Slashdot Log In
Ballmer Won't Dismiss Idea of Suits Against Linux
Posted by
Zonk
on Mon Mar 27, 2006 04:33 PM
from the errr dept.
from the errr dept.
An anonymous reader writes "According to an interview with Steve Ballmer in Forbes, Microsoft is open to the possibility of filing patent suits against Linux in the interest of their shareholders. Ballmer said: 'Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders to have a strategy.' Microsoft filed more than 3000 new applications for software patents in 2005 and already owns more than 4000 patents, including many patents on fundamental, but trivial technologies, like double clicks."
Related Stories
[+]
Linux, to be (Like Microsoft) or Not to be? 476 comments
David writes "Stephen Shipman delivers a very articulate and concise view of how Linux fits in server and end user environments. He expresses his view in response to Nicolas Petreley's 'rant' in Linux Journal. He points out the subtle implications of efficiency versus consistency." From the article: "[...] efficiency (as measured by keystrokes) isn't the only metric for ease of use. Consistency must also be taken into account. Microsoft has made a lot of hay (and green) by flogging consistency".
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
More FUD from MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Daniel Lyons has been suspected of being a SCOX puppet for Microsoft for quite some time now. And people have been suspecting that Microsoft has been funding this sort of talk in the SCOG - IBM case as well. Can't wait for the discussion on Groklaw
Re:The F word (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:More FUD from MS (Score:5, Insightful)
FUD=Fear Uncertainty Doubt
They are trying to slow the adoption of Linux in the corporate world by introducing fear of lawsuits and thus risk. Risk, in the corporation (as anywhere else) is undesirable and therefore avoided. By definition, this is FUD. They are abusing their dominate market position (again) to slow adoption of other systems (Linux) in order to compensate for problems the company is currently dealing with.
In my opinion, they should have been broken up years ago.
Parent
Re:More FUD from MS (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of a FUD attack is to scare off customers (or investors, or partners, etc.) by hinting that their is a problem with the competition but without giving enough information about the hinted event for the listener to determine that the hinted-at problem exists.
In this case they're hinting that there is misappropriated technology from some unspecified items from their large patent portfolio in Linux and that at some point in the indefinite future they'll come down on Linux vendors and pull the rug out from under their customers. Yet they don't say when, don't specify what patents, don't specify which Linux components, and so on.
It's a vague threat. It can't be falsified (i.e. potential Linux adopters can't effectively determine whether there are actual violations or if Balmer is speculating through his hat). It would tend to scare away customers, partners, adopters, contributors, etc. Any claim of wrongdoing can be deflected by pointing out that the ACTUAL STATEMENT is just a truism of business policy, not a deliberate attack on Linux and its community.
If it really is just a truism of business, it would not be newsworthy. If Microsoft is actually gearing up for a patent fight it would be very newsworthy. Yet it makes headlines, without announcing the launch of an attack, or anything but the non-newsworthy truism.
So IMNO the fact that he made the statement at all meets the above definition of a FUD attack.
Parent
quick somebody (Score:5, Funny)
Patent the triple click or click(n + 1) and sue the bejesus out of Microsoft for all those times you have been waiting around for something to open and you just keep clicking.
double-click patent only for handhelds (Score:5, Informative)
And if I interprete the patent [uspto.gov] correctly, even then, only to physical buttons.
And I still think that the patent is bogus.
(You know, it's an innovation because
Parent
Who is or represents Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who is or represents Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the suits would be bullshit, but they could do some serious damage.
Microsoft has done some sordid things in their time, but I do fear the potential of Microsoft's wrath much more then anything else. With that much money on hand, there's no limit.
Parent
Microsoft is flailing (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the best analogy for Microsoft's current situation is when Apple was struggling to come out with Copland. At that time, Apple flailed around a lot trying to figure out ways to make money. Ultimately, they concluded they needed to find a way to start all over with their OS. Microsoft will wind up doing the same, eventually.
In the meantime, let's hope their flailing won't harm Linux.
Re:Microsoft is flailing (Score:5, Funny)
But they are focusing on what they do best...
Parent
Re:Microsoft is flailing (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think that's a foregone conclusion, although it would be a welcome one. They're going to put out Vista first though, come hell or high water.
As the NYT article [nytimes.com] states, MS holds backwards compatibility sacred. And yes, they've broken it in small ways in the past (XP SP2 was probably one of the largest breaks in recent years), but nothing big. They're scared of breaking it in a "big" way because they know it could cause market fragmentation -- if I'm stuck on Windows because of some proprietary app that we lost the code for years ago and that's essential to my business, well if Windows 2010 breaks it, then why should I stick with Windows?
Frankly, I think they're a little over-concerned on this front. Yes, there are a number of apps out there like that. But that's solvable now -- they could spin up an entire virtualized copy of XP in a VM. It'd be slow, but it'd at least work. And most businesses would stick with Windows over the alternatives because that's what their IT knows, it has the widest range of apps available, and the widest hardware support.
