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