Ballmer Repeats Threats Against Linux

daria42 writes "Steve Ballmer has reissued Microsoft's patent threat against Linux, warning open-source vendors that they must respect his company's intellectual property. In a no-nonsense presentation to New York financial analysts last week, Microsoft's chief executive said the company's partnership with Novell, which it signed in November 2006, "demonstrated clearly the value of intellectual property, even in the open-source world.""

I do not get this

[Reverse Gear (891207)]

I wonder how Balmer thinks that they are going to sue something that no one owns, that no one made.

Is he going to sue anyone who uses this?
Is he going to sue those who hoste the code?

From the article it seems it is mostly the Linux vendors that Ballmer wants to target.

The US is, as far as I know, the only country that has implented all these sick software patent laws until now, how are they going to sue a UK based company?

With the current state of things the worst that could happen is that companies stop using Linux in the US, I don't see how they want to sue anyone based in Europe?
Would the US government then start supporting Microsoft in trade wars?

This whole software patent thing is beyond my understanding, I wonder if anyone out there really get the idea behind this?

Re:I do not get this

[by Anonymous Coward]

There's another name for this technique: "protection money". You don't actually need a reason to request such money, you just need to be strong enough.

Re:I do not get this

[truthsearch (249536)]

This is exactly right. Ballmer is the mob boss threatening to kill you if you don't pay up. The mob boss knows it's bad for business to actually kill everyone who owes you money, because then they can't pay. But Ballmer's words are even less intimidating because everyone knows that if they had any case legally they would have used it by now. Their stock has been relatively flat for more than 5 years and profits were barely higher last year. The only event investors look forward to is new releases of their 2 cash cows. If they actually had IP to leverage they could rake in billions. There's no reason to wait years to do it.

All of his talk it hot air. He's hoping to convince investors to bump up his stock. That's why he's trying to convince analysts to raise their estimates. Fortunately most seem to be smart enough to wait for an actual significant lawsuit before reporting that MSFT is set to raise a fortune leveraging this IP.

Re:I do not get this

[Citizen of Earth (569446)]

There's no reason to wait years to do it.

Yes, let's play Global Thermonuclear War.

One reason that Microsoft doesn't start suing Linux vendors and users is that there are so many trivial software patents around owned by numerous other industry players that they might very well launch a devastating attack on Microsoft. I'm sure that if IBM put effort into it, it could find that Microsoft is violating 1,000 of its patents. And Microsoft would find that IBM is violating 300 of its patents. And the other players launch off their missiles. Industry-wide disaster ensues.

The only winning move is not to play.

Why is a lawsuit war a disaster?

[Livius (318358)]

If the bloated corporations abusing intellectual property law started suing each other into bankrupcy, the downside would be... what, exactly?

Re:Why is a lawsuit war a disaster?

[Kierthos (225954)]

The downside? I'm pretty sure it would lead to a CSI: Intellectual Property, and nobody wants that.

Remember, the Zune is named after Creative's Zen.

[Futurepower(R) (558542)]

I agree, Ballmer is a bully. Ballmer has taken his ignorant behavior to an extreme, in my opinion: He is a prime example of someone who lacks social skills and technical insight, who can only survive in a technical world by being adversarial toward those who would rather not have a fight.

Don't forget: Microsoft's Zune music player is named after Creative's excellent Zen Player [creative.com]. Aside from being morally criminal to infringe on someone else's intellectual property, it's just mean.

If the world were technically knowledgeable enough not to be locked into Microsoft's file formats and virtual OS monopoly, and other adversarial behavior, Microsoft could not make a profit.

Re:I do not get this

[Frosty Piss (770223)]

I wonder how Balmer thinks that they are going to sue something that no one owns, that no one made.

Is he going to sue anyone who uses this?

Is he going to sue those who hosts the code?

Yes.

And, it looks like the EU is starting to move the same direction as the USA with respect to IP laws, so don't think you Europians will get a "walk" on this. Microsoft sees a major crack in their entire philosophy of business, and they will use their finantial advantage to stamp out those who get in their way. Watch out, SCO was just fodder, the real fight is yet to come.

