Ballmer Suggests Linux Distros Will Soon Have to Pay Up 520
An anonymous reader writes "Via Groklaw comes comments from Microsoft's Steve Ballmer at a UK event, in which the company once again threatens Linux distributions that haven't signed up with their program. '"People who use Red Hat, at least with respect to our intellectual property, in a sense have an obligation to compensate us," Ballmer said last week ... Ballmer praised Novell at the UK event for valuing intellectual property, and suggested that open source vendors will be forced to strike similar deals with other patent holders. He predicted that firms like Eolas will soon come after open source vendors or users. Microsoft paid $521m to settle a patent claim by Eolas in August.'"
Which IPs in particular? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It says *Balmer* made the statement. Why do you think there might be any truth in his saying ?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A chair throwing patent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe Ballmer was speaking in generalities, and wasn't speaking of any specific IP.
This may well be a foreboding statement, hinting to Microsoft's infamous strategy to embrace, extend, and extinguish. Getting their proverbial foot in the door, implanting MS IP in some distro here or there as a gesture of "good will" or some sort of perverted philanthropy, as a sort of time bomb detonating at the point at which MS decides to attempt to extinguish Linux-based OSes as competition.
Mod me as FUD if you wish... but I'm not claiming these statements are anything more than pure speculation.
Thankfully conciousness distros like Debian will not allow work into the base unless it's fully GNU/Apache, whatever, licensed for free use. By doing this they ensure that this timebomb can never go off. Take a look at the cdrecord package which is now replaced with wodim. Unless MS were to release something (and for the life of me the only thing I can think that *might* get in is some document converter for Word), then it would have to be correctly licensed, in which case, we're not going to give a hoot.
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that nobody knows what these 235 patents cover. They could be invalid. They could be simple enough to easily find a workaround for. Or they could be something like the TrueType hinting patent, which took quite a while for the FreeType project to find an adequate alternative for. For all we know, they have patents that make it impossible to correctly render a Word doc without infringing on their patent.
But Microsoft won't say what the patents actually are. They're probably hoping to try to sue for all the patents they can in one fell swoop, in hopes that nobody will be able to come up with a solution in time. Because of this, Debian is the most likely to be hurt, because once Microsoft releases the details, Debian can't just let their non-free software slide until a proper alternative can be found; they'll have to pull the software. The problem isn't that Linux projects are purposefully infringing on Microsoft IP; it's that they don't even know what the Microsoft IP is.
Of course, the Open Innovation Network (IBM, NEC, Novell, Philips, Red Hat and Sony) has a substantial patent portfolio that they use to protect open source projects, and Microsoft is sure to have infringed on some of them, so there's a good possibility that Microsoft will never use these patents for anything but FUD campaigns.
But it does suggest an interesting option for patent reform. Perhaps patents should have to be actively protected, like trademarks, and if a company lets another company use their patent for too long uncontested it becomes public domain.
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:5, Insightful)
And this comment is exactly what Microsoft wish to achieve by making cryptic threats about their patents. I'm not blaming you (the poster) for posting this. I'm just observing that this is a classic example of FUD in action. "Debian is most likely to be hurt so play safe with someone who's signed the pact with Microsoft."
I don't know that a distribution that hasn't signed a deal with Microsoft isn't more at risk. Very possibly the patents are trivial or unsupportable else Microsoft might well have acted sooner before Linux became such a massive threat to them. Or maybe Microsoft hoped to let Linux become something profitable and then try to take it over through their proxy Novell. So I don't know if being cautious and siding with a non-pact signing distribution will gain you any benefit or not, but I do know that caution is not without price. Accepting the Microsoft FUD has a demonstrable negative effect on the free software community and Linux specifically. When forced to choose between a possible negative (which at worst is changing distributions) and a proven negative, I am inclined to the former. Especially when I perceive the likelihood of Microsoft successfully hamstringing Debian to be low in the first place and even more especially when I feel that an organisation is trying to make me act a certain way through threats.
I also know that Europe has preserved its own, more rational, patent law despite immense pressure from US corporations (who would benefit vastly more than European ones from such a shift). The international nature of Linux would be a headache for Microsoft in a number of ways.
