Can Microsoft Sue Open Office Users?
Posted by Daniel Fleshbourne on 16 September 2004 - 16:29 · 46 comments & 4371 views
About the Author
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by OptiPlex on 16 Sep 2004 - 16:37
-
hmm
-
#2 Posted by XanDaMan on 16 Sep 2004 - 16:37
- Oh noes!
-
(3 replies)
#3 Posted by Neb Okla on 16 Sep 2004 - 16:38
- Well, I can sue somebody for looking at me funny. It doesn't mean I'll win.
-
#3.1 Posted by Octol on 17 Sep 2004 - 00:01
- Or more to the point: I can sue somebody for looking at me funny. It doesn't mean I will.
-
#3.2 Posted by SaLiVa on 17 Sep 2004 - 12:59
- Or in Microsofts view:
I can sue somebody just for knowing that I'll win with the expensive lawyers who'd do everything in their power to win the case
Yes, it had to be long
-
(2 replies)
#4 Posted by .:Neo.X.WinFreak:. on 16 Sep 2004 - 16:40
- sueing the users?
mmmh... that sounds too crazy...
nope
that wont happen
i bet there will follow those kiddy-answers like "down with ms" and stuff soon...
man... i hate those childish answers... answers that arent "answers"...
cya neo.X -
#4.1 Posted by Treefrog on 17 Sep 2004 - 14:45
QUOTE i hate those childish answers... answers that arent "answers"
Um, kinda like yours was?
-
#5 Posted by machorro on 16 Sep 2004 - 16:53
- i dont get this why MS has the power to sue Open Office Users? what patents does it infriges?(typo?)
no really i'm dumb i dont know
-
(2 replies)
#6 Posted by Kushan on 16 Sep 2004 - 16:57
- Why doesn't Microsoft stick to suing the people who use Warez versions of MS Office instead?
-
#6.1 Posted by noyb on 16 Sep 2004 - 17:02
- Open Office is more of a threat i suppose.
Last edited by 63624 on 16 Sep 2004 - 17:15
-
(1 reply)
#7 Posted by bsquirle on 16 Sep 2004 - 17:10
- How can they sue people using software released under the GPL license???
I think they can only sue the developers.
-
(2 replies)
#8 Posted by SVT on 16 Sep 2004 - 17:14
- I reserve the right to sue anyone who reads this post.
SVT -
#8.1 Posted by Neb Okla on 16 Sep 2004 - 18:37
- I reserve the right to sue anyone who reserves rights - including, without limitation - myself.
-
#9 Posted by NPGMBR on 16 Sep 2004 - 17:15
- This can be reported correctly, and if it is then someone is leaving out some very important information.
Otherwise, I don't see how this makes any sense.
-
(2 replies)
#10 Posted by nogoon on 16 Sep 2004 - 18:04
- everybody likes to hate microsoft.
but i still loves u billy..
not in a homosexual way tho. -
#10.1 Posted by Neb Okla on 16 Sep 2004 - 18:40
- What about Ballmer?
I think Microsoft, Starbucks, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Exxon, and Monsanto need to work on some projects together. That might consolidate the hatred a little bit.
-
#11 Posted by AJCrowley Esq on 16 Sep 2004 - 19:51
- Am I the only person that noticed that Sun giving MS the go ahead to sue Open Office users is somewhat akin to Apple giving Amazon.com the right to sue Windows users? Sun doesn't own Open Office, they just own a commercial distribution of it...Unless I'm mistaken, doesn't the Open Source community own Open Office (if it's released under the GPL, which I believe it is). Anyone please feel free to set me straight on this if I'm mistaken...
AJ
-
#12 Posted by lunamonkey on 16 Sep 2004 - 20:01
- ^ I haven't a clue what's going on or what this means. But i do use OO.org.
-
#13 Posted by xpfreak on 16 Sep 2004 - 20:17
- damn this crap is crazy
-
#14 Posted by BetaguyGZT on 16 Sep 2004 - 20:31
- What the HELL ?!
-
#15 Posted by cowabunga on 16 Sep 2004 - 20:57
- One word:
JESUS****INCHRIST!
What's next?
-
(4 replies)
#16 Posted by Dale on 16 Sep 2004 - 21:34
- yea microsoft.. i can afford the 200 dollars to get your version, when i can go for the free version that is supposed to be legal and do the same stuff..
-
#16.1 Posted by STV on 17 Sep 2004 - 02:38
- maybe it does all that you need ,but OO.org != MS office. MS office does way more than OO.org could ever hope to do.
STV -
#16.2 Posted by Darkinspiration on 17 Sep 2004 - 03:34
- it's getting there Open office like most open source project is a work in progress it's never done
-
#16.3 Posted by Treefrog on 17 Sep 2004 - 14:48
QUOTE MS office does way more than OO.org could ever hope to do.
Yeah, it's called bloat. What scares M$ is that OO does everything that 99% of all users *need* to do and more.-
#16.4 Posted by dotnetjunkie on 18 Sep 2004 - 04:38
- But not for developers... so in a business environment OO often just isn't enough!
And MS Office is a work in progress too, OO will always be of inferior quality.
-
#17 Posted by koocha on 16 Sep 2004 - 23:11
- Me no understands
-
(1 reply)
#18 Posted by CaKeY on 16 Sep 2004 - 23:27
- Does microsoft own a patent or copyright on the word "office" or something? wtf?
-
#18.1 Posted by 123_kid on 17 Sep 2004 - 04:32
- Microsoft probably does have a trademark on the word "Office" but I think the lawsuits would have something to do with the fact that Microsoft owns many XML related patents and OO.o could possibly infringe on those patents. I think this is just another case of Microsoft embracing, extending, and then extingishing a standard.
