Slashdot Mirror
So What If Linux Infringes On Microsoft IP?
Mr Men writes to mention a ZDNet blog entry by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes wondering aloud if maybe, just maybe, Microsoft isn't lying about having patents that are part of Linux. "Come on, no matter how much of a Linux fan you are, you have to admit that there's at least a chance that Linux does indeed infringe on Microsoft's patents. After all, Microsoft does hold a lot of patents and while Linux is open source and we can all take a look at the source code, only Microsoft has access to most of its source code so it isn't all that difficult for it to prove — to itself at any rate — that there are IP infringements contained in Linux. After all, before IBM handed over some 500 patents to the open source community, it's pretty clear that Linux was infringing some of them. Given that, why is it so hard to believe that the same isn't going on with Microsoft?" Even then, he goes on to say, so what if they do? It's not like they're going to go after us with a 'Linux tax.' Kingsley-Hughes imagines that, for the most part, Microsoft is just going to sit on this info and use it to form more and more profitable deals. Better than the alternative, I guess.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
The USA is not that big a market, compared to the EU, Asia etc. Lots of companies have no problems at all concentrating fully on products even if they cannot be sold in the US.
it's in my head
First, I think we can reasonably say that the risk is about patent infrigment here, and not source code copying.
I think all Linux and OSS developers know they are living with a Damocles sword above their head : the FOSS community does not apply patents, implement a lot of trivial-but-patented ideas and, for one, I have been wondering why MS didn't attack Linux yet.
I now have an idealistic answer to this question. I think that most big patent holders also live with another Damocles sword. The value of their companies is (partly) related to the number of patent they own. The current system do not care about the individual value of patent, just about their numbers. I think that this system is deeply flawed but that it just keep on working because most shareholders believe in it. Now imagine the Redmond Behemoth clashing with the FOSS insurgency. Both sides are well known, if not of the mainstream public, at least in the IT field, including IT decision makers. Such a debate would very quickly point the flaws of the system and may even be able to disrupt it. Plus, the FOSS is more able to gain public support, considering that even if you can portray them as "IP thiefs", as we use these IP to create products for everybody, we can easily be seen as Robin Hoodesque thiefs.
Would I be in the skin of a Redmon lawyer or decision maker, I would be VERY careful about this issue.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
For every project you could name there is one almost the same just a few clicks away.
If QT & Qtopia broke any patents they would have been sued long ago but then we would switch to wx perhaps for some other widget set. There's plenty to choose from.
My Unix desktop is a straight port of plan9's rio. No patent trouble there and if there was AT&T/Lucent would have been in trouble long long ago when they had any money.
When you have a long memory in this industry, you've heard many of the battles already played out and can pick a path of least risk.
BSD went through this phase already. That litigation was one of the reasons Linux was adopted in many places.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
A recent study confirmed my opinion about patents.
They couldn't find any relationship between innovation and the number of patents a corporation has. It's nice to have some patents to use in a defensive manner. But they don't give you much leverage over the competetion.
If you effectively want to use patents you have to several things. Develop the patent. apply for it and actively defend against any infringement. If you do the later 2, you have less time for development. Which results in loss of your customers, who go over to the competition.
Companies like Google have to invent new stuff in order to stay ahead of the competititon. They don't have the time to wonder about patent infringement.
Most patents nowadays concern many small improvements that are obvious. Patents that the competition has to avoid in order to compete. At the moment patents allow a monopoly for the big guys. The innovative small guys remain screwed and face unfair competition.
No wonder that big American corporations are pushing for software patents in the EU. It sure would help them against the local competition.
What if it's GCC that is affected ?
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter