Re: day5done reports: "IBM no longer matters"

[Alexander Terekhov]

-------
*
o


Open source and Linux from HP

>From eight consecutive years of Linux market leadership to countless
community outreach programs, HP has proven solutions you can value and
is the advisor you can trust.

Learn more now about open source and Linux solutions from HP, including
the latest on HP BladeSystem - the innovative, adaptive infrastructure
in a 17" box.

» Click here to learn more.
* Site Sponsor - IBM Websphere
o

Using Tomcat but need to do more?
Need to support web services, security?
Need clustering?

Get stuff done quickly with preintegrated technology to make your job
easier

Discover IBM WebSphere Application Server Community Edition V 1.1 based
on Apache Geronimo

» Fast and free download. Click here to get it now.

Government and Regulatory
HP memo forecasts MS patent attacks on free software
Monday July 19, 2004 (12:30 AM GMT)
By: Joe Barr

Printer-friendly Email story
A two-year old memo from HP executive Gary Campbell to other HP execs
has been wending its way around the backrooms of the Internet this past
weekend. One of the places it showed up was in the NewsForge submission
bin. We held off publishing the memo until we verified its authenticity
and gave HP a chance to respond.

The memo -- its full text is provided later in the story, along with
HP's response -- briefly explains a patent cross-licensing deal between
HP and Microsoft. By itself, that's not a big deal, especially since it
was sent two years ago. But the memo asserts that "Microsoft will soon
be launching a patent-based legal offensive against Linux and other free
software projects." Leaders in the open source community have been
warning of such attacks for some time. The memo reveals there may be
very good reason for the worry.

According to Campbell's memo, the GPL itself invites such an attack. He
wrote:

But it probably doesn't matter, because the GPL license has a mutually
assured destruction clause in section 7, if anyone is sued over a patent
infringement, no one is licensed under the GPL to ship GPL-ed products.
This is probably what Microsoft intends to do.

Basically Microsoft is going to use the legal system to shut down open
source software, and for all of its cleverness, the GPL makes it fairly
easy unless a white knight steps in.

Although the patent attacks have still not been launched, some speculate
that it is only a matter of time. One well-known figure in the open
source community, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told us:

MS had to hold off due to anti-trust prosecution in the EU and US, and
also they didn't want to create bad news for new European software
patenting laws before they got what they wanted. Now they have the
prospect of being able to prosecute the same patents in Europe. My
suspicion is that we could see this start very soon, or hold off for up
to three years while MS establishes its commercial licensing program. If
they wait to get about 10,000 licensees in their commercial program,
they will be able to show in court that they license the patents
"reasonably" and that will make them more difficult to fight.

As to Campbell's interpretation of Section 7 of the GPL, we asked
Professor Eben Moglen of the Columbia Law School -- he also acts as the
Free Software Foundation's general counsel -- if he felt Campbell was
reading the GPL correctly. He replied:

The interpretation of section 7 presented in the supposed memo is not
correct. The filing of a lawsuit alleging patent infringement places
obligations on no one under section 7. The license says that "if
restrictions imposed on you" mean that you cannot afford others all the
freedoms apparently conveyed by GPL, you can't use the license. The
examples given in section 7 are judgments, interim relief (preliminary
injunctions, etc), or accepted licenses. Someone's allegations of
infringement, whether made judicially or otherwise, do not "impose
conditions" and do not trigger section 7.

Mistaken about the GPL or not, Campbell was obviously alarmed at what he
had learned of Microsoft's intentions. Perhaps he was victim of FUD. Or
perhaps the issue will resurface later, after we all figure it has gone
away

Full text of the 'Campbell Memo'

From: Campbell, Gary [mailto:gary.campbell@hp.com]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 7:27 PM
To: Stallard, Scott J; CTO Office Directs; Chaffin, Janice; Denzel,
Nora; McDowell, Mary; Elias, Howard; Fink, Martin R; Becker, Rick (ISS);
Beyers, Joe
Cc: Blackmore, Peter; Robison, Shane
Subject: Microsoft Patent Cross License - Open Source Software Impact

Microsoft Patent Cross License - Open Source Software Impact

Today we agreed on a new patent cross license with Microsoft that
protects HP in the short term, but it has significant impact on HP's use
of Open Source software in the long term.
More importantly, we now understand that Microsoft is about to launch
legal action against the industry for shipping Open Source software that
may force us out of using certain popular Open Source products.
We need to create a cross-HP staffed program to understand the
implication by product group and to provide the short term and long term
steerage. I'll hook up with Martin tomorrow and start planning next
steps for a cross-HP planning team.