Heck, how much crap could they be rid of if they simply ditched DOS and the entire 16-bit layer? What about for crap like WMF and other archaic data formats? Would ditching FAT32 as a bootable FS (or an FS for "special" files, like profiles and swap) buy anything?
Of course, I suspect that that's not the real sticking points when it comes to "compatibility". There's craptastic API calls all over the Windows API. There are entire layers of APIs that MS stopped promoting years ago, but are still used. And what about the craptastic IE5/6 renderer? Talk about a support and development nightmare.
Apple had the "fortune" circumstance of being a bit player. Microsoft doesn't. If Apple fragmented its market share, well, there wasn't all that much to lose in the first place. The same cannot be said for MS, and MS's entire business plan has revolved around a unified OS (supplied by it) for decades.
Parent
In other words, stifle if you can't innovate (Score:5, Insightful)
They are simply incapable of any real innovation and never have been, so they stifle and steal ideas and use marketing muscle to sell it as thier own.
I'd say these methods have a limited lifespan, as is clear with Vista.
They are being beaten to the punch due to lack of this innovation, by Apple, by Google and by Linux.
No amount of FUD or threats is ever going to stop that, time to move over microsoft, as your going to be played at your own game and your going to lose.
Open Invention Network may counter (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect that the Open Invention Network [openinventionnetwork.com] was set up to defend against this very possibility. If Microsoft makes a move the alliance will use their patents to counter. Which the companies involved have a pretty comprehensive portfolio.
A perfectly good reason why they must go (Score:5, Insightful)
I own stock in Microsoft and want to see these asses go. Stop wasting my money on threats against Linux and start getting Vista out. You idiots cannot get blood from a turnip, which is about what your suits against OSS developers will amount to. The only way to keep the value of my stock up is to develop a product that brings in more revenues, and suing Linux developers won't do that.
Fuck you Ballmer, Allchin, etc.
-From a shareholder who sees right through your wag the dog campaign to CYA.
Can't disagree with Balmer here (Score:5, Insightful)
We're pathetic... (Score:5, Interesting)
If the U.S. government won't use the Sherman Anti-trust Act to stop Microsoft, we need to rely on one of the fundamental principles of capitalism - Adam Smith's invisible hand. We need to stop buying, supporting, using, and working with Microsoft software. I do know how crazy that sounds, but revolutions require revolutionary thinking.
Many of you claim that you use Windows because your employers do - that's a crock. Make a personal choice. I work for a Fortune 50, in an enterprise-level position, and I haven't owned a Windows machine in over 5 years. I have may 98% of everything I need at home and work function with Mac OS or Linux. In the extreme cases (that last 2%), I use CrossOver Office. Once (ONCE) in the last five years, I had to borrow a colleagues' Windows machine to complete some training - because our server software was so out of date that the manufacturer's Mac drivers didn't support the old protocols. Every opportunity I have to recommend standards, I oppose the implementation of further Windows desktop or server deployments.
Not, seriously, I'm not crazy - I know all of this isn't feasible for all of you. Don't do anything to risk your livelihood, your sustainable income, or the ability to feed your family, but seriously ask yourself... "Am I doing everything I can to support Linux and Open Source, and help prevent the patent threat that Microsoft represents?"
So may on Slashdot these days have become Microsoft apologists - they aren't that bad... their UI is far superior... I have to use them at the office... all the good games are only written for Windows... ad nauseam. We need to use what power we have to stave off a serious threat to the technologies we are personally passionate about. We are the developers, the administrations, and the infrastructure of the nation and world's IT organizations. We must stand strong if we want to have any options. Because after Linux, it's Mac OS, then Solaris, then AIX, until all that's left is Windows. All that's left is crap. Yes, it is *that* slippery a slope.
And, if we stand united, we can affect Microsoft's profits. Make their shareholders listen. Make the board of directors require policy changes. I don't hate Microsoft or any company - but this "Patent Cold War" is despicable.
I am not advocating overnight change 180 degrees. Only that you ask yourself one simple question every day...
"Am I doing everything I can to enable choice in technology?"
Re:We're pathetic... (Score:5, Interesting)
Creating incompatibilities with Windows and other Microsoft technologies is doing this HOW?
Please, don't be like Apple. They tried to do the whole 'we won't play ball with you' routine and look where it got them? Apple could be where Microsoft is today had they played their cards differently. But because they didn't they've consigned themselves to be a perpetual "also ran."
Open source is about technology, not ideology. People in the real world choose it and use it to the degree to which it is superior and/or more economical. No one cares about the ideology of the developers. The more ideological someone is about a piece of technology, the less likely they are to be listened to for very long. No one respects wild-eyed zealots for whom computers and computer technology are a religion. People like that are eternally confined to the lower rungs of IT organizations because they lack the ability to be impartial and are by their very nature NOT pragmatic. Religion belongs in church, not in an IT environment.
