Slashdot Mirror
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."
Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property. ... That SCO group, was it? And if not, I'm sure we can find someone to pretend to be an expert and falsify information like we paid SCO, er, *head explodes*
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I suspect that the Open Invention Network was set up to defend against this very possibility. If Microsoft makes a move the alliance will use their patents to counter. Which the companies involved have a pretty comprehensive portfolio.
Perhaps. Little shit lawsuits haven't stopped the RIAA. Microsoft has *much* more money then them, and they could possibly sue 100,000 people and not even sweat it. They could sue every Linux vendor, every medium and large enterprise using it, and do it all in your home country.
Most of the suits would be bullshit, but they could do some serious damage.
Microsoft has done some sordid things in their time, but I do fear the potential of Microsoft's wrath much more then anything else. With that much money on hand, there's no limit.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
What is going to take for the open source community to fight back? To stop porting code to Windows? To stop releasing Firefox for Windows? To create artificial incompatibilities - I know that's counter-productive, but let's talk politics and economics, for a second.
If the U.S. government won't use the Sherman Anti-trust Act to stop Microsoft, we need to rely on one of the fundamental principles of capitalism - Adam Smith's invisible hand. We need to stop buying, supporting, using, and working with Microsoft software. I do know how crazy that sounds, but revolutions require revolutionary thinking.
Many of you claim that you use Windows because your employers do - that's a crock. Make a personal choice. I work for a Fortune 50, in an enterprise-level position, and I haven't owned a Windows machine in over 5 years. I have may 98% of everything I need at home and work function with Mac OS or Linux. In the extreme cases (that last 2%), I use CrossOver Office. Once (ONCE) in the last five years, I had to borrow a colleagues' Windows machine to complete some training - because our server software was so out of date that the manufacturer's Mac drivers didn't support the old protocols. Every opportunity I have to recommend standards, I oppose the implementation of further Windows desktop or server deployments.
Not, seriously, I'm not crazy - I know all of this isn't feasible for all of you. Don't do anything to risk your livelihood, your sustainable income, or the ability to feed your family, but seriously ask yourself... "Am I doing everything I can to support Linux and Open Source, and help prevent the patent threat that Microsoft represents?"
So may on Slashdot these days have become Microsoft apologists - they aren't that bad... their UI is far superior... I have to use them at the office... all the good games are only written for Windows... ad nauseam. We need to use what power we have to stave off a serious threat to the technologies we are personally passionate about. We are the developers, the administrations, and the infrastructure of the nation and world's IT organizations. We must stand strong if we want to have any options. Because after Linux, it's Mac OS, then Solaris, then AIX, until all that's left is Windows. All that's left is crap. Yes, it is *that* slippery a slope.
And, if we stand united, we can affect Microsoft's profits. Make their shareholders listen. Make the board of directors require policy changes. I don't hate Microsoft or any company - but this "Patent Cold War" is despicable.
I am not advocating overnight change 180 degrees. Only that you ask yourself one simple question every day...
"Am I doing everything I can to enable choice in technology?"
"Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things."
Red Hat and Novell? They're big enough to fight it, and even if they lose, I was using GNU/Lunix before they were around, and it'll still be available after they're gone. IBM? IBM have been building a patent portfolia for decades. Bring it on!
Linus? Not even Microsoft could countenance a PR gaffe of that scale. People like Linus.
The FSF? Well, Stallman is no Linus in the popularity stakes, but I'm sure he'd relish the opportunity to be given a soapbox to point out that patents are indeed the big threat to competition and choice.
Whatever they do though, Microsoft will send one message loud and clear: they can't compete on technology, so they have to stifle the competition.
Is that really how desperate they've become? If so, then that's a good sign for their competitors, both Free and otherwise.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I think a lawsuit (if it happens) whould be to discourage businesses from
selecting Linux. I am sure there are a lot of corporate IT depts out there now
that at one time would never have considered Linux, now are selecting it for
all the reasons we use it for. Whats better is the growth has been a cushion
for these IT managers to not have to be out there on their own. One way
Microsoft can turn the table is to sow a little fear in the IT managers boss.
Just a wiff of a patent lawsuit or some form of injunction and it would have
the desired effect of steering some IT depts away from Linux and towards Microsoft.
Its a bit hard from a conceptual point of view to see how you pin the tail on this
one, whats injunct worthy here is not necessarily so elsewhere.
Not to mention the ill will it may engender. Still corporate Vista is on track
so they say, and thats the one Ballmer would be trying to force upon IT depts. The timing
would be right, sow the lawsuit, reap the rewards.