Re:I do not get this

[Yvanhoe (564877)]

And, it looks like the EU is starting to move the same direction as the USA with respect to IP laws, so don't think you Europians will get a "walk" on this.

We fought it, it finished by a draw but we will keep on fighting. Currently we are in a gray situation : software patents are forbidden but the European Patent Office deliver software patents on a daily basis. It is illegal but there are no institution to slap it and make it stop. So many companies own European Software patents, hoping they will one day have a legal value. I am not aware of one actually used in trial ...

Re:I do not get this

[linvir (970218)]

Ballmer isn't borg enough. The thing with Gates is that he's always been at least a little bit about the technology, hence the borg icon. Ballmer doesn't know his intertubes from his whatchamadoodads. His special ability is vague legal threats and his starter weapon is an office chair.

If he was interesting enough to nerds to deserve an icon, which he isn't, it'd probably have to be something to do with one of the following:

• Monkeys
• Chairs
• Developers
• Developers
• Developers
• Developers
• Developers
• Vaporware Patent Lawsuits

Everything old is new again.

[mosch (204)]

It's just a FUD campaign.

If they had a real argument they would have taken it to court by now. Failure to do so would be contrary to MSFT shareholder interests.

Re:Everything old is new again.

[a_n_d_e_r_s (136412)]

Well, there are two options:

1. Ballmer is right and are not protecting shareholders interest.

2. Ballers is wrong and are lying to his shareholders.

Whats true ? Whats worse ? Either way - he's out on a limb on this one - wonder who will push him off it ?

Re:Everything old is new again.

[mosch (204)]

Their latest report says this on linux:

In recent years, certain "open source" software business models have evolved into a growing challenge to our license-based software model. Open source commonly refers to software whose source code is subject to a license allowing it to be modified, combined with other software and redistributed, subject to restrictions set forth in the license. A number of commercial firms compete with us using an open source business model by modifying and then distributing open source software to end users at nominal cost and earning revenue on complementary services and products. These firms do not have to bear the full costs of research and development for the software. A prominent example of open source software is the Linux operating system. Although we believe our products provide customers with significant advantages in security and productivity, and generally have a lower total cost of ownership than open source software, the popularization of the open source software model continues to pose a significant challenge to our business model, including continuing efforts by proponents of open source software to convince governments worldwide to mandate the use of open source software in their purchase and deployment of software products. To the extent open source software gains increasing market acceptance, sales of our products may decline, we may have to reduce the prices we charge for our products, and revenue and operating margins may consequently decline.

It mentions overall Intellectual Property rights as a risk as well, but does not note any offenders, nor any plans to mitigate the problem via lawsuits.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights against piracy, infringement of our patents by third parties, or declining legal protection for intellectual property. We defend our intellectual property rights and combat unlicensed copying and use of software and intellectual property rights through a variety of techniques. Preventing unauthorized use or infringement of our rights is difficult. Piracy of our products represents a loss of revenue to us. While this adversely affects U.S. revenue, the impact on revenue from outside the United States is more significant, particularly in countries where laws are less protective of intellectual property rights. Similarly, the absence of harmonized patent laws makes it more difficult to ensure consistent respect for patent rights. Future legal changes could make this even more challenging. Throughout the world, we actively educate consumers about the benefits of licensing genuine products and obtaining indemnification benefits for intellectual property risks, and we educate lawmakers about the advantages of a business climate where intellectual property rights are protected. However, continued educational and enforcement efforts may fail to enhance revenue. Reductions in the legal protection for software intellectual property rights or compliance with additional intellectual property obligations impacting the rights of software developers could both adversely affect revenue.

I see nothing here that indicates a belief that Open Source and Linux in particular are nothing more than a threat to the business model, so I still think his comments are just FUD.

Re:Everything old is new again.

[a.d.trick (894813)]

IANAL, but isn't this considered slander (or libel)? Why doesn't IBM or Redhat take MSFT to court and tell them to either substantiate their FUD or pay damages. There should be no excuse for this kind of abuse by someone as high profile as Ballmer.

