No Office For Linux, MS Patents Rejected

Bays Fil wrote to mention a ZDNet piece discussing the U.S. Patent Office's rejection of two Microsoft patents on the FAT file system. "There has been concern that if the FAT patents are upheld, Microsoft may claim that Linux infringes on Microsoft technology and will seek a royalty. Any monetary compensation could threaten the operating system, which under General Public License (GPL) terms may not be distributed if it contains patented technology that requires royalty payments." Relatedly, Dayrl writes "Microsoft reiterates its firm decision not to offer its Office Suite on Linux anytime soon. From the article: 'Microsoft is 100 percent focused on Windows: We have invested billions of dollars in it. We have created Office for the Mac but--and I thought I had been clear on this already when I said 'No'--we have no plans at this time to build Office on Linux,' Nick McGrath, Microsoft's head of platform strategy said.'

Comments

In other news

[Junior J. Junior III]

The sky is still blue.

Re:In other news

[nmb3000]

In other news...The sky is still blue.

Exactly. I can't see how this could be much of a surprise to anyone. However if Microsoft said they were going to build Office for Linux, then that would warrant some surprise and an article on /.

Why on Earth would Microsoft develop their main cash cow for an operating system they'd just assume quietly go away? Not only would they lose money one it, but they'd be showing support for Linux in a way that they're not ready to do (yet).

It's kind of too bad that they won't release Office for Linux because it would probably bolster the business and consumer desktop market shares. Honestly (aside from any closed-document arguments), MS Office is the best office suite available right now. It's incredibly powerful (think Excel if nothing else), and very intuitive. Open Office is nice, but still not in the same park as Office. Give it some time though; as Linux grows in popularity, Microsoft will be forced to start paying it this sort of attention.

Re:In other news

[Pudusplat]

Ding Ding Ding!

MS Office + IE are the desktop to many people in Corporate America. If you could run those on Linux, there would be almost no reason to run windows. Windows just acts as a carrier horse for that suite and "the internet"

Of course, maybe Microsoft will suddenly stop wanting to sell Windows, because, y'know, its too much work.

Re:In other news

[bokmann]

If Microsoft were smart, they WOULD write office for linux, but not for the reasons most people here would think...

Given Microsoft's normal tactics, I would expect they would do it to:

1) Kill OpenOffice, which if left to thrive over on linux will eventually also eat into their windows market (they are obviously worried about this - see earlier articles involving the state of Massachusettes).

2) Control the user's typical experience with linux. They could make Office a steaming pile of dog crap on linux, but people would still buy it. Microsoft could basically control your average manager's impression of linux by making Office for Linux a dog. Those managers who had the misfortune of being stuck with this at the advice of some linux-zealot in their IT department would never listen to that zealot again.

I'm GLAD they haven't realized this and decided to make office for linux. Of course, they might be secretly working on it already, because this is not the kind of thing Microsoft would want to pre-announce. They only pre-annouce vaporware when they need to chill the market for their competitors who are ahead of them.

This has been your daily dose of conspiracy. Now back to your regular microsoft-bashing.

too bad

[grub]

'No'--we have no plans at this time to build Office on Linux

Too bad, I was looking for something other than DVD::RIP and distributed.net which would hammer both cores of my Athlon64 X2.

why feed the competition?

[Tominva1045]

Why should Microsoft build applications for an operating system directly competing with their own?
Heck, I wouldn't even build notepad for Linux if I thought it would cause people to leave my main product.

Re:why feed the competition?

[tomstdenis]

Because they could be omnipresent?

I imagine they wouldn't give away office for Linux so you could target both sides of the camp... that is if they weren't in the business of monopolizing their shit OS.

Keep in mind that Microsoft was once a SOFTWARE business ... :-(

Tom

Re:why feed the competition?

[JPamplin]

Um, they already make Microsoft Office for Mac OS X, arguably a competing operating system with more users than Linux.

Unless your definition of "competing operating system" is somehow different from mine.

So, that's why.

Re:why feed the competition?

