector, with the external pins of each connector wired between connectors in parallel. This connector configuration was called the S-100 bus due to the parallel positioning of adjacent connectors. Whereas many Hams were building systems for the same purpose, the S-100 bus quickly became an unofficial standard (IEEE696 withdrawn). The S-100 bus also stimulated a fast growing “computer hobbiest” group, who purchased S-100 based system kits from companies like MTS (Altair). The early hobby systems used teletype I/O and computer programs and data were stored on punched papertape. Derivatives of the Dartmouth College Basic language program compiler were among the first applications to run on these systems. These Basic language compilers were used to generate early control software for these systems. This was the era before cassette tape or floppy disk recording.
Subsequently, Gary Kildall was employed by Intel to develop an operating/control program for a new generation of automated Logic Analyzers. Intel was developing the prototype for the 8080 SBC 80/10 based Single Board Computer (SBC). Gary developed a microprocessor operating control program for the Intel Logic Analyzer called Control Program/Monitor or CP/M. The name was straight forward, CP or control program for the microprocessor and the M for montoring the SBC’s hardware bus. In those days people wrote a lot of assembly language code to control the microprocessor and manually loaded it into memory byte by byte generally using toggle switches or paper tape if a teletype was available. However, other support instrumentation was needed to monitor the execution of the program loaded into the processor’s memory. This was the job of the Intel Logic Analyzer with CP/M. Kildall’s company quickly became the generic operating system for all S-100 and Intel Based SBC micro systems exploding onto the marketplace. These new systems were actively replacing the old proprietary based minicomputers from DEC and Data General at a fraction of the cost.
CP/M was constructed on the microprocessor’s Basic Input Output System or BIOS. The BIOS was the interface to the peripheral world for CP/M, which provided the means to systematically transfer data between the microprocessor and other external peripherals. This provided the flexibility needed to enable the microprocessor to fit into a potential universe of control applications. Lastly, when cassettes became available as data recording/playback devices, Gary defined this class of periphals by a simple letter from the alphabet, starting with the letter A. So when the micro was booted and loaded with the operating system, it placed the familiar >A prompt on the teletype (or later on CRT Monitor display). Later when floppy disks were added to CP/M, to handle a pair of disk drives, a second letter, “B” was added to the BIOS.
IBM developed the 8080 Mother Board based Personal Computer primarily for office secretarial use as a replacement for their very mature IBM Selectric typewriter. Noting that CP/M had become the accepted Operating System of the 8080 based computer world, IBM approached Digital Research, in particular Dr. Gary Kildall to adapt CP/M for the IBM PC and license it to IBM. However, it is my understanding that Gary had little regard for IBM and rejected the proposal summarily out of hand. As a result IBM in a panic to meet a looming deadline, made a number of inquiries for a OS developer for their PC. They were subsequently referred to a small 2 man computer applications programming shop in Washington, named Microsoft. There they signed a contract with a young man named Bill Gates, and Microsoft developed a CP/M clone complete with the BIOS and well known >A prompt for the IBMPC. The new OS was named DOS for Disk Operating System. Since the projected user of the IBM PC was the company secretary, it was assumed that disks would be the primary storage for company documents, so the primary function of the system would be recording and retrieval of disk based documents, hence DOS was appropriate.
As the sales of DOS began to skyrocket, Microsoft dropped the DOS name on a key hardware revision and renamed the new OS MSDOS. IBM had rights only to DOS, and on the same major hardware revision upgraded DOS and renamed it to PCDOS. The IBM Mother Board was reverse-engineered over in Tiawan and soon PC clones were dominating the marketplace. As a result IBM soon dropped PCDOS as a product.
Microsoft has reached the end of the road with its BIOS architecture which it has used throughout the DOS and Windows generations. This simple architecture is now overwhelmed by hackers worldwide and cost MS OS users billions in internet security software to provide safety for their computer systems and security for their data. This is compounded by the latest push by Business and government to require that local radiated transmission of PC data as radio signals which can be intercepted by low tech radio equipment be suppressed. All of these factors are driving MS to acquire exclusive rights to Linux. The architecture of Linux is based on UNIX and it has a well designed kernal as the heart of the operating system, and this kernal has the most sophisticated security system available to the general public. Further, Linux has had millions of people maintaining and upgrading the system, so it is further advanced than Vista or any other present or future MS OS product. Microsoft’s play is to FORCE one by one the merchants of Linux out of business and then release Linux under their own newly patented name. They intend to wind up with a well developed highly stable secure Operating System just for flexing their legal muscle. The reason that they are not going after UNIX OS products is that most UNIX workstations run on non Intel architectures and this market is small compared to the PC market on a world wide basis.