Hedley
I welcome a Microsoft lawsuit against Linux. If MS can point at Linux open source code and make claims -- the claims must be backed up with hard evidence (and stalling tactics would be frowned upon as bullying by many, thus hurting MS in the media). The Linux legal team could argue that since Microsoft has a right to view Linux code and raise legal concerns about it, then the Linux "team" (ie: open source community) must also have a right to view the Microsoft code, and scrutinize it heavily as well, for GPL infringements. Which code will have more infringements? Care to hazard a guess?
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Fedora's Greg DeKoenigsberg has finally posted a explanation on why Redhat has now included Mono in Fedora Core 5:
If Microsoft should choose to sue people for using projects under the umbrella such as Linux or MONO, the Mutually Assured Destruction clock hits midnight.Also see what Risk to USERS of open source from patent claims?
Windows
-------
Quality*
Usability (obviously)
Reliability**
Stability***
Linux
-----
Free (although pay versions are pricey)
Flexibility
Unix
Speed (for many server operations)
Security (clearly)
* Too many open source applications/components are low quality and crash prone. Even important ones such as gnome, KDE.
** Contrary to what most people here believe, Linux does reboot often when used heavily (especially but not exclusively NFS). Windows (since 2000) does not.
*** Stability. Windows is a stable platform. It's usually possible to run any program compiled on any Windows machine. With Linux, it takes the right libraries which come out all the time. No need for the GPL on Linux. Access to the source is not an ideal, it's mandatory.
So, seeing this, it's pretty much a tie between the two. It always depends on the application.
Nice, but where does that leave MS? Well, they have to innovate whereas the Linux crowd mostly doesn't. They just take closed source ideas and make them open. Of course, people who's aim is to make money must protect themselves.
Basically, the patent office is the excellent counter to the open source movement, which business plan is:
1-Steal ideas from others
2-Give away for free
3-People are addicted to crappy free stuff, which they accept because of low expectations
4-Charge for support
5-PROFIT!!!
If you don't like Windows, at least use Solaris or MacOS, and please stop hating America. (ok that part is trollish, but the rest is 100% true)
ciao!
Oh come on...the patient business is proving to be quit popular these days. How many companies are we reading about that can't make a dime and then they start to sue people and win because they filed some absure patient first? The "buy-it-now" patient and the double-click patient are great examples of this. Its the new business model. Can't make money by marketing and implementation. So now you can make money by thinking up something and then patienting.
./ equiquation
In traditional
1.) Think of idea
2.) Patient idea
3.) Wait for people to use for a good long time
4.) Sue
4a.) Stiffle innovation
5.) Profit
Software patients are bad, especially when the implementation of such is not know. Trade secrets should be used instead of clobbering competition. And with Micrsoft doing something like this, I would bet that a suit would emerge alledging anti-competitve behaviors. Besides with the EU and there MS is an evil monopoly attitude I would be that the EU might have some teeth where the US might not. Stang how playing internationally can lead to some serious problems for a company that won't play nice.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
Ballmer would have been derilict in his duty "to the stock holders" IF he hasn't had MS coders scouring the Linux kernel source, and other FOSS projects, for YEARS, on the lookout for stolen MS IP. After all, UNLIKE Microsoft's practices, the development of the Linux kernel, and other FOSS projects, has always been and still is an OPEN PROCESS!
Further, I have no doubt that Gate's lawyers would already have filed a legal action if they found MS IP in ANY FOSS project, especially the Linux kernel and FireFox. In fact, if they are aware of such violations they have a legal obligation to inform those projects so that the projects can mitigate the damage.
No, the REAL QUESTION is: "How much Linux & FOSS IP is hiding in Microsoft's secret code base? I'll wager it's MILLIONS of lines of code.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Unfortunately, that's simply not true. Perhaps the best example is the herd behavior that's very cleverly exploited by Microsoft. Not to mention the efficacy of Microsoft-sponsored FUD. There are actually people out there who consider that Windoze is more secure and stable ... no kiddin'.
The Raven
...to bring "Microsoft Democracy(R) and Peace(tm)" in the world. We will just "nuke" everyone who will stand in our way to our last fort. Now we see why there is software patents. They are weapons. And again "we didn't know what monster it will create" from creators. No, you didn't. Because those who had forseen it, won't make such system in the first place.
There is a reason why economics should be regulated by scientists.
It is getting more and more farse. It is really all? It is all you can do? West? It is called progress? Capitalism?
