Ballmer Repeats Threats Against Linux

daria42 writes "Steve Ballmer has reissued Microsoft's patent threat against Linux, warning open-source vendors that they must respect his company's intellectual property. In a no-nonsense presentation to New York financial analysts last week, Microsoft's chief executive said the company's partnership with Novell, which it signed in November 2006, "demonstrated clearly the value of intellectual property, even in the open-source world.""

Comments

I do not get this

[Reverse Gear]

I wonder how Balmer thinks that they are going to sue something that no one owns, that no one made.

Is he going to sue anyone who uses this?
Is he going to sue those who hoste the code?

From the article it seems it is mostly the Linux vendors that Ballmer wants to target.

The US is, as far as I know, the only country that has implented all these sick software patent laws until now, how are they going to sue a UK based company?

With the current state of things the worst that could happen is that companies stop using Linux in the US, I don't see how they want to sue anyone based in Europe?
Would the US government then start supporting Microsoft in trade wars?

This whole software patent thing is beyond my understanding, I wonder if anyone out there really get the idea behind this?

Re:I do not get this

[Anonymous Coward]

There's another name for this technique: "protection money". You don't actually need a reason to request such money, you just need to be strong enough.

Re:I do not get this

[Frosty Piss]

I wonder how Balmer thinks that they are going to sue something that no one owns, that no one made.

Is he going to sue anyone who uses this?

Is he going to sue those who hosts the code?

Yes.

And, it looks like the EU is starting to move the same direction as the USA with respect to IP laws, so don't think you Europians will get a "walk" on this. Microsoft sees a major crack in their entire philosophy of business, and they will use their finantial advantage to stamp out those who get in their way. Watch out, SCO was just fodder, the real fight is yet to come.

Re:I do not get this

[Stormwatch]

Nobody will stop using linux because of Balmers idiotic statements. There is no way the company I work for would shell out the $$$$$ necessary to change out linux for Windows Server 2003. The caos company wide would be awful!

That's not the point. He wants to scare companies away from moving to Linux in the first place.

Re:I do not get this

[raffe]

They will and can sue Red Hat. Red Hat sells the software that Microsoft claims to own ip in. Red Hat will not sue any person that has contributed code to them. No, IBM wont come to the rescue, only you and I can do that. So do buy a copy of there software to support them. Or you can do as I do, become a member of fsf here

Re:I do not get this

[robyannetta]

I'd love to read Steve Jobs' reply to the "BSD is dying" argument.

Re:I do not get this

[CmdrGravy]

Microsoft is a multinational company, they could sue anyone anywhere. Well they could try but in countries which don't have software patents they're not likely to get very far.

Re:I do not get this

[Mick Ohrberg]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it does appear that the 'new black' in business philosophy these days is "If I can't out-compete you, I'm going to try to out-litigate you". Then again, business is turning into a spectator sport.

Re:I do not get this

[truthsearch]

This is exactly right. Ballmer is the mob boss threatening to kill you if you don't pay up. The mob boss knows it's bad for business to actually kill everyone who owes you money, because then they can't pay. But Ballmer's words are even less intimidating because everyone knows that if they had any case legally they would have used it by now. Their stock has been relatively flat for more than 5 years and profits were barely higher last year. The only event investors look forward to is new releases of their 2 cash cows. If they actually had IP to leverage they could rake in billions. There's no reason to wait years to do it.

All of his talk it hot air. He's hoping to convince investors to bump up his stock. That's why he's trying to convince analysts to raise their estimates. Fortunately most seem to be smart enough to wait for an actual significant lawsuit before reporting that MSFT is set to raise a fortune leveraging this IP.

Re:I do not get this

[sconeu]

There software. There castle. Oh, I thought we were just talking that way!

Re:I do not get this

[Citizen of Earth]

There's no reason to wait years to do it.

Yes, let's play Global Thermonuclear War.

One reason that Microsoft doesn't start suing Linux vendors and users is that there are so many trivial software patents around owned by numerous other industry players that they might very well launch a devastating attack on Microsoft. I'm sure that if IBM put effort into it, it could find that Microsoft is violating 1,000 of its patents. And Microsoft would find that IBM is violating 300 of its patents. And the other players launch off their missiles. Industry-wide disaster ensues.

The only winning move is not to play.

Re:I do not get this

[npsimons]

The only winning move is not to play.

