Breaking News: A Corporation Competing With Microsoft is Concerned That It Can’t Use Microsoft’s Property Without Paying for It.

An article on c|net yesterday exclaimed that “Red Hat voices concern over Microsoft patent Model”.  Apparently, Red Hat is not altogether satisfied with Neelie Kroes’s announcement that Microsoft would offer a licensing discount of over 99.3% for patents related to interoperability.  Presumably, nothing short of $0 would suffice.

Is this an issue of basic fairness?  Does Red Hat freely give patent licenses to its competitors?  Um, no.  Red Hat has promised not to assert its patents against open source/free software - its suppliers.  This promise does not extend to its competitors.  In the Red Hat Patent Promise, the policy statement says:

Our Promise does not extend to any software which is not Open Source/Free Software, and any party exercising a Patent Right with respect to non-Open Source/Free Software which reads on any claims of any patent held by Red Hat must obtain a license for the exercise of such rights from Red Hat.

Just so we are clear, Red Hat will not assert its patents against open source software, which it distributes.  It will allow Novell, another Linux distributor, to use its patents only to the extent that Red Hat can use Novell’s implementation without charge.  So the only parties covered by Red Hat’s promise are suppliers, not competitors.

Microsoft has long said that they would like to do a patent-licensing deal with Red Hat, , but their overtures have been rebuffed, presumably because Red Hat views it to be best for their business not to do so.  But it is disingenuous for Red Hat to complain that Microsoft does not give its competitors free use of its patents when Red Hat does the same.  Will this issue be explored in the next installment of Truth Happens?  Not bloody likely.

Comments

[T. Colin Dodd]

In fact, if you tune in this Friday (2 Nov 07), TruthHappens.com will post an interview with our formal General Counsel Mark Webbink on the subject of patents and the construction of the Red Hat Patent Promise.

http://truthhappens.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/29/lets-explore/

There's a nice piece about software patents in general posted there now.

http://truthhappens.redhatmagazine.com/2007/10/19/mark-webbink-on-software-patents/

You and your readers should definitely check these out.

[Noah Clements]

Excellent! I now take back the last two sentences and apologize for the snark. To be honest I am pleasantly surprised that you will be addressing the patent promise (hopefully) on these particulars.

The point I am most interested in is the unfairness of Red Hat's expecting a free grant of patent licenses from Microsoft without giving such a free grant in return. Some of Red Hat's partners also have patents covering software included in the Enterprise version - does Red Hat likewise expect these partners to give it free licenses?

I found Mark Webbink's general post on patents very informative - all except his speculation on Microsoft's motivations behind their belated use of software patents (belated compared to Red Hat's partner IBM, certainly). And I believe, as I'm sure you do, that more discussion of the policies behind software patents and their (often poor) implementations in practice can only lead to better systems.