Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ballmer on Linux

Posted by michael on from the microsoft-veterans-for-truth dept.

theodp writes "'In the Linux world, nobody stands behind patent claims,' warned Steve Ballmer, saying that Microsoft customers would be protected from the $550 million Eolas patent infringement judgment. 'I'm not trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt,' said the CEO of the company who earlier cried wolf about breaking IE in the wake of the Eolas judgment, prompting the W3C to go to bat for the software giant."

4 of 472 comments (clear)

  1. He does got a point by Koyaanisqatsi · · Score: 5, Informative

    'In the Linux world, nobody stands behind patent claims'

    He does got a point here. And that's one of the (many) reasons why software patents are evil. Read more here.

  2. Who protects us from MS's patents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    In other news, MS was just granted a patent concerning using TAB to move from Link to Link in a Web Browser: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnu mber=6,785,865

  3. I really hate this argument by GreenCrackBaby · · Score: 5, Informative
    On the touchy issue of security, Ballmer also dismissed the notion that Linux is more secure than Windows, saying that Linux would be attacked just as frequently as Windows if the open source operating system had as large a share of the operating system market as Windows.


    You see this argued a lot here on /. as well, and it is such a stupid thing to say. It is a classic case of arguing using a False Analogy http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm

    The way Linux is designed and the way Windows (especially with integrated IE) is designed are fundamentally different, and one (guess which) is by design more insecure.

    --

    "The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
  4. Re:ahem Ballmer flunks patent law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    Of course that's bullshit.

    Often vendors/makers don't even have the right to sublicense patented techcnology to the end users, like the case of Cognos, who lost the lawsuit with Timeline despite the fact it was Microsoft who had infringed

    Microsoft originally licensed the patents with the understanding that it would be able to sublicense the patents to their customers and to third party software developers who use Microsoft software and tools. Microsoft intended to provide this sublicense to its customers for free to ensure that the patent claims didn't directly affect customers. Microsoft sources told me that for this privilege, the company paid substantially more than other vendors for its license, although the exact figure isn't public. Microsoft filed suit against Timeline shortly after signing the license agreement in June 1999 because Timeline claimed that Microsoft didn't have the sublicensing rights. See the Microsoft PressPass article at http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1999/jul9 9/timelinepr.asp for additional information about the suit Microsoft filed against Timeline. In December 2002, the Seattle Supreme Court ruled in favor of Timeline on this matter.