Ha! Cute and pop culture reference all in one! I bet you actually believe that too. Let me give you a hint: no one would die if everyone started suing everyone else for patent violation. At worst, it would destroy the industry, in which case something better would spring up in it's place. Ever hear of supply and demand? More likely (and a better outcome) is that it would do massive damage to a lot of companies and point out how destructive and backwards software patents really are. Then people would demand patent reform and maybe we could go back to the important business of advancing the art. The only similarity that the current patent madness has with cold war MAD is the stupidity and shortsightedness of those involved. The results of ending the ceasefire aren't even comparable, even on an analogy level.

Re:I do not get this

[dwandy]

"If I can't out-compete you, I'm going to try to out-litigate you"

Maybe I just don't see it elsewhere, but it seems that this is an American phenomenon.
For example, when vehicle emissions standards starting increasing a while back, US automakers hired lobyists to change the law, while the Japanese hired engineers to meet the law.
One country's cars now meet emissions world wide, and the other makes cars that can't be sold in various markets.

I know lobbying is not the same as litigating, but imho it's the same mentality: If you can't compete with your product, compete by working the legal system.

Re:I do not get this

[HermMunster]

Microsoft is faltering under Steve Ballmer. It has had almost 30 years of dominance but with Ballmer in charge it is loosing its edge. This is because Ballmer controls by threats.

How is it that a company such as Microsoft feels they can enter our homes and rifle through our stuff to prove that we are stealing from them? That's what their DRM and WGA is all about. You would never let anyone enter your home, even the police, without a warrant, to go through your stuff in order to prove you have stolen something. Our computers are an extension of our homes. You would never let a private individual come into your home and search it. You should not be allowing Microsoft to do that.

Ballmer knows his Vista is a series of technologies that are used to do just that. I suspect there are many other hidden technologies which they have incorporated into the OS to keep them in control. Well, Vista is a pig with lipstick. Ballmer reminds me of the joke of the farmer who wanted the prize pig at the county fair so he stuck a cork in the pigs ass in order to make it appear larger than it was. One day at the fair the monkey got curious and pulled the cork. Shit went flying. It was quite laughable to see the poor monkey working so hard to get the cork back in the pigs ass.

Right now Vista isn't selling. Ballmer proclaims it is the pirates and threatens everyone. He threatens to kick up the WGA levels in Vista. This is something no one I have heard from even attempts to analyze. What are those levels? Did everyone agree to those extremely strict levels when they purchased Vista. Did they even know that those were there? Are they spying on the user? If so, are they not in violation of many State and Federal laws?

What Ballmer doesn't want to accept is that the reason Vista isn't selling is because it is a bloated piece of DRM lopped on top of XP with a pretty interface which can easily be gotten by using another OS and installing Beryl. What Ballmer doesn't accept is that we don't want their DRM. We don't want their CRM. We don't want those huge hardware requirements to get a simple half-decade long update to XP to run on our computers. We don't want the hassles of their weak security parading as strength. Of course you all have heard about how any malware program with a setup program runs as administrator. That's a HUGE HUGE HUGE security hole and essentially wipes their security off the map. Also their UAC boxes provide virtually no information about what is happening so everyone either turns it off or always allows.

So, we have a not so secure OS that has a pretty face that is filled with what I suspect are hidden technologies that govern the DRM and CRM that the consumer knows nothing about and didn't agree to purchase nor license, and that this is done possibly in violation of State and Federal laws. This makes this a pig with lipstick. It could only happen from a monopoly company. Competition would not allow this.

So now that the argument about piracy of Vista is failing (remember back when Gates and company stated that it would be impossible to pirate Vista?), they are realizing that people are choosing to change to Linux instead of Vista due to a stronger security, open tools, rapid development, a prettier interface, a solid core OS Kernel, and all the features one would expect from an OS of that level (Vista's level), and more. So he simply starts the FUD machine.

Microsoft can't sue anyone until they tell those companies exactly what they are doing wrong or they'll be seen as litigious fools. They have to tell them precisely what the infringements are and give them an opportunity to fix them. Even if they do file suit without doing that it will still require that they show where Linux is infringing and that Microsoft own the IP specific to those infringements. They also have to go against some of the largest corporations in the world.

You should not misinterpret what Ballmer is doing. He's just doing more of this management by threat pract

Details, Ballmer or it ain't so

[RichMan]

IBM is still digging into SCO's near corpse to find the detials of SCO's accusations. Which were, are and for ever more shall be totally bogus.