[Ucklak]

Actually I think that Linux users are legit because of the nature of the OS. It's free and legal.
We do DVD-css because there isn't a legitimate DVD software app on the market.
We use P2P and torrents for ISO files and nightly builds of source material.
We do mplayer because for some reason, there isn't Media Player or Quicktime for Linux.

Linux users would be the first to make public if there is a pirated version of software on some P2P channel.

Re:why feed the competition?

[Catbeller]

I've a longer memory than most here.

Microsoft extended its contract with Apple to keep Office current on Macs NOT for the unit sales, but because, at the time, they were litigating the monolopy case in court. They needed Apple to stay alive to keep up the pretense that they were engaging an open market without recourse to any monopoly (which was nonsense - they lost). Bill also invested a bunch of cash in Apple at the same time for the same reason: Bill needed Apple alive, not crushed, so that Microsoft could make a case against a finding of monopoly.

Now that Linus is around, Office's days on the Mac may be numbered. They aren't needed any more. But, I think Bill prefers the devil he knows to the devil which is free and open sourced. He'll keep Apple alive as long as he can, even though he lost the monopoly ruling, because the alternative is all Linux and OpenOffice.

Re:why feed the competition?

[Reverberant]

They needed Apple to stay alive to keep up the pretense that they were engaging an open market without recourse to any monopoly (which was nonsense - they lost). Bill also invested a bunch of cash in Apple at the same time for the same reason

That may be part of it, but the other part was because Apple caught Microsoft with their hand in the cookie jar (the settlement was on top of the stock investment).

Now that Linus is around, Office's days on the Mac may be numbered.

Keep in mind, Mac Office makes money for MS - to drop it just to spite Apple might make a shareholder or two upset.

He'll keep Apple alive as long as he can, even though he lost the monopoly ruling, because the alternative is all Linux and OpenOffice.

If I were Mr. Jobs, I would have had this conversation with Mr. Gates or Mr. Baller at some point:

"Look guys, it's in your interest to keep Mac Office around. You see, because of the dominance of MS Office, the lack of Office for the Mac might result in a drop in Mac sales. If Mac sales drop off enough, Apple could be in serious trouble, and perhaps go out of business. If Apple were to go out of business, my last act as CEO would be to release all (non-3rd-party-licensed) Mac OS X kernel and GUI code under the GPL. I'm betting you really don't want that to happen."

:)

Re:why feed the competition?

[tomstdenis]

Um that isn't capitalism. Capitalism [or free market] would say you can use the tool with the product of choice. E.g. you can use that gasoline in your Ford, GM, Toyota or whatever car.

Imagine if we had instead of Shell, BP, Petro, Esso, etc distributors tied directly to your car make and series. E.g. this is a "ford taurus" gas station. Now imagine Ford got greedy and bought up 1000s upon 1000s of prime locations to put theses stations in. Sure that's capitalism right? They got a surge of investment dollars, spent them ALL and now they own more than their share of spots to put gas stations.

So far so good.

Now you're in your Toyota Echo [or whatever] because it's the car of choice. You like the car because it meets your needs, fits with your ideals, etc, except now you can't fill it up anywhere. You have a choice of dealing with a hardship of finding stations for your car, or give in and buy the "acceptable" car. Now replace car with computer manufacturer and gas station with OS.

Now suppose the tool of choice *is* Office. You can only use Office though with Windows. Meaning to use your tool you have to buy something you don't want. You can put up with the replacements [good or bad, no comment there] but in the end you're likely to just give in and use Windows.

That isn't capitalism because you're not creating a free market for the OS. By making all your tools for one OS you're effectively locking the public into using it. By leveraging that against manufacturers [e.g. Dell, if you sell Linux desktop boxes the price per license will go up 30%] they effectively prevent change on that front as well. And if you think you're better off with this form of "capitalism" you better make sure you're locked into "the right choices". Because you have nowhere to go from there. /rant

Re:why feed the competition?

[tomstdenis]

You totally missed the point. The Esso gasoline works in ANY gasoline car. You have a choice between vendors.

If I'm a working professional I have a choice between an improving but often buggy openoffice, using Office, or nothing. I remember the days of Framemaker, ClarisWorks, etc. They were all fairly competent products that are now ... well dead.

