Slashdot Mirror
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.""
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?
So MS is now short for MegaSCO?
There is a war going on for your mind.
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.
when he throws a chair.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
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.
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
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.
.technomancer
Does anyone remember that South Park episode where Cartman became a cop?
Just think of Ballmer with those aviator sunglasses on (that had the reflection of mountains in the background) shouting: 'You will respect my intellectual propertayyyyy!!!'
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
I somehow doubt Microsoft would be foolish enough to actually fire off patent suits . . . especially when there are other big players with massive patent portfolios and a vested interest in Linux . . .
Secretary: "Mr. Ballmer, I have a group of IBM attorneys in the lobby asking to see you, shall I let them in?"
Ballmer: "My God Man! Do they want to settle my patent suit against Linux?"
Secretary: "I'm not sure what they want sir . . . but they brought a flag.
Linus Torvalds will come home and find the head of a penguin in his bed.
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.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
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...
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.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
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.
Care about privacy? Read this!
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??
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.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
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.
Fizz
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 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...
Mod points are a dangerous tool. Abuse them wisely.
It is very nice to hear Mr Ballmer yelling (cursing) this way, it means he is affraid for open source, open source is making more revenue then Mr ballmer wants.
So guys keep on the good work, when Mr Ballmer is yelling like a fool, the work is very good.
Thank you developers for this nice moment.
You are reissuing empty threat against Open Source. (Cancel/Allow)?
In Soviet Russia, dots slash you!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/07/microsoft_ pays_excel_man/
There's precidence in MS losing a patent case. It can happen.
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.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
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.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
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.
IBM has a big stake in LINUX continuing as it is. A relatively large percentage of their big mainframes are sold with LINUX running on them. The reason for having a large number of patents is to have the leverage to negotiate mutual use agreements. Balmer and MS will cause trouble by forcing some sort of mutual use agreement while spreading fear and doubt in the potential users of LINUX.
MS has got to be feeling some pressure with lack luster VISTA success. They have huge amounts of cash; but, the business analysts have to be wondering how long it will last if their cash cows start to under produce. When stocks sell at large multiples of their earnings the price is set by confidence that the company's earnings will increase at a steady rate. If confidence in the company's ability should fail, MS would be very disrupted. It hasn't happened yet; but, they have to allay the fears of people who recommend stocks.
Look at him go!
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
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?
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
'the Linux world can replace that code with something else that is not infringing'
I think he realises they claims that OSS violates MS Intelluctual Property are void. Else why are they going about reinventing open protocols. According to the Halloween documents one way of deny OSS projects entry into the market is to de-commoditize protocols & applications.
davecb5620@gmail.com
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.
IBM has a big stake in LINUX continuing as it is.
So does Google, Yahoo, and a number of other serious players. Steve's threats may frankly bite him in the ass.
http://www.xkcd.com/c225.html
with 50 billion bucks and a still-functioning business model to use in suing the world. M$ is so fricken big that one workable legal tactic is to hire all the best lawfirms so you can't get a good lawyer.
I don't think he's blowing smoke as some have suggested. I really think M$ wants to sue anyone and everyone until they have finally broken Linux.
M$'s real strategic difficulty is doing this without triggering antitrust actions, class action suits from competitors, a genuine revolt from other countries, the software industry,etc. Global-sized coordinated opposition is preventing M$ from launching RIAA-style attacks on the world.
Oh, and one other thing is at least slowing them down: The complete and utter invalidity in any such claims.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
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.
From the TFA:
Maybe my interpretation is wrong, but I interpreted this as him clearly stating that Linux is cheaper than Windows. What ever happened to "Get the Facts?"
The reason Ballmer doesn't say anything is simple. If he did, one or more of three things would happen:
* The code would be immediately rewritten.
* The patent would be challenged and they would likely lose it
* Patent wars between Linux supporters and Microsoft would begin, with the end result that either all the patents would be invalidated or no software would be able to ship or patents would be so massively cross-licensed that they would effectively be meaningless.
By playing coy, Ballmer is actually hurting his case. If he's bluffing, he's basically running a protection racket. He's basically saying we know there's a problem but we're not going to tell you what it is because we want to ambush you in the future.
Neither of these two options are looked too kindly by judges.
And since all Linux projects are done out in the open with full disclosure and most have the policy that "if there is a dispute, we'll rewrite the code" (even Mono has this provision), and is often done by volunteers who want to fill a need (e.g. schools, 3rd world, etc), it would be easy to portray Linux in a favourable light to the judge.
Unfortunately, Novell handed them a source of SCO-like FUD that obscures these issues.
