<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wikidot="http://www.wikidot.com/rss-namespace">

	<channel>
		<title>Microsoft antitrust case smells of software patents</title>
		<link>https://digital-majority.wikidot.com/forum/t-5336/microsoft-antitrust-case-smells-of-software-patents</link>
		<description>Posts in the discussion thread &quot;Microsoft antitrust case smells of software patents&quot; - The Commission has released today a Frequently Asked Questions page using several ambiguous wordings that might indicate some patent experts that the Microsoft case in Europe smells more and more of software patents.</description>
				<copyright></copyright>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2026 09:59:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		
					<item>
				<guid>http://digital-majority.wikidot.com/forum/t-5336#post-11882</guid>
				<title>Re: Microsoft antitrust case smells of software patents</title>
				<link>https://digital-majority.wikidot.com/forum/t-5336/microsoft-antitrust-case-smells-of-software-patents#post-11882</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>Anonymous</wikidot:authorName>								<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>and the title should be &quot;Microsoft antitrust case smells software patents&quot;. I don't know how to change it.</p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://digital-majority.wikidot.com/forum/t-5336#post-11866</guid>
				<title>Re: Microsoft antitrust case smells of software patents</title>
				<link>https://digital-majority.wikidot.com/forum/t-5336/microsoft-antitrust-case-smells-of-software-patents#post-11866</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2007 21:16:09 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>zoobab</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>2946</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>If Microsoft is trying to enforce their patent rights towards its competitors, that would be an opportunity to worsen their case as a monopolist. At least that is what an EC expert answered to a question on patents Vs antitrust in a recent conference.</p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://digital-majority.wikidot.com/forum/t-5336#post-11865</guid>
				<title>Re: Microsoft antitrust case smells of software patents</title>
				<link>https://digital-majority.wikidot.com/forum/t-5336/microsoft-antitrust-case-smells-of-software-patents#post-11865</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2007 21:11:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>zoobab</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>2946</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>Slashdot and <a href="http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308,39286127,00.htm">ZDNet UK</a> confirms the software patent smell:</p> <blockquote> <p>Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith responded that other government agencies had found &quot;considerable innovation&quot; in Microsoft's protocol technology.<br /> &quot;US and European patent offices have awarded Microsoft more than 36 patents for the technology in these protocols, which took millions of dollars to develop, and another 37 patents are pending, so it's hard to see how the Commission can argue that even patented innovation must be made available for free,&quot; said Smith in a statement.<br /> Some organisations, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have attempted to overturn patents which they claim are not truly innovative.<br /> The EC said that it was not for it to challenge Microsoft patents on the grounds of innovation, but that &quot;third parties remain free to challenge Microsoft's patent claims before an appropriate court&quot;.</p> </blockquote> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://digital-majority.wikidot.com/forum/t-5336#post-11860</guid>
				<title>Microsoft antitrust case smells of software patents</title>
				<link>https://digital-majority.wikidot.com/forum/t-5336/microsoft-antitrust-case-smells-of-software-patents#post-11860</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2007 20:11:45 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>zoobab</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>2946</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>Today, the Commission DG Antitrust has published a <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/382&amp;format=HTML&amp;aged=1&amp;language=EN&amp;guiLanguage=en">FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) webpage</a> titled <em>&quot;Competition: Statement of Objections to Microsoft for non-compliance with March 2004 decision - frequently asked questions&quot;</em>. The page mentions some very intringing bits:</p> <blockquote> <p>Microsoft has already documented Vista and Longhorn server-related protocols and priced them.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>Q: What is the situation as regards open source?<br /> A: The Commission has previously stated that it is committed to ensuring that the open source community has access to the <strong>non-innovative protocols</strong> if the Court of First Instance rules in its favour in case T-201/04 (the action brought by Microsoft against the 2004 Decision).</p> </blockquote> <p>What does &quot;<strong>non-innovative protocols</strong>&quot; means in practice? If innovative means patents, it seems that Microsoft is playing the software patent card in order to erect barriers for competitors.</p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
				</channel>
</rss>