Re:I do not get this

[raffe (28595)]

They will and can sue Red Hat. Red Hat sells the software that Microsoft claims to own ip in. Red Hat will not sue any person that has contributed code to them. No, IBM wont come to the rescue, only you and I can do that. So do buy a copy of there software to support them. Or you can do as I do, become a member of fsf here [fsf.org]

Re:I do not get this

[Atzanteol (99067)]

there software

Where software?

Re:I do not get this

[Svartalf (2997)]

If they don't speak up now, they can't sue for damages- only a stop of the use of their patents.

It's called Laches, and it means "delay" in legalese. It means they can certainly tell us what
they have and get us to remove, but now that they've opened their mouth (via Ballmer's mouthing off)
they can't really do much except get us to sidestep. Before too long, they're going to step off
into Lanham Act territory like SCOX has done (if they've not already...). It's a rather dangerous
game they're playing here- IBM and a few others won't tolerate much more of this BS without them
putting up or shutting up.

The reality is, MS would have ALREADY sued for damages, etc. if they actually had
any real beef to that crap Ballmer keeps spouting. I'm wondering if someone can make a Class Action
of a Lanham Act suit...

Re:I do not get this

[HermMunster (972336)]

IBM has been coming to the rescue for years and has granted hundreds if not thousands of patent licenses to the linux community.

Linux isn't going anywhere. Microsoft would only prevail in getting enforced what it can prove, and even then the precedents that prohibited the Z4 company from keeping MS from selling XP will prevail in the Linux community.

Ballmer is using threats and FUD to keep Linux from expanding further by threatening the distros and then telling the financial analysts that they should not use those products because the distros are a prime target.

It's an idiotic move and it will hurt Microsoft even more. Don't think big corporates have major investments in Linux? Think again. It's massive.

This just shows that Microsoft is going to become the biggest looser.

Look, if one technology is infringing it doesn't mean the whole Linux is infringing. He'd have to prove first that those are infringing and that the distros knew it. He's just trying to keep more distros from popping up and from proliferating. He's trying to provide less incentive to start a new distro that would innovate since most distros lock themselves into an ideology and never reinvent themselves. If he has fewer distros cropping up with innovative things then the old ones will die sooner or later but he's only going to accomplish this by FUD threats. He can't accomplish it by revealing how weak his hand is.

If there's a violation in Linux tell the community. Put up or shut up Ballmer is the only voice he should hear from the community. And yes, there are weapons in various other arsenals that can be wielded against Microsoft.

This is a no win situation for them. They can only succeed by threats. Any action defeats their purpose. Threats fulfill their purpose. The community must ask in one voice: WHERE AM I INFRINGING? That is what will defeat their threats.

Sabre rattling

[slofstra (905666)]

This sabre rattling against Linux has potential adverse effects for the entire economy, if Microsoft is able to push Windows into every corner. Windows is just terrible in certain situations, such as ATMs and aruably, pocket PCs and handheld devices. Perhaps the government should be looking into anti-trust; we need to see competition in the market place for operating systems.

Re:I do not get this

[Mick Ohrberg (744441)]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it does appear that the 'new black' in business philosophy these days is "If I can't out-compete you, I'm going to try to out-litigate you". Then again, business is turning into a spectator sport.

Re:I do not get this

[dwandy (907337)]

"If I can't out-compete you, I'm going to try to out-litigate you"

Maybe I just don't see it elsewhere, but it seems that this is an American phenomenon.
For example, when vehicle emissions standards starting increasing a while back, US automakers hired lobyists to change the law, while the Japanese hired engineers to meet the law.
One country's cars now meet emissions world wide, and the other makes cars that can't be sold in various markets.

I know lobbying is not the same as litigating, but imho it's the same mentality: If you can't compete with your product, compete by working the legal system.

Re:I do not get this

[Stormwatch (703920)]

Nobody will stop using linux because of Balmers idiotic statements. There is no way the company I work for would shell out the $$$$$ necessary to change out linux for Windows Server 2003. The caos company wide would be awful!

That's not the point. He wants to scare companies away from moving to Linux in the first place.

Re:I do not get this

[Aptgetupdate (1051164)]

It's taken you 10 years to get your system the way you like it? Is this a Gentoo installation?

Re:I do not get this

[CmdrGravy (645153)]

Microsoft is a multinational company, they could sue anyone anywhere.