If the patents are trivial (and if they exist), then Microsoft's only real use of them is to spread FUD as you have illustrated. Ultimately that will evaporate and Microsoft will look the worse for having tried it. If (and it's a very big 'if' let's keep in mind) there are some serious patents in there, then I would have thought there is reasonable grounds for counter-suing Microsoft for deliberately concealing such information whilst allowing a business built on infringement to develop for the purpose of cashing in later on.
If (if, if, if) Microsoft try to sue Linux distributions for patent infringement in the US, I expect the legal process to take some time. And I do know that engineers always move faster than lawyers. If there's a way round the patents (if they exist, and if they're non-trivial), then we'll be finished implementing it by the time the injunction comes down.
failure to protect patents (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps patents should have to be actively protected, like trademarks, and if a company lets another company use their patent for too long uncontested it becomes public domain.
Patents have to be protected as it is. If a patent isn't protected, via Laches, Doctrine Of or Doctrine of Latches [lectlaw.com] a patent owner can loose their patent rights if they don't enforce those rights.
FalconRe:Which IPs in particular? (Score:5, Informative)
Not just from the article. They refuse to say, have been asked to spell it out, and continue to threaten without making any specific claim. After a while you just learn to tune them out.
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:5, Informative)
Which is exactly why they are, by now, UNENFORCEABLE.
The IP laws require that when an IP owner notices an infringement they have an obligation to notify the infringer of the exact nature of the infringement in order to allow them to mitigate the damages by removing the infringement. Failure to do that will render any subsequent claims for damage moot.
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:5, Insightful)
With patent infringement, there's "accidental infringement" and "willful infringement," with treble damages on the latter, because of evil intent.
At the moment, the Linux camp is milling around saying, "Patents, what patents? Show us the patents!" and it can be pretty well "documented" with press releases and blogs. Seems to me that it would be pretty darned hard to show any sort of evil intent.
But there are also laws against frivolous lawsuits, SLAPP, and such. Seems to me that threatening IP action without specifics, without opportunity to mitigate, especially when the threatenee has been asking for those specifics, ought to go a long way to landing the threatener in that "bad lawsuit" camp.
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't these kinds of threats put MS in legal jeopardy? Couldn't Linux companies sue MS claiming that Balmer's statements are harming their business, especially in light of the fact that MS refuses to identify these patents? I would think that this situation could cause more problems with the EU.
The DOJ of course is completely hopeless at this point, but other countries can still offer some relief.
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:4, Interesting)
The DOJ of course is completely hopeless at this point, but other countries can still offer some relief.
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:4, Interesting)
A patent atorney walks into a room of Linux admins (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting discussion anyway, even though I find the mix of lack of morality and the excess of $ deeply disturbing. Call me an idealist and cry me a river.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It would seem to me to be a variation of Slander of Title, but whether or not a "variation" counts here I do not know.
C//
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:4, Interesting)
What people should be doing is issuing certified letters to Microsoft requesting full disclosure with the notice that if they don't respond with the IP in question then all users are indemnified of all patents. Give them a time frame in which to proceed. Specifically state that the IP and Patents must explicitly be stated or the indemnification is automatic and global.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So suing is not really the "we, the community's" best interest. Our best interest is to laugh at Microsoft and ignore their FUD. We cannot be said to be culpable by inaction in this regard, beca
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:4, Informative)
In a lot of jurisdictions there's a civil claim for "tortious interference with business relationships", which I think this may fall under.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Couldn't Linux companies sue MS claiming that Balmer's statements are harming their business
Sure. Show me the Linux company with a warchest that makes it worthwhile to pursue action against Microsoft's legal juggernaut. Even the theoretical maximum damages you could claim aren't worth the substantial risk of losing. If Microsoft has just one patent that's being infringed by just one Linux company, their claims are "valid" and your suit tanks. Meanwhile you've exposed yourself to counterclaims, and risk creating a lot of work and headache for the entire open source community. Nobody really wan
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:5, Funny)
IBM
They also happen to be one of the few companies in the world that could effectively retaliate.
Look for it to go down something like this....
1) Microsoft threatens a Linux company, lets say.... Red Hat.
2) IBM buys controlling interest in Red Hat.
now it then becomes either.
Microsoft backs off this patent bullshit.
or
Global Thermonuclear Patent War.