The best way to beat Microsoft is to refuse to play by their rules. The very LAST thing that Microsoft wants is technologies that are a direct replacement for their own. Such technologies are dependent upon their ability to interoperate with Microsoft's products. The better Linux and other open source technologies work with Microsoft's stuff, the more they will be used. The more they are used, the more impact they have upon the creation of defacto standards.
You hate Microsoft, well guess what, no one cares. The people who make decisions about how their IT budget will be spent don't give a rat's ass about your feelings. The only things they care about are protecting their jobs and choosing the technology that is best suited to their environment. Creating incompatibilities with Windows or other "evil" technologies is a damned fine way to ensure that your preferred technology is NOT chosen.
Lee
Parent
Against whom will they file? (Score:5, Interesting)
Red Hat and Novell? They're big enough to fight it, and even if they lose, I was using GNU/Lunix before they were around, and it'll still be available after they're gone. IBM? IBM have been building a patent portfolia for decades. Bring it on!
Linus? Not even Microsoft could countenance a PR gaffe of that scale. People like Linus.
The FSF? Well, Stallman is no Linus in the popularity stakes, but I'm sure he'd relish the opportunity to be given a soapbox to point out that patents are indeed the big threat to competition and choice.
Whatever they do though, Microsoft will send one message loud and clear: they can't compete on technology, so they have to stifle the competition.
Is that really how desperate they've become? If so, then that's a good sign for their competitors, both Free and otherwise.
OIN Owns Patents for technology Microsoft uses (Score:5, Interesting)
Fedora's Greg DeKoenigsberg [fedoraproject.org] has finally posted a explanation on why Redhat has now included Mono in Fedora Core 5 [livejournal.com]:
If Microsoft should choose to sue people for using projects under the umbrella such as Linux or MONO, the Mutually Assured Destruction clock hits midnight.Also see what Risk to USERS of open source from patent claims [slashdot.org]?
I have a sad message for his shareholders (Score:5, Insightful)
Sue all you want. Open your war chest of patents and fire away, Have IBM join the fray and fire back with an army of lawyers and tons of prior art. Drag Donald E. Knuth to court and have him confess that he came up with large parts of the stuff everybody claims to have a patent on. Force people to join patent ammo interest groups and have 10-20 wisecracks come forward who've managed to pass "pattern-matching" and "bit-vectors" passt the patent office clerks, ready to sue MS to chunky kibbles - or step down for a mean xx million sum.
Be it that in the end, 50% of Linux is actually 'illegal code'. 'Illegal' as in 'patent-thought crime'. Illegal as in 'may never use FAT' and 'may never use CF12xx encoding for characters.'. And so on. But never forget:
Linux/OSS isn't playing Microsofts game. It's not about money. It's about nice computer stuff that's fun to lots of people. It's about software that does interesting things, not about making money. It's made to work without money. It's about PHP. Mozillla. Python. Blender. Not about Money.
MS won't survive as a software-only company. They can sue, burn 5-10 billion and set back desktop Linux by a decade. And they have to if the shareholders demand it. But they can't win. Because OSS is not playing their game. OSS has more IT expert manpower than MS can even dream of. And it's machinery is fuled by passion, not money. That's what scares the piss out of MS.
"... then they fight you. Then you win." QED.
Top Men (Score:5, Funny)
Interviewer: Who are these experts?
Ballmer: Top men.
Interviewer: Like who?
Ballmer: Top men.
Interviewer: Can you give me a name?
Ballmer: Top. Men.
Re:Not FUD, sound business tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
The really, really sad thing is that you are absolutely correct.
Parent
Re:Not FUD, sound business tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Not FUD, sound business tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, too late for MS. If they did that 2-3 years ago, they might've even succeded. It would be easy to pick on standalone home developers, a free open season on Linux hackers.
Now? Not really. Too many corporations are getting money from Linux and they will fight for their piece of pie. If they would proceed with this steps, all they would achieve is corporate fight without any rules, but no gain.
One case that proves what I'm saying. OIN http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/10
MS is just too late with this idea as every time.
Should MS not enforce their rights, they're hosed and the stockholder get's POed.
Unfortunatelly, MS stockholders stand just as much chance as SCO.
It's a sound business decision and, frankly, so obvious that it should not have even been reported. It falls into the "duh, no shit, sherlock" category. So what else is new? This ain't FUD people, this is business as usual.
In bussines, timing is everything. MS has missed this oportunity (as every other time). While I agree with your saying it isn't FUD, it is not sensible reality either. It would like MS is declaring the start of the last battle in this war (First they ignore you, they they laugh at you, they get scared, they fight, they lose), where MS is not fighting, but pissing against the wind. And this is business as usual to.
Parent
Re:Not Sound business, total FUD... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which IP? TAB handling? Virtual desktops? Wearable devices?
99.9% of MS IP is shamefull stealing from long existing projects. Name one real IP invented by MS.
Parent