Well they could try but in countries which don't have software patents they're not likely to get very far.

Re:I do not get this

[ZachPruckowski (918562)]

BSD wouldn't help. The argument here is over patents, and so in theory, any company without a MS patent license could be sued. The companies with MS patent licenses (or enough patents to keep MS from suing them) are Apple, Sun, Novell, and IBM.

Re:I do not get this

[robyannetta (820243)]

I'd love to read Steve Jobs' reply to the "BSD is dying" argument.

SCO

[Jaysyn (203771)]

So MS is now short for MegaSCO?

Details, Ballmer or it ain't so

[RichMan (8097)]

IBM is still digging into SCO's near corpse to find the detials of SCO's accusations. Which were, are and for ever more shall be totally bogus.

Ballmer needs to stop saying "they stole our IP" and start citing versions, files, lines and patent numbers. Otherwise Microsoft looks like a bigger SCO. And that is not a pretty picture for a company like Microsoft intends itself to be.

Re:Details, Ballmer or it ain't so

[jeevesbond (1066726)]

IBM is still digging into SCO's near corpse to find the detials of SCO's accusations. Which were, are and for ever more shall be totally bogus.

The difference between the two cases is SCO claimed copyright infringement whereas Microsoft is claiming patent infringement (I believe).

Software patents are so much more vague than copyright, so there's a good chance some of the GNU/Linux operating system is infringing. Remember the study that found 283 possible software patent infringements [internetnews.com] in the Linux kernel alone? I would be suprised if some of those didn't belong to Microsoft (and that was 2004, there are probably more now).

This public sabre-rattling is not without basis. Seems to me that Microsoft are keeping the specifics under wraps, then threatening companies with them in private. Remember what ex-Novell employee said in this interview [itworldcanada.com]? Here's a reminder:

I mean I have had people come up to me and essentially off the record admit that they had been threatened by Microsoft and had got patent cross license and had essentially taken out a license for Microsoft patents on the free software that they were using, which they then cannot redistribute.

It's also funny you should mention this:

Otherwise Microsoft looks like a bigger SCO.

Some people (including this respected legal blogger [lamlaw.com]--at the bottom of that article) believe Microsoft funded and put SCO up to its anti-GNU/Linux FUD litigation. So, really they are a bigger SCO!

I will only take this seriously

[eclectro (227083)]

when he throws a chair.

Re:I will only take this seriously

[varmittang (849469)]

Retards do too, why do you think they all try to eat paint chips.

Now, ask yourself, did you eat the paint chips?

Whatever

[TheWoozle (984500)]

To: Steve Ballmer

Dear sir,

Either file suit against the parties infringing on your precious IP, or SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Sincerely,
Everyone

P.S. - Vista blows donkey balls.

Re:Whatever

[debest (471937)]

Either file suit against the parties infringing on your precious IP, or SHUT THE FUCK UP.

That's the beauty of FUD. Microsoft's voice is always going to be louder than ours. We can tell them to STFU, but they don't have to! We can call their bluff, and demand they file their lawsuits against open-source "patent infringers". They don't have to!

FUD can kill a traditional competitor (see Amdahl vs IBM, where I believe the term was coined), but against OSS it is only a bump in the road. You're right, in that eventaully Microsoft will actually have to have friendly legislation and/or success with patents to keep its current position of dominance in the software world, but in the meantime FUD is all they have, and you can be sure that they will continue slinging it hard for the foreseeable future (whether we like it or not).

Ballmer's reasons

[g2devi (898503)]

The reason Ballmer doesn't say anything is simple. If he did, one or more of three things would happen:
* The code would be immediately rewritten.
* The patent would be challenged and they would likely lose it
* Patent wars between Linux supporters and Microsoft would begin, with the end result that either all the patents would be invalidated or no software would be able to ship or patents would be so massively cross-licensed that they would effectively be meaningless.

By playing coy, Ballmer is actually hurting his case. If he's bluffing, he's basically running a protection racket. He's basically saying we know there's a problem but we're not going to tell you what it is because we want to ambush you in the future.

Neither of these two options are looked too kindly by judges.