Also, the amount of ill will generated by Microsoft should they choose to go after users directly instead of Linux companies. If they ever came after me looking for money because I downloaded Ubuntu. I would go from reluctant use of MS products to incredibly vocal sworn enemy of absolutely everything Microsoft really quickly.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
there's Vista,
Office2007's improved interfeces, and, of course,
OOXML!
What of Redmond's products couldn't possibly overcome all the ill will in the universe?
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But laches may be excused from ignorance of the party's rights; from the obscurity of the transaction; by the pendency of a suit, and; where the party labors under a legal disability, as insanity, infancy and the like.
(Emphasis mine)
Seriously though, patent prosecution laches only became viable fairly recently, in Symbol v. Lemelson, and it was a pretty extreme case. something like 35 years elapsed. Laches doesn't apply as well to Patent law though because all patents are documented with the USPTO. It is the responsibility of an inventor to make sure that he's not stealing someone else's invention. The same does not hold true for trademark or copyright however.
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except since Ballmer was speaking in London it is not clear if US law applies here - maybe thats why he made his statement there. Turn up the FUD escape the legal consequences.
Slander? (Score:5, Informative)
For example, if I said in a public forum in the UK "Your company conducts illegal acts" I could be sued for loss of reputation (which has a monetary value) unless I could prove what I said was true. The company suing me would not be required to prove that it did not conduct illegal acts - the fact that I couldn't prove it did would be considered damning enough.
Slander (and libel) have 'fair comment' clauses, but a particular allegation such as IP infringement would not exercise them.
(Nope, not a lawyer, but like the rest of the internet, I play one on Slashdot)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong (unfortunately).
US citizens get in legal trouble all the time because of things they did outside the US: visiting Cuba will earn you a big fine, for instance, if the US government finds out (and they do sometimes). US citizens who went t
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's like saying Al Qeada is not liable for the 9/11 attacks because they are based outside the US.
The Lanham Act is designed to protect US companies from bullying tactics. Ballmer bullied a US company. He's liable whether or not he made such threats on US soil.
SCO all over again? (Score:5, Informative)
This just reminds me of the whole SCO case (which was meant to be a front for Microsoft anyhow). We will threaten you without any evidence and hope that you are too scared to stand on your own. Does this not sound like Mafia tactics? Shouldn't this be illegal, if it isn't already?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe that's why they paid up to Eolus, so that it had a grounding to go after their competitors who might be less able to stand up to it. I believe that Microsoft were originally keen to fight and then they paid up? And as I recall, the Eolas patent was something pretty stupid.
I guess it's like... if you're a wizard with 1-hp and you're surrounded by goblins with 5hp, it makes sense to drop a fireball that does 6 hp damage on all of you. Yes - you get hurt, but your situation has still improved.
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:4, Informative)
It will not be good for Linus in court.
Also free developers can not afford attorneys and an injuction to halt linux development could also be a real possibility. THe good news is IBM and Redhat could file a friend of the court and let linus continue on the kernel tree on of their serves since they have the resources to fight MS.
However many corporations have anti gnu and linux policies in their IT deparments. Several banks already ban it thanks to SCO and something like this from MS will scare many CIO's to steer clear of it to avoid getting fired in case they open their employers to liability. "Just pick windows, its the safe bet!"
What shocks me is that this is legal.
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:4, Interesting)
Think of it this way, the big corporation has money to burn on this issue and can easily wait out the small developer. It's extremely likely that the small developer, who can't afford a high powered lawyer, will run out of legal funds very rapidly and have to give up on the case. Microsoft isn't after money, at least not directly. They're much more interested in halting the development of an OS that, over time, has the potential to crush their business.
The sad part is that they can halt Linux growth just as quickly, and just as effectively, by never actually taking this to court. They're already off to an amazing start with the "IP deals" they've made with various vendors. The fact that some vendors are making deals with Microsoft is enough for all the PHBs throughout the world to sit up and take notice. While Linux may be the better alternative in many cases, PHBs will definitely err on the side of caution and try to "protect" the business by staying out of the murky waters. Better to deploy Windows and have receipts and licenses to prove it, than to deploy Linux and get sued later.