Ballmer needs to stop saying "they stole our IP" and start citing versions, files, lines and patent numbers. Otherwise Microsoft looks like a bigger SCO. And that is not a pretty picture for a company like Microsoft intends itself to be.

Re:Details, Ballmer or it ain't so

[pilgrim23]

I thought this played out once before in court. Only that time poor poor Microsoft was the innocent defendent and big bad Apple was the Evil litigator. As I recall, Apple lost. Ballmer should remember his chair is for sitting on and calm down!

Whatever

[TheWoozle]

To: Steve Ballmer

Dear sir,

Either file suit against the parties infringing on your precious IP, or SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Sincerely,
Everyone

P.S. - Vista blows donkey balls.

Re:Whatever

[debest]

Either file suit against the parties infringing on your precious IP, or SHUT THE FUCK UP.

That's the beauty of FUD. Microsoft's voice is always going to be louder than ours. We can tell them to STFU, but they don't have to! We can call their bluff, and demand they file their lawsuits against open-source "patent infringers". They don't have to!

FUD can kill a traditional competitor (see Amdahl vs IBM, where I believe the term was coined), but against OSS it is only a bump in the road. You're right, in that eventaully Microsoft will actually have to have friendly legislation and/or success with patents to keep its current position of dominance in the software world, but in the meantime FUD is all they have, and you can be sure that they will continue slinging it hard for the foreseeable future (whether we like it or not).

Distraction

[technomancerX]

Ballmer's Thought Process:

Hmmm Vista is floundering and we need to distract the press from this and the piracy angle isn't working... what can we do... oh yeah, let's threaten open source, that should distract them.

Alternately

Hmmm Vista sales are floundering, and even I'm not stupid enough to really think it's piracy causing it, Hmmmm.... it must be that open source stuff, time to threaten to sue somebody.

Don't you get it? Linux is stealing their candy.

[danpsmith]

Hobbyists and free software advocates have succeeded where Bill Gates said they could not. They have put out a usable, alternative to solution to just about everything. This irritates people in the lock'em'in software business, as suddenly now they have competition that not only won't just go away, but is demanding and developing alternative standards to proprietary formats.

They are not only threatening as a competitor, but they threaten companies like MS with eventual obsolescence. And let's face it: no company wants to deal with something that will eventually put them out of business if it succeeds.

What's funny about Linux is that it is sort of a Microsoft tactic to get rid of competitors, namely, we'll give it away. That's how they put Netscape out of business, how they attained so much market share in media players, etc. Linux is the ultimate "we'll give it away" solution, giving away everything even the OS.

You can see why software businesses could feel threatened by Linux, but legally, they probably don't have a leg to stand on either way. Nobody can say they own a patent to a generic GUI, when Apple, MS, OS/2, etc. etc. have all used GUIs. Linux is in little to no legal trouble. But it's the last leg that they can stand on when competing for enterprise marketshare when all the other FUD runs through.

They are protecting what may soon be a failing business model: the proprietary software development house.

How long ago was it?

[kosh]

How long ago was it that Microsoft was complaining that the better product should prevail due to competition and not through litigation in the courts?

Seems that they are now changing their tune... I'm not surprised...

BSA

[wytcld]

Here's the threat. The Business Software Alliance already can come in and audit companies for bootleg copies of Microsoft software. If they've forced their way in to do an audit anyway, and they find "unauthorized copies" of Microsoft-claimed "IP" - which is to say, Linux running - then in the future they can try to levy the same penalties against you as they currently do for running more copies of Office than you can produce licenses for.

From our perspective, this absolutely has to be stopped. But the BSA already has the legal authority to get in the door in many cases, and once they're looking at your systems for Microsoft wares, they'd better be checking the Linux boxes for Word running under Wine anyway - so checking them for Linux is a minor afterthought.

Re:Don't you get it? Linux is stealing their candy

[JoshJ]

It's already a failing business model. Unfortunately, they're doing the same thing the RIAA is- paying the government to keep them afloat.

Microsoft isn't the only one- look at Autodesk.

20 years stealing, and now this?

[boxlight]

Microsoft spent the last 20 years copying ideas from Apple, Netscape, Sun, AOL, Burst, and Google -- and now they have the nerve to complain that Linux looks like Windows??