And since all Linux projects are done out in the open with full disclosure and most have the policy that "if there is a dispute, we'll rewrite the code" (even Mono has this provision), and is often done by volunteers who want to fill a need (e.g. schools, 3rd world, etc), it would be easy to portray Linux in a favourable light to the judge.

Unfortunately, Novell handed them a source of SCO-like FUD that obscures these issues.

So Novell, here's my request to you. Even if you can't get out of the MS deal, could you cut the knees off of the MS FUD by writing a legal document that states categorically that:
1) The deal is not about patents and if Microsoft believes that the deal is, then it now hereby waves any protection from Microsoft
2) That to the best of Novell's knowledge, Linux is not in violation of any patents.
3) That unless Ballmer states what Linux IP is in place, Novell will have no choice but to file a sue Microsoft on Liable and/or extortion charges.

If Novell did this, and followed through on (3) with the help of other Linux distros if Ballmer doesn't shut up, then the Novell-MS deal FUD would vanish and Novell would regain much of it's previous respect.

Distraction

[technomancerX (86975)]

Ballmer's Thought Process:

Hmmm Vista is floundering and we need to distract the press from this and the piracy angle isn't working... what can we do... oh yeah, let's threaten open source, that should distract them.

Alternately

Hmmm Vista sales are floundering, and even I'm not stupid enough to really think it's piracy causing it, Hmmmm.... it must be that open source stuff, time to threaten to sue somebody.

Ballmer == Eric Cartman?

[jeevesbond (1066726)]

Does anyone remember that South Park episode where Cartman became a cop?

Just think of Ballmer with those aviator sunglasses on (that had the reflection of mountains in the background) shouting: 'You will respect my intellectual propertayyyyy!!!'

Mutually Assured Destruciton

[Orange Crush (934731)]

I somehow doubt Microsoft would be foolish enough to actually fire off patent suits . . . especially when there are other big players with massive patent portfolios and a vested interest in Linux . . .

Secretary: "Mr. Ballmer, I have a group of IBM attorneys in the lobby asking to see you, shall I let them in?"

Ballmer: "My God Man! Do they want to settle my patent suit against Linux?"

Secretary: "I'm not sure what they want sir . . . but they brought a flag.

The Next Thing You Know....

[Snowcap557 (883211)]

Linus Torvalds will come home and find the head of a penguin in his bed.

Don't you get it? Linux is stealing their candy.

[danpsmith (922127)]

Hobbyists and free software advocates have succeeded where Bill Gates [blinkenlights.com] said they could not. They have put out a usable, alternative to solution to just about everything. This irritates people in the lock'em'in software business, as suddenly now they have competition that not only won't just go away, but is demanding and developing alternative standards to proprietary formats.

They are not only threatening as a competitor, but they threaten companies like MS with eventual obsolescence. And let's face it: no company wants to deal with something that will eventually put them out of business if it succeeds.

What's funny about Linux is that it is sort of a Microsoft tactic to get rid of competitors, namely, we'll give it away. That's how they put Netscape out of business, how they attained so much market share in media players, etc. Linux is the ultimate "we'll give it away" solution, giving away everything even the OS.

You can see why software businesses could feel threatened by Linux, but legally, they probably don't have a leg to stand on either way. Nobody can say they own a patent to a generic GUI, when Apple, MS, OS/2, etc. etc. have all used GUIs. Linux is in little to no legal trouble. But it's the last leg that they can stand on when competing for enterprise marketshare when all the other FUD runs through.

They are protecting what may soon be a failing business model: the proprietary software development house.

Re:Don't you get it? Linux is stealing their candy

[JoshJ (1009085)]

It's already a failing business model. Unfortunately, they're doing the same thing the RIAA is- paying the government to keep them afloat.

Microsoft isn't the only one- look at Autodesk.

How long ago was it?

[kosh (4232)]

How long ago was it that Microsoft was complaining that the better product should prevail due to competition and not through litigation in the courts?

Seems that they are now changing their tune... I'm not surprised...

