Through the Patent Looking Glass with Microsoft

Andy Updegrove writes "By now you've probably read more than you want to about Microsoft's announcement that it owns 235 patents underlying leading open source software, including many opinions about whether Microsoft's new assertions do, or don't, represent a real threat to Linux, OpenOffice, and other OSS. To get to the bottom of the issue, though, you have to take a deep dive into how patent cross licensing works these days. When you do, you realize that patents don't mean what they used to, and have far more defensive than offensive value in the marketplace today. It also becomes apparent that it really doesn't matter whether Microsoft has valid patents or not, because so many other companies do as well. Today, what companies worry about isn't asserting their patents against other companies, but maintaining their freedom of activity. In this case, the open source community can simply ride the coattails of the major vendors, because Microsoft doesn't hold enough cards to win the hand, much less the game." Relatedly The Register is reporting that the author of the main report being used by Microsoft to support their patent claims has come out against Microsoft's interpretation of his work and Jonathan Schwartz gives some free advice to the overly litigious.

Comments

What Linus and M$ have to lose.

[twitter]

Linus is obviously going to call it FUD just as Gates will obviously say it isn't. You're not going to get an unbiased response from people who have so much to gain or lose,

Linux is GPL, so it does not have owners. Ten cents and the sum total of what Linux has in Linux licensing revenue will get you a chicklet. The only thing he and the rest of us have to lose is software freedom. The rest of the world is not going to let M$ walk away with that one, no matter how many empty threats M$ can cook up.

This is the last FUD M$ has, it's all downhill for them now. The truth is out so they have already lost.