microsoft-new-monopoly.html (10254B)
1 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> 2 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> 3 <!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> 4 <!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays laws patents" --> 5 <!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> 6 <title>Microsoft's New Monopoly 7 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> 8 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/microsoft-new-monopoly.translist" --> 9 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> 10 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --> 11 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--> 12 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --> 13 <div class="article reduced-width"> 14 <h2>Microsoft's New Monopoly</h2> 15 16 <address class="byline">by <a href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard 17 Stallman</a></address> 18 19 <div class="infobox" style="font-style: italic"> 20 <p>This article was written in July 2005. Microsoft adopted a 21 different policy in 2006, so the specific policies described below and 22 the specific criticisms of them are only of historical significance. 23 The overall problem remains, however: 24 <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120831070708/http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Patent_rights_to_implement_the_Ecma_376_specification_have_not_been_granted"> 25 Microsoft's cunningly worded new policy does not give anyone clear 26 permission to implement OOXML.</a> 27 </p> 28 </div> 29 <hr class="thin" /> 30 31 <p>European legislators who endorse software patents frequently claim 32 that those wouldn't affect free software (or “open 33 source”). Microsoft's lawyers are determined to prove they are 34 mistaken.</p> 35 36 <p>Leaked internal documents in 1998 said that Microsoft considered 37 the free software GNU/Linux operating system (referred to therein as 38 “Linux”) as the principal competitor to Windows, and spoke 39 of using patents and secret file formats to hold us back.</p> 40 41 <p>Because Microsoft has so much market power, it can often impose 42 new standards at will. It need only patent some minor idea, design 43 a file format, programming language, or communication protocol 44 based on it, and then pressure users to adopt it. Then we in the 45 free software community will be forbidden to provide software that 46 does what these users want; they will be locked in to Microsoft, 47 and we will be locked out from serving them.</p> 48 <p>Previously Microsoft tried to get its patented scheme for 49 spam blocking adopted as an Internet standard, so as to exclude free 50 software from handling email. The standards committee in charge 51 rejected the proposal, but Microsoft said it would try to convince 52 large <abbr title="Internet service provider">ISP</abbr>s to use the 53 scheme anyway.</p> 54 55 <p>Now Microsoft is planning to try something similar for Word 56 files.</p> 57 58 <p>Several years ago, Microsoft abandoned its documented format for 59 saving documents, and switched to a new format which was secret. 60 However, the developers of free software word processors such as 61 AbiWord and OpenOffice.org experimented assiduously for years to 62 figure out the format, and now those programs can read most Word 63 files. But Microsoft isn't licked yet.</p> 64 65 <p>The next version of Microsoft Word will use formats that involve a 66 technique that Microsoft claims to hold a patent on. Microsoft offers 67 a royalty-free patent license for certain limited purposes, but it is 68 so limited that it does not allow free software. Here is <a 69 href="https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/gg463420(v=msdn.10)"> 70 the license</a>.</p> 71 72 <p>Free software is defined as software that respects four 73 fundamental freedoms: (0) freedom to run the software as you wish, 74 (1) freedom to study the source code and modify it to do what you 75 wish, (2) freedom to make and redistribute copies, and (3) freedom 76 to publish modified versions. Only programmers can directly 77 exercise freedoms 1 and 3, but all users can exercise freedoms 0 78 and 2, and all users benefit from the modifications that 79 programmers write and publish.</p> 80 81 <p>Distributing an application under Microsoft's patent license 82 imposes license terms that prohibit most possible modifications of the 83 software. Lacking freedom 3, the freedom to publish modified versions, 84 it would not be free software. (I think it could not be “open 85 source” software either, since that definition is similar; but 86 it is not identical, and I cannot speak for the advocates of open 87 source.)</p> 88 89 <p>The Microsoft license also requires inclusion of a specific 90 statement. That requirement would not in itself prevent the program 91 from being free: it is normal for free software to carry license 92 notices that cannot be changed, and this statement could be included 93 in one of them. The statement is biased and confusing, since it uses 94 the term “intellectual property”; fortunately, 95 one is not required to endorse the statement as true or even meaningful, only to 96 include it. The software developer could cancel its misleading effect 97 with a disclaimer like this: “The following misleading statement 98 has been imposed on us by Microsoft; please be advised that it is 99 propaganda. See <a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">Richard Stallman's article 100 on ‘intellectual property’</a> for more explanation.”</p> 101 102 <p>However, the requirement to include a fixed piece of text is 103 actually quite cunning, because anyone who does so has explicitly 104 accepted and applied the restrictions of the Microsoft patent 105 license. The resulting program is clearly not free software.</p> 106 107 <p>Some free software licenses, such as the most popular GNU General 108 Public License (GNU GPL), forbid publication of a modified version if it isn't 109 free software in the same way. (We call that the “liberty or 110 death” clause, since it ensures the program will remain free or 111 die.) To apply Microsoft's license to a program under the GNU GPL 112 would violate the program's license; it would be illegal. Many other 113 free software licenses permit nonfree modified versions. It wouldn't 114 be illegal to modify such a program and publish the modified version 115 under Microsoft's patent license. But that modified version, with its 116 modified license, wouldn't be free software.</p> 117 118 <p>Microsoft's patent covering the new Word format is a US patent. 119 It doesn't restrict anyone in Europe; Europeans are free to make 120 and use software that can read this format. Europeans that develop 121 or use software currently enjoy an advantage over Americans: 122 Americans can be sued for patent infringement for their software 123 activities in the US, but the Europeans cannot be sued for their 124 activities in Europe. Europeans can already get US software patents 125 and sue Americans, but Americans cannot get European software 126 patents if Europe doesn't allow them. 127 </p> 128 129 <p>All that will change if the European Parliament authorizes 130 software patents. Microsoft will be one of thousands of foreign 131 software patent holders that will bring their patents over to 132 Europe to sue the software developers and computer users there. Of 133 the 50,000-odd putatively invalid software patents issued by the 134 European Patent Office, around 80 percent do not belong to Europeans. The 135 European Parliament should vote to keep these patents invalid, and 136 keep Europeans safe.</p> 137 138 <p> 139 [2009 note]: the EU directive to allow software patents was 140 rejected, but the European Patent Office has continued issuing them 141 and some countries treat them as valid. 142 See <a href="https://ffii.org"> ffii.org</a> for more information and 143 to participate in the campaign against software patents in Europe. 144 </p> 145 </div> 146 147 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> 148 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> 149 <div id="footer" role="contentinfo"> 150 <div class="unprintable"> 151 152 <p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to 153 <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. 154 There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> 155 the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent 156 to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> 157 158 <p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, 159 replace it with the translation of these two: 160 161 We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality 162 translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. 163 Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard 164 to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> 165 <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> 166 167 <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of 168 our web pages, see <a 169 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations 170 README</a>. --> 171 Please see the <a 172 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations 173 README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations 174 of this article.</p> 175 </div> 176 177 <!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to 178 files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should 179 be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this 180 without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. 181 Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the 182 document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the 183 document was modified, or published. 184 185 If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. 186 Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying 187 years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable 188 year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including 189 being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). 190 191 There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers 192 Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> 193 194 <p>Copyright © 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2021 Richard Stallman</p> 195 196 <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" 197 href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative 198 Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> 199 200 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> 201 202 <p class="unprintable">Updated: 203 <!-- timestamp start --> 204 $Date: 2021/09/05 09:34:34 $ 205 <!-- timestamp end --> 206 </p> 207 </div> 208 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> 209 </body> 210 </html>