Regardless, I find it in bad taste. Instead of working to make a better OS, Microsoft is resorting to FUD. It's like the bully at school. He's big and mean looking, and you don't know if he can kick your ass or not. You're smarter, dress better, and will go farther in life, but he still scares you. Do you really want to stand up to him and hope you can deal with him? Or do you just hand over your lunch money and hope he goes away?
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:5, Interesting)
While I agree with your analysis, I don't think it proves your point (about halting Linux growth). FTR, I'm talking about the desktop here. Linux owns the server space, MSFT's hardly even a relevant player, that's not going to change. Money talks, and while MSFT's got a lot of it, so does IBM. So does Sun. So do lots of other very large and well-regarded companies. Shit, I'm drifting away from my already drifted point! Which is this:
The great big boulder that will be desktop Linux will never start rolling with business. Regardless of lawsuits, IP deals, FUD, or counter-FUD. Not gonna happen. There will always be an excuse somewhere up the corporate ladder to "play it safe" and stay with Windows. Whenever someone tries a "from the top down" push for Linux, MSFT buys them off or scares business away from them, and that's not going to change anytime soon either. Linux on the desktop, therefore, must come from the ground up. Which is good, and inevitable. That's how Free Software works. That's how Free Software has always worked, and it works well, and even though it's slow, it's a steady growth. The Linux userbase grows every year, while MSFT has nowhere else to go. It'll happen. Not only will it happen, basic economics dictates that it must happen.
Patience, grasshopper.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It can also be used to show that Linus made it a point of implementing the ideas that a skilled
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing I find most troubling about all this is the general climate that allows such fud to have an effect. Ideally, Ballmer shouldn't even think of saying such things because they should sound incredibly stupid and pointless, and if he did have a brain lapse and said it anyway, he'd be laughed at, by everyone. And everyone could be sure that if he did try to bring some case to court, it'd be thrown out.
As it is, no one can be too certain how the courts will see an intellectual property issue. People
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:5, Informative)
Make it 9000,000,001.
The non-presumptive laches defense applies specifically to this circumstance.
Because the Open Invention Network and others have repeatedly requested that Microsoft identity the infringing code, the laches defence becomes non-presumptive much earlier.
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:5, Informative)
If Microsoft fails to sue a patent infringer, even though they have demonstrated that they know the infringement exists, then tries to file suit later, the doctrine of laches kicks in -- Microsoft failed to mitigate their own damages by bringing a suit as early as possible in order to get the infringer to stop. What this means is that, with the laches defense, Microsoft would lose standing to sue -- because if they were getting damaged by the 'patent infringers', they should have sued in a timely fashion.
The bottom line is this: Microsoft's claims of patent infringement are spurious, slanderous, and, since they invoked the name of Red Hat, a violation of the Lanham Act.
So here's what I say: after the SCO case gets dismissed, Red Hat, your next target should be Microsoft.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act [wikipedia.org] gives some explanation without too much legalese.
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
see here [cnn.com]
and here [engadget.com]
and here [arstechnica.com]
But I do apologize for saying 135 instead of 235....
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:5, Insightful)
Red Hat has enough money to protect itself. A good legal team costs a ridiculous amount of money, but at some point the cost will plateau. Throwing more money at them doesn't get you "better" legal representation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's also the fact that Microsoft is a publicly held company, and is required to seek profits. No matter how much cash they have on hand, they aren't supposed to use it frivolously. Not that this stopped SCO, but SCO wasn't much of a going concern.
Further, there's no guarantee that Microsoft will have a friend in the White House come January 20, 2009, and starting lawsuits to suppress competition could backfire in the next few years.
Finally, software patents are of dubious legality in the US. So f
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't have anything specific yet,but we are busy digging through the source looking for infringing content. As soon as we get something even semi legit we will show you. Until then, we will make idle threats.
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well not software patents in the UK (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Details of the IP in question (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's make it simple.. Take a lot of code and patent a few ideas. Someone else does the same. In review as your code gets complicated, you may very well have used someone else's IP in your implimentation. Often in a patent dispute regarding code, the countersuit results in a cross license agreement. IBM and others have war chests full of patents to protect FOSS against attacks.