Why should you care about this as an issue. Well, if Free Open-Source software disappears from the scene. ultimately all of us will lose an important freedom.
Microsoft will not prevail in this effort world wide as it can only make its moves and file its motions in courts with U.S. jurisdiction. For example, China has already adopted Linux as its national Operating System software. Somehow I don’t think Microsoft will be successful in collecting royalties from the Chinese government for their continued use of Linux.
Most of that background is not really germane to the subject.
CNN Story today has a comprehensive examination of the subject.
Software patents are really, really screwed up in the US but each country is entitled to their own IP laws and thus Linux will have strengths in geographical regions but US Corporations have been driving a lot of Linux development.
The general consensus is that Congress and the Supreme Court (I am speaking now of just the US), are fed up with the abuses of the patent system – especially where it intersects with computer software and many of Microsoft’s patents are likely to be unenforceable.
The truth is that Open Source is starting to hurt Microsoft and they are getting desparate.
I am trying to figure out if I am going to buy any more Dell products since they signed on to the Microsoft/Novell deal.
Then of course, GPL v3 will be finalized and software licensed as GPL v3 will have impact on these types of alliances which are nothing buy Microsoft attempts to chip away Open Source by tossing cash around.
Offering Linux, it looked like Dell was going to get some spine, but it was not to be so. Given this and the occasional problems I’ve had with their hardware, I will likely attempt to avoid Dell in the future.
Why not build your own computer (unless you’re buying a laptop)? It’s not that hard, and you get better components for less money.
Every single computer I’ve run for the past ten years, with the exception of my laptop and a couple of cheap obsolescent boxes that were donated to me for various purposes, has been an IBM. In this case, however IBM stands for “I Built it Myself.”
If you ask me it’s about as difficult as building a Revell-style model car. Easier, even, because there’s no glue involved. Especially if you’re using Linux to power the box, the components will usually Just Work™. The toughest thing I usually have to do is troubleshoot whether I’ve set the jumper pins correctly on the hard disk drives.
The real impediment to building an IBM is getting the parts. You either have to be near a store that has a good selection of OEM raw components (video cards, motherboards, disk drives, etc.) or you need a good supplier of components you can order from. Fortunately I have both; my preference is to order by mail/web, but I usually buy cases here in town because they’re expensive to ship and I want to see what I’m getting.
The real impediment to building an IBM is getting the parts.
That is not really not an impediment at all, since you can get everything on the Web. I get most of my parts from newegg.com. I would say that the main effort involves doing the research to find out what are the parts you should buy.
Of course if you are going to build your own computer, you should run Linux on it. A Windows license for a self-built computer is going to be pretty expensive, compared to what you pay for a PC with Windows pre-installed that you pick up at Best Buy. But then again, this is not about cost. Given the choice between running Windows and death, death is preferable. Windows is the perfect symbol for a life not worth living. At least by choosing death, you preserve your dignity.
I also make an exception for cases, and buy them at a local retailer.
Hey, what a coincidence! I buy most of my stuff from Newegg too. 🙂 They’ve gotten a lot of my business in the last seven years, including a couple of cameras and a laptop.
I should add the minor caveat that if you’re building an IBM to run Linux, you should make sure your hardware is supported with Linux drivers. The vast majority of commodity hardware these days is, but you may have to shop carefully if you are looking for stuff like USB webcams and the like. Even modems aren’t as problematic as they used to be, with drivers for several “Winmodems” available, although it’s still best to go with an external modem hooked to an actual serial port or a modem that has its own hardware controller onboard.
Still, the odds are good that if you build a consumer-grade PC (rather than some funky box dedicated to high-end, low-latency video production or some other esoteric use that requires oddball hardware), you can pop an Ubuntu disk into the CD-ROM drive, start your computer, and it will Just Work.
