Microsoft Taking Heat For Patent Stance

Yesterday Novell released a statement disavowing Steve Ballmer's claim that Linux infringes Microsoft's IP. Linux-watch.com reports that Microsoft quickly responded with a statement of its own that softened, but did not entirely back away from, Ballmer's claim (but the article offers no link to such a statement). xtaski writes, "Everyone took notice when Ballmer spewed forth FUD about Microsoft and Linux IP. Now CIOs are asking just what did Ballmer think he was doing? They are not fooled — but rather, a little angry. ComputerWorld covers the news including one CIO who says 'There were some applications I had been thinking about moving to a Microsoft platform, but this has now totally alienated me from Microsoft.'" And an anonymous reader points us to the statement by the Open Invention Network — whose investors include IBM, Novell, Sony, Red Hat, Philips and NEC — on the Microsoft-Novell agreement. From the statement: "OIN continues to support the Linux community's ability to collaborate and innovate. Through the accumulation of patents that may be used to shield the Linux environment, including users of Linux software, OIN has obviated the need for offers of protection from others."

Comments

Eben Moglen on the Novell-Microsoft deal and GPLv3

[jbn-o]

Prof. Eben Moglen says that GPLv3 will prevent a user's loss of freedom in light of the details of the Novell-Microsoft deal. He also takes the open source movement's lack of focus on user's freedom to task by ignoring "the politics" of the situation, leaving it ripe for being moved closer to what proprietors want.

Re:By the same token...

[BeBoxer]

if some corporate whistle blower were to come forward, and show that Microsoft has used even one small piece of GPL'ed code in it's Windows product, the entire product would then be bound by the GPL

False. This is actually a little bit of M$ FUD which you have somehow bought into. If Microsoft was found to have infringing GPL code in Windows, one option would be to GPL all of Windows. The other, more likely option, would be to simply remove the offending code. The exact same think any open source project would do if it was found to have infringing code found in it.

The idea that companies need to be afraid of having their closed source application forced open because some GPL code slipped in is one of the FUD meme's the Microsoft throws around to try and limit open source adoption. The reality is that the only companies that get screwed by the GPL are the ones who insist on trying to distribute GPL binaries without source knowingly even after they've been asked not to.