You can't sit there and tell me that by having msft bundle windows with EVERY PC made on earth and throwing in free trial copies of Office, Money, etc tools they're not trying to hook more people into using THEIR tools. Put it another way, if Microsoft were a real software company and not trying to ruin the world through de-innovation they'd write their tools for every platform they think they see a sustaining market.

Writing tools to prop up an OS is bit a backwards don't you think? I mean the OS is supposed to support the programs you have to run, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

In the grand scheme of things if the only reason people use Windows is because that's where Office runs that's not exactly a sound market is it not? I mean there is no technical reason why Office can't exist for Linux, BSD, whatever else.

And Office itself is a good form of evil. I mean you buy Office, *you* write the documents but then MSFT has the audacity to claim the file format is proprietary and doesn't document it? Who are they to tell you what you can do with your own files? Of course by time people realized this [e.g. early 2000s] it was far too late. And everyone does the msft-centric thing and blame the newcomer. OpenOffice sucks because it can't open my word documents! ...

And in your mind you see MSFT as totally innocent. Well let's put this in context. Travel back in time 10 years. Now convince every major PC manufacturer to stop bundling Windows with their new PCs and give the customer the choice. Linux was alive and kicking then, so were some of the BSDs. I imagine had Linux had more users pre-2000 they would have had more developers and more content, etc.

Tom

what a bummer...

[xao gypsie]

...I guess I will just have to fork over the cash for OpenOffice

...wait a second..

Re:what a bummer...

[aristotle-dude]

Yeah and those developers work for free and don't need or want any donations to keep development going.

...wait a second. Maybe you should think about either supporting the project directly or purchasing Star Office to encourage Sun into pouring more money and development time into the Open Office project.

Open Office is not really "free" even though you are not "forced" to pay anything for it. Supporting those involved would be a way of showing your gratitude for their efforts.

More media inaccuracies

[operagost]

It would be nice if a mass-media publication would just ONCE publish a 100% accurate article.

Though developed for Windows, the FAT format has become a common means of storing files on all manner of computers

FAT was developed for DOS 2.0. I suppose you could say it even existed in 1.0, but I know that filesystem lacked a hierarchy so it may not apply.

Re:More media inaccuracies

[Waffle Iron]

Well, the VFAT with long filenames, which is the subject of these patents, was developed for Windows95.

Royalties

[overshoot]

And ZD is still clueless.

SAMBA doesn't have anything to do with FAT, for one.

In addition, the US (the only place these patents could apply) doesn't have statutory licensing fees for patents. At most Microsoft could enjoin US users from using the vfat modules, so Red Hat and Novell would stop building them into their kernels.

Wow.

IANAL, all that.

The new math....

[Anonymous Coward]

From the story - "Microsoft is 100 percent focused on Windows: We have invested billions of dollars in it. We have created Office for the Mac"

Ummmm...how can you be 100 percent focused on Windows and still develop Office for the Mac?

Maybe he meant "Microsoft is 99 percent focused on Windows". Or, more likely, he meant to say "Microsoft is focused 100 percent against developing Office for Linux."

Office for Linux

[MaestroSartori]

I can see this not happening for three reasons:

One is the same reason that it looks like Mac Office lags slightly behind the Windows version, and that is the use of Office to try and persuade people to use/stay with Windows. Much as many people on Slashdot seem to dislike Office, it's certainly a widely liked application for many businesses and individuals (I quite like Outlook and Word, although I hate Excel and loathe Powerpoint), so making the Windows version the best of the range is an easy win to get customers on the Windows bandwagon.

Secondly, any porting of flagship apps like Office to Linux would seem to be a vindication of it as an alternative platform to Windows, and MS can't be seen to acknowledge it as a potential comptetitor... :D

The third reason, possibly the most relevant given the weight of opinion on this site, is that the Linux market's known antipathy to Windows for ideological reasons, technical reasons, and economic reasons (many free, Free and open alternatives!) would make the cost of porting far outweigh potential revenues.

What is this story about?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

The summary covers two completely unrelated topics. One is the USPTOs rejection of Microsoft's attempt to extort the digital camera/USB stick makers (which is really what patenting FAT was about). The other story is about how Microsoft Office will never appear on Linux - so what, we don't want it.