So Novell, here's my request to you. Even if you can't get out of the MS deal, could you cut the knees off of the MS FUD by writing a legal document that states categorically that:
1) The deal is not about patents and if Microsoft believes that the deal is, then it now hereby waves any protection from Microsoft
2) That to the best of Novell's knowledge, Linux is not in violation of any patents.
3) That unless Ballmer states what Linux IP is in place, Novell will have no choice but to file a sue Microsoft on Liable and/or extortion charges.
If Novell did this, and followed through on (3) with the help of other Linux distros if Ballmer doesn't shut up, then the Novell-MS deal FUD would vanish and Novell would regain much of it's previous respect.
Here's a question. If Linux was a single company's product like MS Windows is of Microsoft, couldn't legal measures be taken against the convicted monopoly arch-rival from this sort of action? That is, why can't the SCO/MS strategy of FUD without providing evidence be outlawed? Maybe we need a new law to outlaw FUD, especially when it comes from a convicted monopoly. Something to cut through the legal games.
Certainly the totally opaque Novell deal is not clear at all. That journalists and publications who publish such drivel are even respected is also bizarre to me.
It seems that as governments of individual jurisdictions switch more and more to Linux, they will get more tired of FUD and perhaps even lean toward outlawing or defanging such unfounded threats. If so that would mean Balmer's tactics amount to rushing to spread as much FUD as possible before this window closes.
To me, linux is already a key part of the U.S.' national infrastructure. Why can't it do anything to muzzle this crap? FUD is bad for the economy.
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.
If I remember correctly, its all about integration to reverse engineered protocols such as SMB and storage architecture such as NTFS. Microsoft holds a patent on these, and doesn't want anyone integrating without paying a ridiculous license fee. The argument is because of documentation around the protocols, that much of it wasn't reverse engineered but based on proprietary documentation. At the end of the day, these are valid patents.
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
Windows is a closed source system. How exactly do you think your intellectual property got into Linux? The Linux kernel on the other hand is open source. If there's code in Windows that is also in the Linux kernel, it would only make sense that your developers put it there by copying it from Linux.
You sir, are an ignorant jackass.
From TFA: "We are higher priced, but we bring greater value," Ballmer added."
From my windows server systeminfo:
OS Name: Microsoft(R) Windows(R) Server 2003, Standard Edition
OS Version: 5.2.3790 Service Pack 1 Build 3790
System Up Time: 13 Days, 17 Hours, 46 Minutes, 39 Seconds
Linux server 1:
$ uptime
16:23:45 up 162 days, 18:58, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.01
Linux server 2:
$ uptime
16:23:21 up 162 days, 19:01, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
The windows server is for active directory and acts as a file and printer server. The linux servers are web, database, mail, and file servers. The windows server cost over $3,000 for hardware and software. The more powerful and versatile linux servers were $400 specials. Tell me where the value is, Steve-o.
Oh, and the reason the linux server uptime is 162 days is because something blew up at the local power substation and we had no power for a day.
Coming from the chairman of a company which is:
1) being sued for including mp3 software without a full patent license
2) being sued by AT&T by shipping development work overseas to avoid US patents
3) got succesfully sued by Eolas for the browser plugins patent infringement
4) is currently being sued by a company called Visto for mobile email and data patent infringements
5) got successfully sued by Timeline for patent infringement in SQL Server
6) is being sued by a company called VirnetX for patent infringement in VPN
the list goes on...
If Microsoft truly thought they had the best product available on the market, they wouldn't need to issue threats like these. If Windows Vista was truly revolutionary, if Windows Server 2003 was in fact the best server software to load everything onto (web, database, file servers and so on) then they could comfortably sit back and watch while Linux distros raced around trying to show that their products were truly better, when in fact they weren't. Sadly for Microsoft, they are honestly started to lose marketshare (on a whole) and are beginning to freak out. That's why Steve Ballmer throws chairs, that's why they give gross discounts to governments who consider switching to open source software, that's why Microsoft tells Linux vendors to "respect their intellectual property" or risk being sued. And the reality is that Microsoft has a ridiculous amount of money, so they could bury many Linux/open source vendors with paper and simply watch that target close it's doors.
If the bloated corporations abusing intellectual property law started suing each other into bankrupcy, the downside would be... what, exactly?
That Business Method Patents hinder innovation. How is it that one can patent isNot ("allows a comparison of two variables to determine if the two point to the same location in memory"), a one click shopping experience, and other Patently Absurd (tm) business logic ideas that there is almost NO WAY to circumvent and acheive the same result? One can patent a major idea and anyone else that infringes must pay. This is why companies build up huge portfolios of absurd, non novel concepts... Just so they can cross-license patents to even compete...