It is *sad* to see all what have been good, go. But it is has to go. Such thinking is dead end for free market and capitalism itself. Anyone sees it more and more.
Less on my emotional and moral rant... Now we see "then they fight you" phase at it's maximum. Question is - will be there "and then you win" phase for us, free/open source software and small business? What Microsoft, sinking like Titanic, will take with it?
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Any organization that applies for more than 1,000 patents in the previous year should be charged $100,000 per application. If they're going to bogg down the system they need to pay for it. That should at least slow them down a little while we wait for our congress to make software patents illegal (yeah, I know I'm dreaming).
Developers: We can use your help.
Ultimately, they concluded they needed to find a way to start all over with their OS. Microsoft will wind up doing the same, eventually.
I don't think that's a foregone conclusion, although it would be a welcome one. They're going to put out Vista first though, come hell or high water.
As the NYT article states, MS holds backwards compatibility sacred. And yes, they've broken it in small ways in the past (XP SP2 was probably one of the largest breaks in recent years), but nothing big. They're scared of breaking it in a "big" way because they know it could cause market fragmentation -- if I'm stuck on Windows because of some proprietary app that we lost the code for years ago and that's essential to my business, well if Windows 2010 breaks it, then why should I stick with Windows?
Frankly, I think they're a little over-concerned on this front. Yes, there are a number of apps out there like that. But that's solvable now -- they could spin up an entire virtualized copy of XP in a VM. It'd be slow, but it'd at least work. And most businesses would stick with Windows over the alternatives because that's what their IT knows, it has the widest range of apps available, and the widest hardware support.
Heck, how much crap could they be rid of if they simply ditched DOS and the entire 16-bit layer? What about for crap like WMF and other archaic data formats? Would ditching FAT32 as a bootable FS (or an FS for "special" files, like profiles and swap) buy anything?
Of course, I suspect that that's not the real sticking points when it comes to "compatibility". There's craptastic API calls all over the Windows API. There are entire layers of APIs that MS stopped promoting years ago, but are still used. And what about the craptastic IE5/6 renderer? Talk about a support and development nightmare.
Apple had the "fortune" circumstance of being a bit player. Microsoft doesn't. If Apple fragmented its market share, well, there wasn't all that much to lose in the first place. The same cannot be said for MS, and MS's entire business plan has revolved around a unified OS (supplied by it) for decades.
It's been nearly 5 years since the last major revision of Windows--it's getting kind of ridiculous.
.net2.0, MSSQL Server 2005, biztalk.
You are right, it has been nearly 5 years, but I don't know that it is getting ridiculous.
Windows XP is fast, (relatively) stable, pretty, and easy for the average user. Microsoft has kept it patched and updated (to some degree), and provided a service pack for some larger upgrades. And at the same time they've released several versions of media center, tablet pc, etc. All the while building the tools for their future strategies, including VS.net 2005,
What is it that you need so bad from Vista other than 3d desktop graphics? XP will still do everything my MacOSX box will do (and much faster) and with the proper tweaking, it'll do everything my Ubuntu laptop does as well. I personally prefer to work on a Linux box, but Windows XP is a great operating system, and I'm glad to have something stable enough that we don't have to upgrade every year like we used to do with windows.
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
MS is on the death march toward Vista, the death march toward Office 2007, the death march towards a .Net strategy.
Wars on the IE front, Wars on the server front, Wars on the standards fronts.
Legal battles with various corporations, the patent office, and various governments.
Let them come against Linux. Who are they going to pick a fight with, IBM? Redhat? Novell? Maybe this lawsuit will break the (MS) camel's back. I do know that discovery in any MS versus (Linux Corp.) case will be very, very interesting. Linux's dirty laundry is avaliable for everyone to see, but won't it be nice for (Linux Corp's) our lawyers to take a look at MS source, MS confidential e-mails, MS's internal documents?
I think so. Not to mention that IBM'll be able to contribute a bunch of that stuff from their current discovery involving MS's contacts with SCO. And if IBM gets drawn into (Linux Corp) versus MS, I think very interesting things will happen.
Not to mention that MS will never have any success versus Linux; even if they smear one linux company, the "community" will rewrite those portions, and move on.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
as some experts say
Can you cite the experts saying this? Just curious.
So they sue 100k people in the US. On the other side of the Atlanctic Ocean, all their precious patents are futile. Oh, and there is some woman in Brussells who is not very happy with the M$ monopoly. She's got some power over there. But the negative press about the suits will NOT be futile on the other side of the ocean. Linux will be totally legal in Europe, while every newspaper tells people 'they couldn't beat Linux by technology, now they try it The American Way' (Europeans are on average not very impressed by the merits of the US legal system).