MS hints at an attack as part of the FUD ca
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What it points out is that for the giant in Redmond, business is business, and the truth doesn't matter. Microsoft also has a nickname (Microsloth) for much of their own IP -- it's
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:5, Funny)
"A method of arranging for the decimal value 65535, and calculations resulting therein, to be consistently rendered as 100000 so as to confuse the shit out of those persons performing the calculation"
OOXML (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft hasn't honored my numerous requests to provide a list of the patent numbers is question even though I demonstrated that the ISO/IEC directives say clearly that patents should be disclosed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Which IPs in particular? (Score:4, Insightful)
The UK patent office tends to be pretty good at not allowing software patents. The common work-around is to file for an EU patent in Ireland (which does accept software patents, in spite of their illegality). This is then a valid, but unenforceable, patent in the UK. The purpose of doing this is to allow you to enforce the patent in the UK (and the rest of the EU) if software patents become legal.
The UK government responded to a petition against software patents with a clear statement that they should not be granted. While this is not technically binding, it would go a long way in court to clarifying the spirit and intent of the law, should it be raised.
Microsoft is a toddler (Score:5, Informative)
MS is scared shitless (Score:5, Insightful)
No, not because of linux on the desktop, not even of linux on the server. What it is scared of that with 95% of the desktop it still does NOT control the market. Oh it controls consumers but consumers are fickle. Consumers will buy whatever is cool at the moment. iPhone? Not MS software. iPod not MS software. Mobile phones not MS software. Media centers not MS software. Cars not MS software. Biggest selling console not MS software.
MS has had very little success getting its software onto something else then the PC despite the fact that many would claim that to Joe Public computing IS microsoft. Just how then do you explain that so few choose their phone to have a windows version? Why does the Zune not sell?
And all the while that pesky opensource remains there, undefeated, unwilling to adopt, making small gains perhaps but never just giving up like it is supposed too.
No linux on the desktop ain't going to happen anytime soon, but that is not what MS is really afraid off, it doesn't fear that it is going to loose 95% of the desktop market, but that that market itself will stop growing or even shrink.
Is that likely? Don't matter, what matters is what MS thinks. They been pushing the end of the desktop of ages (and then claiming it will outlive everything) so they worry when they don't see themselves being the software supplier of choice in this new market.
Take google, is google ran its servers on windows as it should (in MS view) do you really think Ballmer would be throwing any chairs? No, it is the realisation that MS one way or another is NOT making a penny out of google (well a few thousand desktop sales perhaps but who cares about that).
None of the mobile phone companies have yet properly chosen Windows as the one and only OS and just keep on insisting on experimenting with software that does not make MS any money.
Nintendo? Do you really think MS was pleased when they included opera as the browser? Do you realize just what this means? Several MILLION people will see for the first time in their live a NEW browser. MS does not like this, it does not survive well when people have a choice, especially when this choice is the default and just works out of the box. That ain't how MS works.
It gets worse, not just are individual consumers learning there are choices and not choosing MS as their software supplier, companies like IBM, HP, Dell are showing that they are far from the loyal lapdogs MS thought they were. Oh the revolution ain't there yet, it may never happen, but if you are a despot and you hear a voice shouting OFF WITH HIS HEAD and you see your "loyal" guards knod in agreement, it is time to worry.
If you think a company like IBM would not relish a change to see MS humbled, you do not understand human nature.
Then their are countries, China is a huge unexplored market, it should buy MS software NOT mess around with linux even if it is just sales tactics. That is not how MS works, it doesn't compete, it dominates. The old example of Munich must be mentioned, for the first time in decades MS was faced with a counter proposal and they reacted instantly by not just lowering the price but by the way of free training and more effectly making MS pay munich to deploy windows. Still no takers. You know you are in trouble when you can't PAY people to use your software.
No, the revolution won't come in 2007 or 2008. Most likely it will never come, it is already here. When was the last time you came across an IE only website? How many years have you been able to file your taxes from Linux/Mac? (Holland several years now) Java programs are finally getting traction, just look at P2P.
AMD opens it graphics cards to opensource, a thing many said was impossible, Intel already heavily supports opensource drivers for its hardware. Are there any giant PC makers left that do not sell Linux no matter how obscurely? Lots of hardware makers now mention linux in their support list.
Oh, it is all small stuff, but it is there and MS is scared
Pay you for what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because I generally don't give money to someone, simply because they tell me I should. I know, it's insane, but I need a reason...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pay you for what? (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft: Well, you own a computer, don't you?
