On TechRepublic: 10 must-have Android apps
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

April 22nd, 2008

Doing the Microsoft patent math

Posted by Mary Jo Foley @ 7:33 am

Categories: Corporate strategy, Legal, Linux, Windows client, Windows server

Tags: Patent, Microsoft Windows Server, Microsoft Corp., Patent Application, Microsoft Windows, Servers, Operating Systems, Software, Hardware, Mary Jo Foley

Just over a year ago, Microsoft officials threw down the patent gauntlet, claiming free and open-source software violated 235 of its patents — but refused (and continue to refuse) to get more specific. Today, thanks to a post by my ZDNet blogging colleague Jason Perlow, there’s a new piece of patent info that should be of interest to those trying to keep score at home.

Last year, Microsoft officials said Linux violated 42 Microsoft patents; Linux GUIs (graphical user interfaces) violated 65; Open Office violated 45; various free/open e-mail programs violated another 15; and assorted, sundry free/open-source software programs violated 68 Microsoft patents. That is as granular as the Redmondians were willing to get.

Today, thanks to a very in-depth analysis by Tom Kemp, CEO of Linux/Unix independent software vendor Centrify, there’s a bit more detail on what Microsoft has patented in the Windows space. Using patent information Microsoft was required to make public by the antitrust watchers with the European Commission, Kemp counted how many Windows Server patents Microsoft has applied for and been awarded.

Among Kemp’s findings:

  • “Of the 125 protocols posted on MSDN (Microsoft Developer Network) for Windows Server, 99 of the 125 protocols have no US patents associated with them, meaning 80% of the Windows server protocols do not have US patents associated with them.” (My note: In other words, 20% are patented.)
  • “Factoring in protocols that also don’t have any US patent applications, 76 of the 125 protocols don’t have any US patents or US patent applications associated with them (60%), meaning 49 of the 125 (40%) do have US patents or US patent applications.”
  • This is just a subset of what’s patented in Windows. “The protocols posted for Windows Server apply to file and print, user and group administration and networking transport features only, not Windows Server features such as IIS. The WSPP (Workgroup Server Protocol Program) protocols also have approximately 25 European Union patents and patent applications.”
  • There are another 50 unique U.S. patents, “in my estimation as of 4/18/2008 the Microsoft Windows OS from a client perspective (all features).”

Remember: In spite of all the “we want to be open and interoperable” rhetoric, Microsoft is making its patented protocols available for licensing, not for free. So this is just a taste of what software vendors would need to pay to license if they want to incorporate any Microsoft patented protocols in their commercial wares.

I wonder how many of the patents that Kemp documented are ones that Microsoft believes Linux and open-source to violate. That would be an interesting map….

Mary Jo FoleyMary Jo has covered the tech industry for more than 20 years. Don't miss a single post. Subscribe via Email or RSS. You can also follow Mary Jo on Twitter.

Got a tip? Send Mary Jo your rants, rumors, tips and tattles. For disclosure on Mary Jo's industry affiliations, click here or to see Mary Jo's full profile click here.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 32 Talkback(s)
Still wrong
Microsoft did not initiate the Lucent-Alcatel patent dispute (which is founded in the patent mess around MP3, with multiple companies claiming to hold patents for the technology). They are using paten... (Read the rest)
Posted by: jeff.s.johnson_gems Posted on: 04/24/08 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
I fail to see your point?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 04/22/08
I fail to see YOUR point  carlino | 04/22/08
How many has IBM  No_Ax_to_Grind | 04/22/08
By the way, you are wrong  No_Ax_to_Grind | 04/22/08
No...  James T. Kirk | 04/22/08
Well, if Mary Jo  No_Ax_to_Grind | 04/22/08
...  Linux User 147560 | 04/22/08
LOL. (nt)  James T. Kirk | 04/22/08
Are you having a mental breakdown John?  fr0thy2 | 04/22/08
IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE NON-MS SOFTWARE  fr0thy2 | 04/22/08
Frothing at the mouth again...  transposeIT | 04/22/08
How Many Are good?  carlino | 04/22/08
Simply not true.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 04/22/08
So instead of suing..  Monkey_MCSE | 04/22/08
No need, FSF did it for them.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 04/22/08
Lost count  Hemlock Stones | 04/22/08
Re: Lost count  none none | 04/22/08
Dan Rachiver != Eben Moglen, Period. (NT)  odubtaig | 04/23/08
Still living the delusion  deaf_e_kate | 04/23/08
Re: So instead of suing..  none none | 04/22/08
whichs leads me to others points...  Monkey_MCSE | 04/22/08
So, "never" doesn't include suing lucent or immersion?  zkiwi | 04/22/08
Wasn't a patent suit  No_Ax_to_Grind | 04/22/08
No, it doesn't  jeff.s.johnson_gems | 04/22/08
The point was...  zkiwi | 04/22/08
No_Ax bleats all the time  deaf_e_kate | 04/23/08
Still wrong  jeff.s.johnson_gems | 04/24/08
Can't blame MS for doing so  quikboy | 04/22/08
RE: Doing the Microsoft patent math  kadic | 04/22/08
Wonder  Windows Defender | 04/22/08
Everybody is trembling in their boots  Ole Man | 04/23/08
Hytroll person here - Marine biology and muscle cars, hey Principle Skinner  rtirman37@... | 04/23/08

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
Click Here

Order Microsoft 2.0

Pre-order Microsoft 2.0

Order 'Microsoft 2.0' by Mary Jo Foley at Amazon.com.

Recent Entries

advertisement
Click Here

Archives

ZDNet Blogs

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

SmartPlanet

Click Here