BSA

[wytcld (179112)]

Here's the threat. The Business Software Alliance [bsa.org] already can come in and audit companies for bootleg copies of Microsoft software. If they've forced their way in to do an audit anyway, and they find "unauthorized copies" of Microsoft-claimed "IP" - which is to say, Linux running - then in the future they can try to levy the same penalties against you as they currently do for running more copies of Office than you can produce licenses for.

From our perspective, this absolutely has to be stopped. But the BSA already has the legal authority to get in the door in many cases, and once they're looking at your systems for Microsoft wares, they'd better be checking the Linux boxes for Word running under Wine anyway - so checking them for Linux is a minor afterthought.

20 years stealing, and now this?

[boxlight (928484)]

Microsoft spent the last 20 years copying ideas from Apple, Netscape, Sun, AOL, Burst, and Google -- and now they have the nerve to complain that Linux looks like Windows??

The threat is real but empty

[CodeShark (17400)]

Suppose Ballmer et. al manage to isolate some IP, manage to win the case, and then try to sue any company that sells or distributes the offending IP. Could put a serious cash flow dent in a competitor for a short period of time. Assume also that the M$ police can manage to pull an RIAA and threaten any non-corporate entity with a "roll your own" Linux distribution, and spend a hellacious amount of money doing it. An expenditure that probably wouldn't go over real well with the stock holders or market analysts.

In both cases there would be a brief chilling effect on the competition -- until the offending IP is pulled out of the Linux core and it is recompiled, at which point M$ has nothing. Except that in the mean time they may get hauled back into court for anti-monopoly practices, and that offending the highly intelligent Linux community is about as smart as kicking over a nest of fire ants -- because every major bit of M$ released code will be targeted for suing M$ for their own patent infringing code, etc.

So Ballmer's threat is akin to a robber pulling a gun in a doughnut shop only to discover that he is surrounded by a room full of well-armed, motivated policeman who would like nothing more than to put his sorry a$$ back where it belongs. We all know this, and M$ knows it as well. But so long as he can sell a few more copies of Vista, XP, etc. Ballmer has little to lose by acting the bully in the mean time.

Re:The threat is real but empty

[remmelt (837671)]

I agree with your statement, but:

> until the offending IP is pulled out of the Linux core

remember that when we're talking about a software PATENT, it's not the implementation that is patented, it's the idea. Simplified, if MS would hold the patent on "interfacing with a magnetic data carrier", Linux couldn't be able to have code that saves stuff on a disk, because that's what the patent covers. It's not the actual code that was stolen/borrowed, it's the idea of "interfacing with a magnetic data carrier" that cannot be implemented in any way without licensing the idea from the patent's owner.

Now you can see why software patents are bullshit.

Nice to hear

[hallie_ball (36026)]

It is very nice to hear Mr Ballmer yelling (cursing) this way, it means he is affraid for open source, open source is making more revenue then Mr ballmer wants.

So guys keep on the good work, when Mr Ballmer is yelling like a fool, the work is very good.

Thank you developers for this nice moment.

On Ballmers Computer

[shirizaki (994008)]

You are reissuing empty threat against Open Source. (Cancel/Allow)?

He's talking to financial analysts.

[IGnatius T Foobar (4328)]

Remember folks, Ballmer was talking to financial analysts, not technology people. Ballmer loves to grandstand when he's talking to money. And someday his big mouth is going to get him in trouble.

Didn't IBM pledge to let LINUX use their Patents?

[RalphSouth (89474)]

IBM has a big stake in LINUX continuing as it is. A relatively large percentage of their big mainframes are sold with LINUX running on them. The reason for having a large number of patents is to have the leverage to negotiate mutual use agreements. Balmer and MS will cause trouble by forcing some sort of mutual use agreement while spreading fear and doubt in the potential users of LINUX.

MS has got to be feeling some pressure with lack luster VISTA success. They have huge amounts of cash; but, the business analysts have to be wondering how long it will last if their cash cows start to under produce. When stocks sell at large multiples of their earnings the price is set by confidence that the company's earnings will increase at a steady rate. If confidence in the company's ability should fail, MS would be very disrupted. It hasn't happened yet; but, they have to allay the fears of people who recommend stocks.

Dance Ballmer Monkey Dance

[Ranger (1783)]

Look at him go! [google.com]