Re:Pay you for what? (Score:5, Insightful)
This quote from Ballmer [groklaw.net] that is posted on Groklaw under the section "[Update 2]", appears to be the Microsoft explanation:
But he doesn't stop there. He immediately continues by directly contradicting himself, and talking about the differences in the FOSS and Microsoft business models:
In other words, FOSS should be required to use the same wastefully expensive business model that Microsoft uses.
I don't think he gets FOSS. I am beginning to wonder if his commitment to the traditional corporate culture of 1982 is so great that he truly cannot see that FOSS is based on an entirely different cultural platform. FOSS is a kind of gift economy where those involved are saying "Hey, since it doesn't cost me to share what I'm doing, I'll gladly share it with everyone, and I expect others to give something back to all of us, too." Where traditional capitalist cultures like Ballmer's see product improvement as a way of getting a bigger slice of the pie, FOSS focuses on making the entire pie bigger so everyone gets a larger slice.
To those who are less culturally advanced, the clear successes of FOSS must seem to be magic. Apache, Blender, Firefox, and the others must all seem to have been created out of empty aether, and to be without any solid foundations. Clark's observation about advanced technology seemingly also applies to business models: if they are significantly advanced, their mechanisms of operation will seem to be magic to the businessmen of twenty-five years ago who haven't bothered to keep up.
Yeah, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, let it be said *again*. If you pay Microsoft, or anyone, for a license to "unspecified patents" then you are an *idiot* and I hope you get sued by your share holders.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mr Ballmer, if your listening, i would like $504,000,000 as-well please, you do have to respect unspecified intellectual property remember.
hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
I don't play too much CivII, do I?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't watch too much S:AAAB [wikipedia.org], do I?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Suddenly, I like Ballmer a little less (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Can you blame him? (Score:4, Informative)
The obvious answer is that they benefit more from using their patents to shut down competition than they lose from paying the odd multimillion dollar fine.
We are using Red Hat. (Score:2)
They must love FUD (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They must love FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, sometimes the courts don't work. Sometimes they favor the entity with larger funds. For example, a woman who clearly never even possessed the software Kazaa was sued by Capitol records recently and lost a $222,000 judgment even though the only evidence they had was a screenshot of files she was serving through Kazaa. Some people would rather be a little poorer and covered rather than be right and bankrupt.
Microsoft does have a large patent portfolio. If you want to know which patents they will
He could be right... (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft is unlikely to enforce it's patents, but what should scare us are the other Patent Houses where their business model is based on litigation [google.com]. They are the dangerous ones...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's take a hypothetical (and false) case as an example. Suppose the original coders of the NCSA Mosaic browser (the predecessor of Netscape and essentially all graphical web browsers) decided to patent the back and forward navigation arrows as a "device to permit navigation of network-delivered content" or some such patentese. The only way to avoid infringing this pa
the reason microsoft won't show their patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Stage three (Score:5, Insightful)
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi
I see we're on stage three now.
Re:Stage three (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, what do you think we're doing? It may appear that we are sitting on our asses typing, but that's HOW you fight this. You can't make a bunch of signs and stand in front of some random government building and get -anything- done about this. You can't blow shit up. You can't even call Microsoft and get anything done. They'll just ignore you. (Yeah, that's back to step 1.)
You can:
Show your boss, fellow employees, family and friends that you understand the situation and explain how it is FUD.
Write in your blog and on Slashod that you understand, etc, etc.
Set up dedicated websites to showing what FUD this is, or contribute to ones that exist.
Notice how all of that is 'fighting' without lifting a fist or even a lawyer? We -can- win this one Gandhi-style... In fact, it's probably the only way we can win it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To sum up he said "they fight you", not "
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's force him to put up. (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux's Retaliation (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll pay up! (Score:4, Informative)
and so on and so on. MOST of microsofts products are based on others Intellectual property and violates at least 60-80 patents somewhere.
Hey microsoft. as soo as you are clean I'll come clean. No, I dont consider clean your legal wiggling bullcrap. 100% legit.
as soon as they pay up
Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
Phase 1 was "state the fact about patent infringement".
Phase 2 is now "explain that since the VENDOR wont pay for patents, then the customers will be on the line" Phase 3 ???
