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

And why the Heck Not!

[TechnoGrl]

After all, it's worked out so well for SCO ....

  I really do actually remember when SCO, Borland and, yes, even M$oft were the good guys ....

Time for a change

Re:Not Sound business, total FUD...

[Oliver Defacszio]

Yeah, you're right, Microsoft should sit around and allow its IP to be stolen, if that's the case, by a bunch of self-satisfied nerds. Maybe once you're old enough to have a job, you'll understand the ways of the real world.

Re:Not FUD, sound business tactics

[killjoe]

Wow somebody defends MS anonymously on slashdot and gets modded up to 5!.

So much for linux bias around here.

Re:The F word

[rumblin'rabbit]

I would suggest that even if you think it's FUD, you should refrain from calling it that. Why?

• It's a turn off for people who have not taken a position on subject, the very people you want to convince. To them it just sounds like name calling.
• We all think we're right, and are often convinced that only people with impure motives could possibly disagree with us. By easing up on the name calling, we're recognizing and compensating for our own biases.
• It distracts from the important task of pointing out exactly why the article is so badly misguided.

Re:More FUD from MS

[LifesABeach]

Makes sense when we see the code that Ms.Gates won't show us; My computer lab aid says to watch out for 3rd party products that you can't compile on YOUR machine. Of course if you have Faith, then believe. I had Faith when I was 13; I didn't believe her then. But I could be wrong. There has to be some brain dead mouse molester that thinks Ms.Steve Ballmer can sue all the violators in Elbonia for patent infringements; Hey! Just like Ms.SCO!

Re:The F word

[rumblin'rabbit]

The question is not whether it is FUD. The question is whether it is smart or constructive to call it FUD.

An important distinction. and apparantly a subtle one.

As to who it doesn't impress, I would suggest just about everyone.

Re:Troll

[ChrisGilliard]

I wonder who are the moderators that could mod you Insightful. I would have moderated you Troll. Do you really know what would happen if Microsoft would be stupid enough to sue Linux for patent infringement? IBM and these guys will immediatly sue them back for every patent they hold and Microsoft is using. How will this be a good thing for Microsoft's shareholders?

Sorry, nice try, but you're the troll. If you took my full quote, "If someone materially infriges on a corpoations patents and there are substantial damages to the corporations ability to make money, the corporation has a duty to it's shareholders to enforce the patents." I clearly state that if there are substantial damages to the ability to make money. So there are various scenarios where they would not sue, but Balmer is really just stating the obvious. If you have trouble because of the name Microsoft being in this, just imagine it's some other company. What if CEO of company A said, "Well, I think there are experts who claim company B 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." Is this something that would be a shocker? No, it's stating the obvious.