Background:

HP is we believe, protected by our previous cross license for patents
filed by Microsoft up to June of 2001, to ship open source software that
violates Microsoft patents that was developed or shipped prior to today.
This means that we can freeze on today's open source functionality and
we are protected.

The new cross license does not protect us against new Microsoft patents
filed after June 2001 against new open source product functionality
shipped or created after today. So we have a two year window before HP
has exposure on new Microsoft patents against new open source
functionality, but we have exposure because of the MAD clause in the GPL
if Microsoft attacks another entity with existing patents. See next
section.

Open Source Software is described as a license that follows the intent
and process of GPL or GPL lite. Additionally several major products are
explicitly called out as not protected by the cross license, such as
Samba, Wine, KDE, Gnome, Apache, Sendmail, and Linux.

Microsoft's Intentions:

Microsoft could attack Open Source Software for patent infringements
against OEMs, Linux distributors, and least likely open source
developers. They are specifically upset about Samba, Apache and
Sendmail. We believe Samba is first, and they will attempt to prove it
isn't covered by prior patent cross as a so called "clone" product carve
out in the previous agreement.

OEMs that don't have a cross(like SUN), or OEMs like HP that they force
a change in their cross license to exclude open source software are
probably the first target. Intel, Red Hat, SuSE, UBL, Oracle are
probably in the first wave as well.

IBM we don't know what the status of termination of their Microsoft
cross license is. They could be protected by their previous OS/2 deals?

Mutually Assured Destruction Clause:

But it probably doesn't matter, because the GPL license has a mutually
assured destruction clause in section 7, if anyone is sued over a patent
infringement, no one is licensed under the GPL to ship GPL-ed products.
This is probably what Microsoft intends to do.

Basically Microsoft is going to use the legal system to shut down open
source software, and for all of its cleverness, the GPL makes it fairly
easy unless a white knight steps in.

Best guess on the timing, this fall when they are finished settling with
DOJ and the states.

Industry Reaction:

At this point we have no information on who would defend open source
with another patent portfolio. IBM does not appear to have a plan. Dell
backed out of a lot of Linux activity and laid off their Linux marketing
group, and Intel went radio silent on Linux publicity in March( I guess
that they figured this out before, possibly from a new patent cross
license activity!!!).

Short Term Action:

We need to create a cross HP action plan with a staffed team. We don't
have to exit selling to the open source market, but we need to plan
smartly where to reduce our exposure.

1 - Embedded Linux/Open source in HP products and devices

Open source technology is today in embedded printers, our storage NAS
product, HP-UX with Gnome, Linux affinity, Apache in multiple products.

We need a cross company planning team to address this, we are protected
for 2 years, longer if we freeze on today's functionality, or possibly
only until fall if MSFT triggers the GPL MAD clause.

2 - Non-Embedded Linux/Open Source on top of HP products

Microsoft intends to sue companies shipping Open Source products that
potentially violate their patents. Even though we have short term
protection, we need to lower our profile while still shipping products.
We need to examine reducing our exposure on pre-loading Linux by off
loading it to the channels exclusively.

Again we need a cross company plan.

3 - Donating Software to the Open Source

We will need to change how we donate software to the open source,
probably the type of license we use, lower the profile of our opensource
portal, etc.

4 - Legal Plan

We need to explore how to better protect our products in the court and
be prepared with a plan that we are willing to execute against."

HP's response

Monday, July 19, we received an email from HP spokesperon Elizabeth
Phillips that said:

As this memo was created over 2 years ago, we believe it is not relevant
today. That said, HP has a proven history of taking measured steps to
put its customers first and provide them with the functionality and
benefits of open source software. Demonstrating unwavering commitment to
meet the needs of its customers, HP was the first major Linux vendor to
offer indemnification protection against SCO-related lawsuits, thus
enabling HP's customers to continue their Linux deployment plans with
confidence.

Microsoft continues to be one of HP's strongest partners. HP is
committed to delivering choice for its customers and this is done
through a multi-OS strategy of Windows, Linux and HP-UX on
industry-standard platforms.

Slashdot Slashdot it!
-------

regards,
alexander.