The threat is real but empty

[CodeShark]

Suppose Ballmer et. al manage to isolate some IP, manage to win the case, and then try to sue any company that sells or distributes the offending IP. Could put a serious cash flow dent in a competitor for a short period of time. Assume also that the M$ police can manage to pull an RIAA and threaten any non-corporate entity with a "roll your own" Linux distribution, and spend a hellacious amount of money doing it. An expenditure that probably wouldn't go over real well with the stock holders or market analysts.

In both cases there would be a brief chilling effect on the competition -- until the offending IP is pulled out of the Linux core and it is recompiled, at which point M$ has nothing. Except that in the mean time they may get hauled back into court for anti-monopoly practices, and that offending the highly intelligent Linux community is about as smart as kicking over a nest of fire ants -- because every major bit of M$ released code will be targeted for suing M$ for their own patent infringing code, etc.

So Ballmer's threat is akin to a robber pulling a gun in a doughnut shop only to discover that he is surrounded by a room full of well-armed, motivated policeman who would like nothing more than to put his sorry a$$ back where it belongs. We all know this, and M$ knows it as well. But so long as he can sell a few more copies of Vista, XP, etc. Ballmer has little to lose by acting the bully in the mean time.

Re:The threat is real but empty

[remmelt]

I agree with your statement, but:

> until the offending IP is pulled out of the Linux core

remember that when we're talking about a software PATENT, it's not the implementation that is patented, it's the idea. Simplified, if MS would hold the patent on "interfacing with a magnetic data carrier", Linux couldn't be able to have code that saves stuff on a disk, because that's what the patent covers. It's not the actual code that was stolen/borrowed, it's the idea of "interfacing with a magnetic data carrier" that cannot be implemented in any way without licensing the idea from the patent's owner.

Now you can see why software patents are bullshit.

It's all about FUD...

[fizzbin]

otherwise MS would actually name the patents, so Open-Source projects would avaoid them, and so Open-Source users would be confident of their status.

But confidence in Opoen-Source is exactly what MS doesn't want.

Everything old is new again.

[mosch]

It's just a FUD campaign.

If they had a real argument they would have taken it to court by now. Failure to do so would be contrary to MSFT shareholder interests.

Shame

[MBHkewl]

Shame on us, the Linux community, for stealing things like graphical interfaces and claiming it's ours.
Shame on us for stealing enhanced search ideas and claiming it's ours.

Oh, wait...

Re:Not necessarily.

[Maxo-Texas]

It occurs to me that any linux expert who inspected the microsoft code or infringement on linux or other patents would then be "polluted" with regard to further linux work.

He's talking to financial analysts.

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Remember folks, Ballmer was talking to financial analysts, not technology people. Ballmer loves to grandstand when he's talking to money. And someday his big mouth is going to get him in trouble.

Sabre rattling

[slofstra]

This sabre rattling against Linux has potential adverse effects for the entire economy, if Microsoft is able to push Windows into every corner. Windows is just terrible in certain situations, such as ATMs and aruably, pocket PCs and handheld devices. Perhaps the government should be looking into anti-trust; we need to see competition in the market place for operating systems.

Re:Don't you get it? Linux is stealing their candy

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish to GOD all you pro-FOSS people could be sent back to the IT industry of the 70's so you could EXPERIENCE the 666-kinds of HELL that it was being in IT when no two computer manufacturer's systems were interoperable (cripes even most computers from the SAME manufacturer required significant effort to work co-operatively unless they were identical models!). -- On a side note, this probably goes a long way to explaining why IBM is so enthralled with this approach: through it they see a return to the era when that business-model allowed them to rule the IT world.

Anyway, getting back to my point, at least if you could actually spend some time in that technological quagmire, you'd get a clue as to why that glow that YOU see coming off your idea of 80,000+ home-brewed Linux distros scattered across a hundred million unique installations ISN'T some nirvana-like halo, but rather the resurgent glow of the burning pits that we all crawled out of 25 years ago...

Going from a time of near-global compatibility and interoperability (now) to virtually zero of either (without significant individual knowledge of C/C++ and the MAKE utility) (as you imagine it) is TRULY a trip back into hell...

Re:The Next Thing You Know....

[Locutus]

Makes me wonder if some small garage GNU/Linux shop can't sue Microsoft for these statements. Some garage shop with an annual revenue stream in the 10's of thousands( or less ) so that any counter suit, if any, couldn't justify millions or billions, dozens of lawyers over years like the SCO case has done. Just a quiet local court case to see WTF Balmer is talking about and to get this out in the open ASAP.