You make a program at home that solves some simple issue, and guess what... Probability is that you just violated someones bus method patent... How can such a system survive??? How can anyone survive with their own startup business?
I've read Slashdot for the last 5 years, and now I start posting... Go figure
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?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Why doesn't IBM or Redhat take MSFT to court and tell them to either substantiate their FUD or pay damages.
Because this is not a copyright battle. It is concepts and many things that open source didn't think were patentable, has been patented at about the same time as prior art, or before.
Remember the MS and Apple fight over a trash can. MS code for a trash can was not copied from Apple. MS lost because the trash can itself was patented. MS managed to slide by using a recycle bin as something that is not a trash can. They were sucessfull in noting a recycle bin is NOT a trashcan.
Linux can be attacked on this front and defending it and then changing it and cross licensing it would be very expensive.
The first shot over the bow has been fired.
The truth shall set you free!
Let;'s hear some patent numbers from Microsoft. Nobody will pay attention until Microsoft comes up with some specific claims. The SCO case has made that clear.
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.
The downside of Ballmer "crying wolf" like this is that it seriously pisses off developers.
It forces designers like myself to avoid Microsoft technologies and extensions to standards because they attract less support, indeed outright hatred. Exactly the same thing happened when Sun brought out the lawyers, about eight years ago, and as a result killed client-side Java.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
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.
/. 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.
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
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
The horrific thing about patenting of software, is that you don't need to show any code.
You just need a vaguely described process that you may or may not have implemented, once in a court of law the bets are off, a patent can be so spacious that it can encompass things that have absolutely nothing to do with a real solution in the real world, and this would need to be interpreted by people that are not remotely technicaly proficient. The only thing to would need to be "demonstrated" is that the "infringing" software does something vaguely similar to what is described by the patent. Neither part needs to show their code.
If the SCO fiasco has showed us something, is that no matter if reason is on your side, if a company as smalle as SCO in relative terms, with no merit whatsoecver on their allegations, in a copyright and contract dispute (which are far narrower in scope than patents) can drag a case for years, just imagine what MS could do using all their billions, They could arguably paralize any commercial realeases of any other competing software, then the use by any big companies or institutions. That my friends, would be the end of FOSS as a bussiness model for at least the duration of any trial.
If you guys in the US do not wake up and smell the coffee, you are going to drag us in a wolrd in which only megacorporations are allowed to do any thinking. You may think I am paranoid, but just look at MS, their intentions are all too clear to be ignored.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Everyone loses when lawyers get rich gaming the system of laws that they created.
Blar.
then what the hell did they pay Novel M$140 for?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
This was posted as Anonymous coward so highlighting it.
h tml
I googled it to check before I highlighted it. Appears to be true.
"ftp.exe copyright california"
http://seclists.org/bugtraq/1999/Aug/0234.html
The most interesting post was here:
http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2005/Mar/0880.
Where they showed how to check it yourself.
>>> post quote
I was curious about this.
on win2k :
C:\WINNT\system32>strings *.exe | grep -i university
C:\WINNT\system32>strings *.exe | grep -i california
C:\WINNT\system32\finger.exe: @(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the
University of California.
C:\WINNT\system32\FTP.EXE: @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the
University of California.
C:\WINNT\system32\NSLOOKUP.EXE: @(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of
the University of California.
C:\WINNT\system32\rcp.exe: @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the
University of California.
C:\WINNT\system32\rsh.exe: @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the
University of California.
C:\WINNT\system32>
on XP :
C:\WINDOWS\system32>strings *.exe | grep -i university
C:\WINDOWS\system32\finger.exe: @(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of
the University of California.
end quote.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
>P.S. - Vista blows donkey balls.
So much for Vista's "No animal testing" cruelty free status.
Someone should inform PETA.
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.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
IP does not exist.
/not a lawyer.
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.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
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.
Patents have always been good ammunition when companies engage in a battle. The way to reach agreements is to trade patents and pay money until an equilibrium of power is reached or until one of the two is crushed.
MS has identified Linux as a worthy opponent and is just engaging in its standard procedure. I really do not blame MS -- blame your idiotic patent laws that allow companies like MS (but also others, e.g. IBM) to patent every little trivial function in order to pile up ammunition. In a democracy, laws, and that includes patent laws, should be the result of what people want. Obviously the majority of people want a capitalism where big companies can crush small competitors by playing - among others - the pile of insane patents card.
He who can afford the better lawyers and the bigger number of simultanously ongoing trials wins.
People, you voted for the guys who made these laws.