Not Germane?? Beg to differ. It is highly applicable! The defense against Microsoft’s infringement cases is to force them to prove whatever patent in question can be verified as “unique and novel”. In essence Microsoft must be made to defend its patent, as the patent could have been improperly issued in terms of being “unique and novel”. Prior disclosure or publication to the date of issue of the subject of the patent would disqualify its validity. The historical thumbnail that I provided as introductory material provides such a background. Simply put Microsoft is claiming that Linux and related programs are trampling on 235 of its (Microsoft) design patents. I am not alone in what I cited above. The early versions of MS-DOS were copies of the CP/M internals. file handling and data structures. As mentioned above the BIOS and BDOS structures were the same. My argument is that if Gary Kildall neglected to patent the structural architecture of CP/M, it does not fall to Microsoft to step in and assert patents on these structures as a default to Kildall’s inaction. CP/M architectural code was published long before Mr. Gates got his DOS contract from IBM. Therefore, at least this part of the MS-DOS (and subsequent architecture) was in the public domain and therefore NOT Patentable, no matter how many dollars have been passed around in the Patent office.
The patents they would be seeking to enforce are about OS kernel, transport protocols and user interface and have nothing to do with MSDOS, BIOS, etc.
Nobody patented software back in CP/M days – they merely copyrighted their software.
Microsoft is doing the bully thing – threatening but it’s all bluster until they actually step up and actually sue someone for infringement – until then – the only response to Microsoft is…blow me. At that point of course, they like SCO will actually have to make their case and that seemed to be a problem for SCO.
There’s no MS code in the BIOS. Well, at least there wasn’t in the beginning. Who knows now with the Orwellian-named “Trusted Computing.”
That’s an interesting story in and of itself, though. In the beginning, IBM wouldn’t publish the information on the BIOS, claiming it was a trade secret. So in those pre-DMCA days when you could legally do such things in the USA, a group of white-hat hackers sat down, disassembled the code inside an IBM BIOS, and published a specification of entry points and routines that described what the BIOS did, but not how it did it. A SECOND group of hackers used that blueprint to create their own version of the BIOS. They swore out an affidavit that they had never seen the original code, so they could not possibly have incorporated any proprietary IBM code into their version of the BIOS. That’s how Phoenix got their start, and at that point the cat was out of the bag and the PC architecture was open, which allowed it to take off and gain its dominant market share.
In the days of the IBM XT and decent documentation, the technical reference manual, published by IBM, included the BIOS source code. They expected you to read the source code (with comments) to find out how to use it. I wish I had kept one before they were all thrown out.
Ya learn something new every day. I never saw the technical manual so I had no idea. I thought I had read somewhere that they ran the code through a disassembler, and maybe they did in addition to the IBM docs.
I do remember a similar disassembly of the TRS-80 Model I Level II ROM that was fascinating, even though it didn’t help me learn assembly programming (a skill I still have never mastered, and probably never will — life is too short and stuff like Perl is too much fun).
and all of these software patents are indefensible. We need to take them to court, to the CORRECT court (plaintiff-friendly, anti-MS), which will render a proper anti-patent decision which the SC can affirm by denying the appeal. The lower courts, chosen correctly, will do the work here, with the recent SC decision as the basic motivator.
Not with Microsoft yet — at least not exclusively, even though it’s happened to them — but there are groups out there that are challenging software patents as abusers start filing suit, in order to get bad or invalid patents invalidated. Assuming Microsoft really does have 235 patents it can sue Linux end-users over, they aren’t revealing them because as soon as FOSS* users know what they are, they will start working around them, working to invalidate the patent through prior art or “obviousness,” both of the above or any other means at their disposal.
* FOSS — Free and Open Source Software
I’m very glad to see this news item brought up here. I’m also glad, parvenu, that you refresh our memory on the origin of Microsoft’s dominance.
IBM needed an OS for the new PC they were developing, and the creators of PC/M wouldn’t give it to them. So then IBM knocked on Bill Gates’ door. (That his mother was on the board of directors of IBM at the time might have had something to do with that.) So Gates bought the rights to CP/M, and then licensed it to IBM. Sneaky but not particularly clever business sense, having nothing to do with talent for writing code.