I was really disappointed that Iowa was bought-out by MSFT like all the others. I was just getting used to the Friday night laughs from public court documents from that case. And was so looking forward to hearing the MSFT Execs on the stand.

LoB

We're so lucky to have Novell!

[Weedlekin]

Because who else except a floundering closed-source company that bought a Linux distro in a desperate attempt to find a new business model could unanimously act as IP Position spokesman for the entire "open source world", as His Ballmerness so eloquently put it?

SCO & Microsoft

[geoff lane]

Just as the SCO matter looks like winding down (with The SCO Group running out of money to fund the bogus legal action) up pops Microsoft repeating exactly the same accusations and, in the same manner as Darl, not identifying the IP that they claim is theirs.

It's time to challenge Microsoft. Either identify by file and line, the code that they believe is their IP or shut up.

Linux source is visible to all. Even Ballmer can download and grep through it. SCO did and couldn't find their IP.

Microsoft think that they are legally untouchable. Prove them wrong.

Re:Mutually Assured Destruciton

[guruevi]

Secretary: Darkness came with them, and they cried with the voices of death

Re:Didn't IBM pledge to let LINUX use their Patent

[RalphSouth]

I think you are right; but, more interesting is the whole question of whether software patents serve any public good at all. The original reason for patents is to see to it that inventors are rewarded for innovations that might be very expensive to develop. It seems to me that a lot software patents tend to look like someone patenting air. The expensive part of software development is almost constant in a given software development process. The special little algorithms that people develop don't look the same to me as the car Alternator. (I think that was a Chrysler innovation.)

Take 100 groups of people working on the problems solved by some of these patents. Now project how many of these groups would fail to solve the problem. Would the answer be larger than 1 in most cases? The only utility of software patents is to increase the number of billable hours in corporate law firms.

It seems clear to me...

[JustNiz]

that Microsoft funded/used/fronted SCO for a dummy run to see how the world would respond, and what mistakes not to make when MS do their own run against Linux.

Given that the SCO case is still ongoing (just), it seems Microsoft is setting up for the longest legal battle in history. This makes sense as it is just their same old tried-and-tested strategy where they would just basically tie competition up in so much red tape that they went under from excessive legal bills. It seems Microsoft can't innovative in their business or legal strategy as well as their products.

Microsoft can only win against Linux if they fight a war of attrition, because their argument has no real merit but MS do have almost limitless financial/legal resources so any sort of business entity that is in the Linux camp will really need to watch out.

The good thing is that the very nature of Open Source is that millions of individuals contribute, meaning Microsoft has to sue the world (read: including their own customer base) to really win.

Re:It seems clear to me...

[Zonk (troll)]

The good thing is that the very nature of Open Source is that millions of individuals contribute, meaning Microsoft has to sue the world (read: including their own customer base) to really win. No. To win all they need to do have enough patents and lawyers to make everything else risky to use. If businesses have the choice of buying Windows desktops and servers or getting sued, Microsoft will win. If oems are only allowed to sell Windows systems or be sued, Microsoft will win.

It doesn't even matter if the patents are valid or not. Microsoft can easily bankrupt your business with legal fees.

Why is a lawsuit war a disaster?

[Livius]

If the bloated corporations abusing intellectual property law started suing each other into bankrupcy, the downside would be... what, exactly?

Re:Why is a lawsuit war a disaster?

[ashtophoenix]

A huge waste of time, money and resources, and possibly an economic breakdown.

Tux Says

[HangingChad]

Bring it, Monkey Boy.

It was a huge mistake trying to tarnish the open source community by financing the SCO fiasco. All that did is get them angry and organized. Now they know how to respond to vague IP threats. If there was anything remotely indecent about the code in Linux, it would have already turned up. Instead SCO provides a Linux code proof set, public record to back it up and a convenient online repository for all the case documentation.

If this is Microsoft threatening Linux, then they're doing it will all the skill and clarity they demonstrated developing Zune.

Maybe if you'd shut up and build an operating system worth a crap and stop treating your customers like criminals, Linux wouldn't be nearly so much competition. But that's too much like real work. Isn't that right, fat boy?

Remember, the Zune is named after Creative's Zen.

[Futurepower(R)]

I agree, Ballmer is a bully. Ballmer has taken his ignorant behavior to an extreme, in my opinion: He is a prime example of someone who lacks social skills and technical insight, who can only survive in a technical world by being adversarial toward those who would rather not have a fight.