-
(3 replies)
#19 Posted by Octol on 17 Sep 2004 - 00:12
QUOTE "Because of this tight (Sun-Microsoft) relationship, Microsoft may have felt it necessary to remove any ambiguity about whether or not Open Office users are indemnified by the Sun-Microsoft agreement," says Matt Rosoff, analyst with Directions on Microsoft. "They wanted to make it clear that ... just because Sun and Microsoft have a cross-licensing agreement, that doesn't mean that Sun has the right to turn that indemnification over to an open source organization," he says. -
#19.1 Posted by
bangbang023 on 17 Sep 2004 - 01:43
- Someone who read more than the headline, thank you.
Basically, this is saying that if Sun takes some work they produce in conjunction with MS and open source it or something, that they and the users of that illegal release can be sued. Normal procedure.
Damn how people blow things out of proportion as soon as the Microsoft name pops up. -
#19.2 Posted by machorro on 17 Sep 2004 - 02:31
- no one blew out of proportion yet but that article is crap...
if you read almost no one understood what would be the lawsuit about -
#19.3 Posted by RufioPan on 17 Sep 2004 - 14:10
QUOTE Basically, this is saying that if Sun takes some work they produce in conjunction with MS and open source it or something, that they and the users of that illegal release can be sued. Normal procedure.
Does "cross-licensing" directly imply work produced in conjunction? Could it not also imply Microsoft patented technologies that are licensed for use in Sun products? If Sun and MS now draft an agreement to include all the patented Microsoft document formats, OO.org could be found to be infringing upon MS intellectual properties and thus be subject to lawsuits.
To me this seems more like Sun having made a deal with MS to push StarOffice forward, at the expense of OO.org and its users, although I'm not sure whether the gains would be so justifiable?
All conjecture, mind you...
EDIT ----
In re-reading the article, it appears that's exactly what MS and Sun are setting up for, or so it seems (emphasis is mine):
QUOTE "It's ominous, because it means that Microsoft is holding open their right to sue end users of Open Office for patent infringement. And Sun is protecting itself by exempting StarOffice from exposure," says Pamela Jones, editor of the Groklaw.net Web site, which covers legal issues relating to Linux and open source software.
"It raises questions about Sun's motives in agreeing to such a deal, but it really shines the spotlight on what Microsoft thought was important to exempt from the Sun-Microsoft patent truce," she writes in an e-mail interview.
-
#20 Posted by warwagon on 17 Sep 2004 - 03:20
- This is Fu*king stupid
So basicly they are just sueing them because people won't have to pay for microsoft office, they can just download open office for free...well now I don't feel sorry at all for microsoft ass getting sued every time something is already installed in the OS so the user doesn't have to go buy something.
-
#21 Posted by ccrf on 17 Sep 2004 - 07:14
- This is clearly another example of MS's trying to create FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. MS will do anything to try to hurt the competition. They have no concept of fair play or decency. They really SHOULD be reigned in by the Justice Department, but there is no political will to do so with the current administration.
-
(1 reply)
#22 Posted by Tarran on 17 Sep 2004 - 21:26
- Does this mean they have the right to sue anyone who uses open office on windows or just open office in general? b/c it would be kind of scary if they had the right to sue people who are not even running it on one of their OSes
-
#22.1 Posted by alexchu2643 on 18 Sep 2004 - 15:54
- I think this is more intended as a warning against large corporate rollouts of Open Office. Between Microsoft and Sun, they want you to pay for an office suite, no matter what now.
-
#23 Posted by Bwizzel-B on 18 Sep 2004 - 17:02
- Anyone that gets sued by M$FT for using Open Office, should turn right around and countersue goold old Bill as well as Sun. What complete bull****. Sun, take responsibility for what you produce.
-
#24 Posted by Armageddon X on 19 Sep 2004 - 07:04
- Microsoft is just puffing it's chest. Nothing more than a big wind bag.
Hey Billy boy....are you reading this?? I DARE YOU to sue me.
-
#25 Posted by phb on 19 Sep 2004 - 14:53
- I think we're all missing the point. Microsoft have already confirmed that their going to target their 'anti-open source' efforts are the big players - namely IBM, RedHat and .. errr, I forget the 3rd. Basically, instead of taking the view "all open source is evil", and trying to sell that to the world, they are intending to highlight the [cough] advantages of their offerings over the stuff these vendors promote.
It just so happens that my lappie died today, so I've done a reinstall of XP - and I decided to make it dual boot RedHat 9 as well.
Guess what Office app RedHat installs ? Yep, Open Office.
So I'd put my money on it being about M$ being able to "gently remind" corporates that using RH and OO = potential lawsuit. FUD certainly, but to a CTO having to consider the legal side, it'll carry weight.
Plus, in reading the article, Sun have agreed to lay off with regard to the EU anti-monopoly stuff going on now. So for their 1.x billion US, M$ have got out of wrecking java adoption, shafted OS users, placed a significant disincentive in place to potential OS corporate users AND bought Sun's silence in the EU.
The April agreement says that Microsoft can seek damages from Open Office users or distributors for any copy of Open Office installed after April 1, 2004. However, users of Sun's commercial distribution of Open Office, called StarOffice, are protected from legal liabilities under the agreement, says Russ Castronovo, a spokesperson for Sun. Open Office includes a word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation software based on technology Sun acquired in its 1999 purchase of Germany's Star Division. Sun released the code under an open-source license in 2000.
Thanks to xxpor for the heads-up on this bit