Microsoft will eventually HAVE to file a suit or someone will file a suit against them for scare tactics of some sort. I'm sure the Microsoft lawyers understand this, which means they must have a phase 3 in mind. Who will be the first target? And in which court?
Sometimes I think Microsoft can't lose this battle. If their first suit really tests patent law and then win...well then they start the major money collection, and Linux suffers a hit for it's users having legitimate concerns of legality. However if the patent claims are denied...the Microsoft basically has the green light to use the patents owned by countless others. Because of their size and bankroll, they can implement such technologies much quicker than most companies, and they will pull ahead on many fronts.
What for ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would they do that ? They went after Microsoft because Microsoft could actually afford to pay.
Maybe MS is lining up the next SCO (Score:3, Insightful)
He predicted that firms like Eolas will soon come after open source vendors or users. Microsoft paid $521m to settle a patent claim by Eolas in August.
Sounds like maybe MS lawyers are whispering in Eolas' ear to goad them into being the next SCO...
Why sue your competition and waste money on legal fees when you can con others to do it for you.
The obvious solution (Score:5, Funny)
Obligation to compensate? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sue who? (Score:5, Insightful)
And if it is something so fundamental to the core of Linux it can't be coded around, the odds are long that MS's patent will be found invalid, since virtually all that stuff was invented for *nix before MS ever existed.
So if MS sues, in most any scenario *nix (both Linux and most probably Sun) wins. This is such a sure thing we should consider doing all we can to provoke MS to sue - except that we'd hate having some of our best minds preoccupied for a few years with the court battles.
Darl? You in there? (Score:4, Funny)
Back on their word (Score:4, Interesting)
So who here actually believed them anyway?
Time to start hoarding source code people. Phase 2 of the war has started.
Ballmer is Masturbating to the Excitement (Score:3, Funny)
He knows he's just farting into the wind and he's simply doing it to stink things up and hoping that he isn't standing there when he lets one go and the wind changes.
He's a fruitcake and he has no idea how shitty it makes him look. When the shit hits the fan then we'll seem something more than Ballmer jerking off in front of the fan with his mouth open.
Ballmer tried that before ... (Score:5, Informative)
Interestingly, and following SCO's proven tactics in the matter, he stubbornly refuses to say *what* patents are allegedly violated.
Of course Mr. Ballmer admits that he doesn't expect to see a huge revenue stream from licensing agreements (he named the Novell agreement), but that isn't the point you see.
The point is that "free as in speech" and "free as in beer" are threatening Microsoft's business model. If only he could somehow get rid of the "free as in beer", and with it the "free as in speech", he would turn Linux into just another commercial offering. And that's something he knows how to compete with. By fair means or foul (just see the recent EU verdict against Microsoft and judge Jackson's findings of fact in the DOJ-Microsoft case a few years ago for what those "foul means" amount to).
It's also important to realise that no solution that consists of Linux simply dropping any code (assuming any Linux code were to be found to infringe on Microsoft's patents) can be acceptable to Mr. Ballmer.
With that in mind it's easy to understand why Mr. Ballmer really *cannot* list the patents he wishes to receive "just compensation" for. It's because he does not want to give Linux any opportunity to remove any offending code (assuming there is any). He does not want any compensation either.
He just wants to make Linux non-free because that's how he can get rid of it.
Re:What IP? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright? Also pretty easy, but how can you copy software you can't get the source for? Even when "leaks" have occurred, the OSS folks have been careful not to look at it.
Patents? They're all that's left.
I still say that Intellectual Property is a legal fiction, and when I get time need to write a proper refutation to this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=318461&cid=20867087 [slashdot.org]
Not that the legal fiction is all bad. Clearly when it has taken some i
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How? (Score:4, Insightful)
That`s what makes software patents so dangerous.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
idle: sitting doing nothing, a car engine 'idling', an 'idle' threat.
And the big thing that scares Microsoft is the idea of not having a the vast majority of control over software that people use. If there were ever fair competition, then they wouldnt be able to break file formats and network protocols at will, they would have to be compatible to continue to hold *any* portion of the market, and they would actually
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That depends entirely on the patent. Many patents are concept patents, and those would not allow a different implementation. There are also algorithm patents, which would allow an implementation that does not use the patented algorithm.