Don't forget: Microsoft's Zune music player is named after Creative's excellent Zen Player. Aside from being morally criminal to infringe on someone else's intellectual property, it's just mean.

If the world were technically knowledgeable enough not to be locked into Microsoft's file formats and virtual OS monopoly, and other adversarial behavior, Microsoft could not make a profit.

Somebody has to ask "what patents?"

[RelliK]

I am amazed this has not been done already. Some authority figure in the open source community (be it RMS, Linus, FSF, RedHat -- whatever) must stand up and say "what patents?". They must write an open letter to Ballmer asking him to disclose with specificity what patents he believes apply to Linux, what parts of Linux (file, version, lines of code) he believes infringe on said patents, etc. This is the only way to stop the FUD. If Microsoft replies, we can either remove the allegedly infringing code or debunk their claims. If Microsoft fails to reply, everyone will see that they are full of shit. Either way we come out ahead.

It would be worthwhile to point out that the strategy of vague, unsubstantiated accusations has already failed for Microsoft's minion, SCO, when IBM asked them in legal filings the exact same question and it turned out that SCO was bluffing all along.

You can post here on /. till you're blue in the face, but until there is an official response from an open source authority figure the FUD will not stop.

Lawyers get rich.

[FatSean]

Everyone loses when lawyers get rich gaming the system of laws that they created.

Re:Bad analogy

[Kadin2048]

IBM has 300,000 employees. Sun has 40,000. Microsoft has 71,000.

If those companies all suddenly went under, that would be ~411,000 people out of work, including a large number of developers and maintainers of critical OSS projects. That's a whole lot of people who would suddenly need to turn their attention from their side-projects and onto more crucial issues, like eating. Many of those people would probably be forced to leave the tech sector to find work, and if you're not doing something computer-related in your 9-to-5, it's a lot more difficult to stay current in the field, and keep your level of interest up. A whole lot of talent would just move on to other, non-IT things.

It would probably cause a stock-selling panic that could bankrupt other tech companies. (Hell, IBM and MSFT are basically blue chips; if they collapsed, the whole economy would catch a cold.) The resulting salary depression would make IT-related occupations a basically impossible way to make a living, and drive generations of future students away from the field. (I mean, when programming pays worse than pizza delivery, why spend $50k in school?) Not to mention the fact that IBM in particular is one of the few companies doing anything akin to basic research any more. Who's going to keep doing that, Dell? I don't think so.

Saying that those three companies could annihilate each other without any fallout or collateral damage is ridiculous.

Sure, the lights probably wouldn't go out in Manhattan, but it would be the worst thing to happen to the high-tech industry since the dot-com bubble burst, and it would probably even dwarf that.

No such thing as "IP"

[Lost Penguin]

IP does not exist.

Patents
Copyrights
Methods and Concepts
Trademarks

Which one?
What file and line number of Linux does he claim infringes?
Without that he is failing to mitigate damages, which is his responsibility. /not a lawyer.

Re:More FUD from Microsoft

[dcam]

Hey d3xt3r,

Patents are published and can therefore be read by linux developers.

You sir, are ignorant.

Unstoppable force, meet immovable object

[Whuffo]

Microsoft has a long history of crushing any company they saw as a competitor. Not just outcompeting, crushing. It's their modus operandi.

Now they've identified Linux as a competitor. And they're embarking on a campaign of FUD to soften their competitor up for crushing. This time it's different, though. Linux isn't a company or a person (not even Linus) - it's a collaborative effort of hundreds or thousands of developers all over the world. Individually they may be "weak" but as Linux they're very, very strong. Strong enough to stand up to Microsoft - and deal that monopolist some real damage.

SCO was a test case; use those fools in Utah to run a feint against a perceived foe. That's not turning out well; their patsy is about to have their hind parts handed to them in court. The resultant smoking crater should be informative to Ballmer & Co., but it's not likely they're sufficiently clueful to walk away from a bad end.

So they'll continue to rattle sabres - and when Ballmer & Co. whip themselves up to a sufficient level of courage to do battle with the Linux beast, they'll get their hind parts handed to them as well. It won't be a pretty battle and many, many outsiders will be called upon to assist the Microsofties in their campaign. Ultimately, it won't make any difference. They're going to set themselves against the vast army of developers and be consumed in the resulting deflagragration.

Watch carefully - Ballmer & Co. are experts in decimating their competition. They've never imagined that they'd come up against an implacable foe much, much larger than themselves. That day is coming very soon and the IT world will never be the same afterward.