What would be their motivation to do this anyhow?

[Pudusplat]

Seriously - The linux market share on business desktops is still miniscule, and companies who would go out of their way (Yes, it's easier to stick with Windows) to use it would be likely candidates for alternatives such as OpenOffice.org. This means that they would be spending time releasing a product for a competing operating system that would likely gain them little to no profits for what gain? Slightly legitimizing their only real threat (however small it is). Does anyone really think they *should* release their suites to Linux? Does anyone on Linux really want it anyhow? I think any amount of market research shows that its simply not an idea worth implementing, let alone even think about.

Obviously not 100% clear

[poopie]

'I thought I had been clear on this already when I said 'No'--we have no plans at this time to build Office on Linux,'
considering how many times this has come up over the years and how many stories on slashdot have been focused on this exact topic, this is obviously not 100% clear.
One must conjecture that there is something preventing this from being summarily dispelled...
[tinfoil hat]like an internal group that maintains a port of Office to Linux and other unix variants?[/tinfoil hat]
Let's recap our history:

There is no OSX on Intel

There is no iTunes phone

There is no Palm running Windows

Amiga is making a comeback

Standard business practice

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't blame Bill for this one. Why develop and market a product that is targeted at users who fundamentaly, and religiously, hate your company. It's like selling bibles in bagdad.

Hasn't the time limit expired?

[ptbarnett]

I'm not a patent lawyer, but my employer's patent lawyer recently submitted a patent application on my behalf.

According to the attorney, a patent application must be submitted within 1 year after the first public disclosure of the invention, which can include:

• Shipment/release of a product containing the invention.
• Publication of an article describing the invention.
• Oral disclosure of the invention (in my case, outside my employer)

I spent a good portion of my vacation dealing with some of the last minute paperwork, because it happened to coincide with the 1-year deadline.

So, I don't understand how Microsoft can be attempting to patent FAT now. Unless they started much earlier, or are trying to patent recent modifications to FAT, I don't think there is really anything to fear.

Things could have been different

[Clueless Moron]

Imagine if Judge Jackson's original ruling had stood. It said that MS had to be split into two wholly independent companies: one for the OS, and another for all applications.

We would quite possibly have MSOffice (and all sorts of other apps) for Linux today, because the apps division would only care about selling their apps as widely as possible.

Sigh.

Re:the .doc format

[DickBreath]

how is it that OO supports it for opening and saving?....how is this legal

How is it illegal? Twenty years ago everyone would have laughed at the very notion that a file format could be patented or that you would need some kind of permission to merely read it (or write it). Especially to read/write your own data!

Years of conditioning by Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, and others have gotten us into the default mentality that anything that is not expressly permitted must be forbidden. It took court cases to affirm our right to make cassette tapes of our LP's for our cars. If they tell us that we can't/shouldn't do something (reverse engineer, decompile, play your own DVD, etc.) (e.g. the EULA), then it must be so. If it isn't so, then they'll purchase legislation to make it so.

Nobody expects Microsoft!!

[rlp]

Nobody expects Microsoft!! Our two weapons are Office and our Windows monopoly. Wait ... three ... our three weapons are Office, our Windows monopoly, and our fanatical devotion to Bill Gates ... no ... amongst our weapons are Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, Office, our Windows monopoly, and our fanatical devotion to Bill Gates. Cardinal Balmer, bring out ... the virtual machine!!

No need

[jdgreen7]

9 times out of 10, Notepad.exe will run on Wine. :-)

You know...

[geoff lane]

...what the answer will be but...

It's fun to make them say the word "Linux" over and over again :-)

No office for Linux? -- A big blunder for MS

[dcavanaugh]

If MS ported Office to Linux, they could take quite a bit of market share away from Open Office -- which would ultimately help them hold down the fort against the OO insurgency in Windows. Instead, they will try to ignore Linux and hope it goes away. It won't. By the time they realize this, OO will become the only serious choice for Linux users. As Linux ramps up on the desktop, people will begin to wonder... "Linux users are getting office software for free. If it works for them, why should I bother paying Microsoft? Oh, they have it for Windows too? I should go try it." Nothing stops people from thinking this way today, but there will be MORE of them doing it in the future.

