Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Microsoft vs Linux patent FUD


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 DavidV

DavidV

    Web God

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Shanghai, China
  • Chat Nick:DavidV
  • Real Name:David

Posted 24 May 2007 - 04:06 PM

Please correct me if my take on this is wrong:

Wikipedia: "On May 14, 2007, Microsoft licensing chief Horacio Gutierrez said on Fortune that Linux and associated free software violated 235 patents owned by Microsoft."

Recently, a Microsoft patent attorney refused to reveal the details of those violations because: "Most people who are familiar with patents know it's not standard operating procedure to list the patents...The response of that would be administratively impossible to keep up with."

So, Microsoft claims that Linux violates their patents, they know how many violations there are, but refuse to reveal them due to "administrative" reasons. This is questionable in itself, but a complicating element is the semi-secret licensing deal Microsoft signed with Novell last year.

Wikipedia:

"Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said of the deal, "This set of agreements will really help bridge the divide between open-source and proprietary source software."

The deal involves upfront payment of $348 million from Microsoft to Novell for patent cooperation and SLES subscription. Novell will pay around $40 million to Microsoft over 5 years."


The impression that many people, myself included, have from these events, is that Microsoft paid Novell to (1) create the impression that Linux violates Microsoft patents, and (2) to sell "patent-safe" Linux licenses. Microsoft has a long history of spreading FUD about Linux, but it is now engaging in McCarthy-istic tactics, by claiming to have a list of patents that it will not reveal. This sounds like a threat/bribe to encourage people to either abandon Linux or buy Microsoft's Novell certificates.

It's not hard to guess why Microsoft will not reveal any proof of patent violations: either they don't exist, or workarounds will quickly be created to any legitimate violations. The same tactic was used by SCO UNIX against IBM in 2003. SCO's sagging stock price skyrocketed during the controversy but crashed when they failed to provide any evidence and were left only with a huge legal bill.

http://en.wikipedia...._with_Microsoft
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/SCO_v._IBM

Edited by GreedyCapitalist, 24 May 2007 - 04:10 PM.
spelling


#2 DragonMaci

DragonMaci

    Senior Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,431 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 May 2007 - 05:12 PM

Personally, I doubt the claims of these violations and even whether or not the patents are valid. Also, Linux developers are not responsible for some of the so-called violations, as some of them are in third party application s, such as OpenOffice, which is Sun Microsystem's fault if anyone's, not Linux developers. Linux developers should not be held responsible for third party application patent violations, as they did not create them.

#3 ~Sophia~

~Sophia~

    Senior Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,079 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver
  • Chat Nick:Sophia

Posted 24 May 2007 - 07:18 PM

I read this today but I can't find that report anywhere.
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles,
or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,
whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly;
who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings;
but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause,
who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly.
So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt
Citizenship in a Republic, Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910


"Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark. In the hopeless swamps of the not quite, the not yet, and the not at all, do not let the hero in your soul perish and leave only frustration for the life you deserved, but never have been able to reach. The world you desire can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it is yours." - Ayn Rand

#4 John McVey

John McVey

    Advanced Member

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 803 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Chat Nick:JohnMcVey
  • Real Name:John McVey

Posted 26 May 2007 - 03:25 AM

I read this today but I can't find that report anywhere.


It's a reader's comment rather than actual news, being a mockery based on the actual article about Microsoft's spurious complaint as listed as 'Story' near the top. It reminds me of User Friendly.

JJM

Objectivism in Australia: G'day is g'day!

Blog | Proposed Constitution for Australia




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users