The fun is, there is more than one ocean. On the other side of the Pacific one, US patents are worth less.
Trust me, I work for the government.
Daniel Lyons wrote a scathing article asking why Microsoft invited 300 of his fellow journalists to an "Important Event", which happened to be scheduled at the same time as Novell's BrainShare. He reported that MS techies demonstrated flying whizbangs with VISTA, doing tricks so complex that "Average User" could never master them. What he got out of the whole event was the VISTA was XP with additional worthless bloat just piled on.
Apparently, Lyons must have been taken to the woodshed by Forbes (or MS) and this article demonstrates Lyons in his usual role as MS lawn jockey, dutifully feeding canned questions to Ballmer.
The question of major interest, "will Microsoft sue Linux for IP violations?" is amazing in its bluff and bravado. There is little doubt that this question was designed to deflect attention away from the FAILED LAUNCH of VISTA and, simultaneously, to slow the already rapid adoption rate of Linux. It has failed on both counts because MS has become too transparent and too desparate.
Microsoft (Gates and Ballmer) know FULL WELL that if they sue the Linux kernel poject they have sued IBM, Novell, RedHat, HP, several foreign governments and agencies, not to mention the US DOD, the NYSE, movie studios and PDA manufacturers the world over. This will open up counter suits claiming that MS has stolen Linux code/IP. Then they'll have to PRODUCE their proof, which will open up their own code to public scrutiny. Considering how many times they have already been convicted of stealing other folks code Microsoft wouldn't survive that revelation.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Ballmer ought to worry about the problems with IE and the rest of Microsoft's junk. If he really wants to bury linux and google, then his company should turn out first rate products. Best way to beat the competition, and at the same time provide something socially useful. That should be Microsoft's mission, and it can also be their legacy. Yeah sure. Snakes on a plane
It's not impossible for Linux or Linux users to be in the wrong by, e.g., infringing MS's patents.
If there is infringement, regardless of MS's motives, they are justified in taking action to protect their patent rights.
Do you think Linux gets a free pass under the law, just because the developers are trying to do something nice?
Please, please, let him do it. I hope he does and the litigation kill Linux... IN COUNTRIES WHERE THERE ARE SOFTWARE PATENTS. Then when people start to notice that those countries have a competitive disadvantage (at least in some areas), with respect to others that can use Linux and other OSS perhaps the whole idea of software patents will go down the drain.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
People are sympathetic to software patent violations because software patents are stupid and unnecessary. If Microsoft needs to sue someone, how about copyright infringement. The patent system is broken, but at least copyright is broken in a way that isn't conducive to software companies.
I don't get it.
Years ago slashdot editor Katz wrote a silly entry about patents. Basically the letter a used in a font is already patented.
Infact you broke patent laws just by replying to this post. Probably a half a dozen.
You can not and I mean can not ever develop a software product that does not infringe on some patent.
Do you think Microsoft Windows is infringement free? I think not.
If Linux developers follow patent laws it would not be an operating sytem or even usable.
Its a serious problem.
http://saveie6.com/
If there is infringement, regardless of MS's motives, they are justified in taking action to protect their patent rights.
Possibly. But they might also be reasonably worried about the result of an actual court case. It's entirely possible that if they were to sue over linux permitting such things as double clicks or nested scrolling (which they also have a patent on), the courts just might laugh and throw out the patents.
Like atomic weapons, patents such as these are primarily useful as threats and PR tools. Actually using them in a legal action could easily end their usefulness.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
So IMNO the fact that he made the statement at all meets the above definition of a FUD attack.
Uhhh, actually, the interviewer brought it up and Ballmer avoided the question without limiting his options by committing to a course of action. "No, we aren't suing anyone (but that doesn't mean we can't.)"
From what I read of their behavior, it seems to be an unwritten policy of theirs to only file defensive patents.
Why should someone who, in utilizing software they have on their computer (that they may even have purchased), be subject to a lawsuit for double clicking on something? They can neither know that their use of the software is infringing, nor are they in a position to correct or remedy the situation, and they didn't act in any malicious way to commit the infringement, yet the law stands. It is a system that plainly doesn't work.
Thanks for noticing, for getting an on topic first post I was bitch slapped into karma oblivion. At least two people with mod points went back and knocked down all my previous posts to -1 with trolls, off topics and redundants. I was banned form posting for twenty-four hours and I'm not allowed to meta-moderate anymore:( There some mean people on /.