When you consider all the companies who resort to offshore outsourcing, it becomes clear that we have an insatiable appetite for IT cost savings and we will try almost ANYTHING to save money. Ditching Microsoft is a new frontier of [relatively] unexplored savings opportunities. If MS doesn't hurry up and carve out a niche in the Linux world, they will unintentionally accellerate the maturity of OO as a viable replacment for MS Office. Of the two "monopoly" products, the Office market is more profitable and more sustainable than the Windows OS.

Fat(32) is useful in linux

[bigtrouble77]

There's only one reason I use fat32, and that's to format my 300gb ub2 hd. If I want cross compatibility between windows and linux, fat32 is the only way to do that. If I format to NTFS I cannot write to the drive and all my files are labeled read-only (which is really annoying when you have to copy over many files). If I format to Ext2, Ext3, microsoft will not read those partitions.

Interesting thing is that micrsoft PURPOSELY BREAKS FAT32 in windows!!! I forget the exact size, but you can only format a fat32 partition up to 30gb in windows. Microsoft really wants you using their proprietary ntfs file system. As a result I have to format fat32 from linux to utilize the whole capacity of the drive.

This is simply another case of microsoft trying to force proprietary software onto people that want nothing to do with their product.

The FAT patents are big, and not going away

[NatteringNabob]

Judge Jackson was incredibly perceptive in his judgement in USDOJ vs Microsoft and it is unfortunate that the appeals court chose to ignore him. The problem with FAT is that every single flash card manufacturer implemented FAT as the file system for their cards. They didn't chose it on techincal merit, FAT doesn't have any technical merit. The only reason it was chosen war that FAT is the only file system that is guaranteed to be present in every Microsoft OS. If these patents are allowed to stand, you can forget about taking pictures with your spiffy new 8Mpixel camera and mounting the pictures in your Linux box and you can forget about mounting it as a USB drive too. Unless your camera vendor provides ext2 or some Linux software to read it (fat chance), you are going to have to own a Windows box to get your pictures transfered. The card manufacturers could have come up with their own file system optimized for flash, or use one that was unencumbered like the Berkeley Fast File system, but unless Microsoft bundled support for it, it would be totally pointless, and Microsoft would be just as willing to do that as they are to implement OpenDocument. This is exactly the kind of innovation that never occurred simply because it wasn't in Microsoft's best interest to allow it to occur, and they are going to continue to fight tooth and nail to make sure it doesn't now.

Apps Define the OS?

[chronicon]

MS Office + IE are the desktop to many people in Corporate America. If you could run those on Linux, there would be almost no reason to run windows. Windows just acts as a carrier horse for that suite and "the internet"

According to Frank's Corner you can run both MS Office and Internet Explorer on the Linux desktop. And...he shows you how.

Implementing it corporate wide would be the real trick...

Re:Apps Define the OS?

[southpolesammy]

Or more succinctly, getting support for it in Corporate America would be the trick.

Right...

[Svartalf]

Here's a clue for ya... The most fundamental improvements in everything were when everyone wasn't patent-happy. In fact, Patents as we have them are a recent thing- only about 250 years old. The current thinking on Patents is actually only about 20 or so old. It doesn't help things. In some cases, it actually HURTS things.

Patents do not guarantee protection on your IP - You've got to have the money in hand to successfully mount a legal offensive to defend the IP, be it Copyright or Patent.

Patents do not guarantee that you have every angle solidly held. It takes a good attorney (more cash...) and care to not make the initial filings on something overbroad. If it's overbroad, it'll get overturned if there's a request to review- almost every time.

Patents only work within the confines of countries that honor them. If they don't, they protect nothing. If you don't file them in various places, even the ones that honor them may not protect you because you've not filed in all the right places (more money yet again...).

Basically, a Patent is a mixed bag- it all depends on what you're talking about. In the case of the stuff I've got pending, it's relevent, but we're still going to have to have the money to defend the Patent. Some of the stuff that people like Bill and Co., and Bezos are filing are BOGUS and are part of the problem. They don't do anything but put Patent Attorneys on payroll.