You probably should have referred to the Forbes article which Micro$oft used to launch its attack on free software. This move on the part of Micro$oft led me to do some Googling to see how the company is doing, and I found some articles which indicate that the prevailing opinion in the IT world is that Micro$oft has peaked. Thus their claim that Linux violates precisely 235 Micro$oft patents is an indication of desperation, and not to be taken seriously. If there was substance to these patent violations, Micro$oft would publicly release a list of the patents in question and initiate lawsuits.
Microsoft admits Vista failure
A modern-day Gerstner is needed to cure all of Microsoft’s ills
As a practical matter, people should avoid Windows Vista like the plague. The only significant changes of Vista compared to XP is that Vista disables itself if it determines your installation not to be “legitimate”, and that it introduces Digital Rights Management software so that Micro$oft, the record labels, and the movie industry have control over your computer, not you:
Avoid the Vista badge, it means DRM inside
Shorter version of the above: Vista was written by Microsoft to accommodate rights holders, not end users.
By contrast, Linux was written by its users, to accommodate the people who wrote it, not external entities. The prevaliing notion in the Linux community is that if businesses want to use Linux they have to adapt to the Linux way of doing things, rather than trying to make Linux adapt to the business way of doing things, because while Linux can be a useful business tool the Linux community really doesn’t give a damn what the business world cares or wants.
Anthropologists blame the Microsoft corporation as one of the biggest contributors to the destruction of democracy and the fall of America. Their predatory business practices eventually became the information technology industry standard.
If you’re not reading Groklaw and you’re interested in the development of legal cases, maybe you should be. Pamela Jones, a/k/a PJ, has been following a case that has a great deal of bearing on this situation.
First, let me give you the link to Groklaw:
http://groklaw.net
Now, let me give you the link to the story she wrote about this brouhaha:
Ooh, ooh, the bogeyman is gonna getcha with his stupid patents. Or maybe not.
Now here’s why you should be interested in PJ’s take on all this: For three years now she has been covering a lawsuit brought by a little company called SCO, Incorporated (known as SCOX after its stock ticker symbol) against information services giant IBM. In brief, SCO holds — or claims to hold — rights to the original version of the Unix operating system, created by Bell Labs back in the 70s. Back in 2002 their stock was tanking, Linux (a Unix workalike) was eating their lunch, and they decided that if their product wouldn’t keep them afloat, by golly, litigation would. So they developed a two-pronged approach, threatening individuals who use Linux with lawsuits unless they bought a $495 seat-license for every processor on which the user runs Linux. Then they sued IBM, contending that IBM has misappropriated SCO’s intellectual property (the Unix source code, which is still proprietary and in some cases actually kept as a trade secret) and demanding that IBM pony up something like $3 billion.
IBM, who has more lawyers on staff than Carter has liver pills, fought back and fought back hard. They counter-sued SCOX for a variety of offenses. So far this is still in the court, but SCO is in hot water vis-a-vis their case because, three years in, they have not provided, with specificity as ordered by the judge and magistrate judge in the case, the lines of code in Linux that are alleged to have been lifted by Linux in general and IBM in particular. This is because there are none. Anyone who wants to can see the Linux source code and trace its provenance back to the original contributors. SCOX could easily provide specifics if there were any, but there are not; they are relying on specious legal theories like non-linear copying on non-specific infringement or some mumbo-jumbo like that.
The result of all this is that the IBM case is essentially on hold while a parallel case is decided by the court, in which Novell, who sold whatever rights SCOX might have to the Unix operating system, sues SCOX to stop them from suing anyone else. It’s complicated, but SCOX’s stock, which at one time was at $15 or so on the NASDAQ, has fallen below a dollar and is in danger of being delisted.
PJ has been following this case since its inception. Both sides in the litigation have referred to Groklaw in their pleadings. She isn’t a lawyer, but she does have her opinions, and her opinions of SCOX after following the case for three years haven’t been very good. Part of this is because she has been the basis of some ad hominem attacks by the SCOX people and “journalists” friendly to SCOX.
At any rate, Groklaw is fascinating reading with respect to how a case really works rather than the Perry Mason version you see on TV, and having read Groklaw since shortly after it started, I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the future of free software (or who’s interested in becoming a lawyer).
Oh yeah. Lest I forget, she isn’t terribly worried about the potential for a patent war from Microsoft for several reasons, chief among which would be that Microsoft would end up suing some of its largest customers. As the RIAA is finding out, suing your customers does not make for corporate loyalty. Read the article above for the other reasons.