Ballmer Won't Dismiss Idea of Suits Against Linux

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."

Comments

More FUD from MS

[carsonc]

More FUD from MS Desperate times call for desperate measures. What to say, Microsoft is getting desperate. To be coming out making direct statements like this show's that Ballmer is worried about his future; he really screwed up with Vista.
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:More FUD from MS

[gentlemen_loser]

If companies are incorporating patented MS technology into their Linux distros, then why should he rule out going after them? Anybody has to assume they will if they think they have a case; it's only FUD if they do it without a case.

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.

Re:More FUD from MS

[Ungrounded Lightning]

If companies are incorporating patented MS technology into their Linux distros, then why should he rule out going after them? Anybody has to assume they will if they think they have a case; it's only FUD if they do it without a case.

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.

Who is or represents Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who exactly do you sue? Linus Torvalds? Stallman? A bunch of working class coders who send in patches in their spare time?

Microsoft is flailing

[jimmyhat3939]

I just wish Microsoft would stop with this behavior and actually work on their core products. It's been nearly 5 years since the last major revision of Windows--it's getting kind of ridiculous.

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:Not FUD, sound business tactics

[heatdeath]

They're sound business tactics, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're right or make sense. Leveraging a monopoly is also a very sound business tactic.

Re:The F word

[hunterx11]

But it is FUD. The term has nothing to do with the accuracy or fairness of claims; rather it is used for claims intend to discourage people from using a product regardless of the merit of the claims. Here, Ballmer is by his own admission only speculating that Microsoft could sue. Why not simply look into it and sue or not sue? Because this way, he can pre-emptively discourage the use of Linux.