Mark my words. In the next few years Microsoft will launch at least one lawsuits against its own customers for using Linux. They are going to leverage their massive patent portfolio to attempt to scare people away from open source by making an example of some unfortunate company. The SCO lawsuit was a test run of this strategy and although SCO screwed it up, Microsoft have lined up Novell to be their pawn for the next stage of their plans.

I´m sorry but you seem to have missed the big point here: Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents. In short, open source developers steal ideas from a profitable company. How is this right?

Open Source is just another business model, and if it want to compete it better do it by the rules, not masquerading as the "software love built"...

Given that I have been involved in multiple purchase decisions, it would be untrue to state that the cost factor was not included in making an OS choice. Linux was attractive because of the huge fixed cost we could eliminate.

Open Souce is not a romantic dream that corporates wish to follow. The rude truth is the bottom line. If I can run 500 servers @ 0.00 cost why wont I.

But it is becoming increasingly apparent that the hidden cost of support is killing us. The number of vendors we need to interface for Linux support as well as the poor documentation is making us migrate from Linux for our 99.99 apps. Can we have our Unix back?

Hilf's comments and Ballmer's latest grunts about suing customers for 'patent infringement' resonate with fear, raw terror informed by numbers that tell them a story of their own mortality. Unable to innovate ahead of the threat, they do what lawyers do best: delude their clients into believing their entitlement to infinite claims is but a law suit or memorandum away.

Unfortunately, MSFT is just one big, sloppy law firm that got its hands on an operating system and hired enough programmers to push it and some half-assed applications out the door while the lawyers organized chokepoints against competitors at the PC manufacturers. Shameless, self-deluded, and overstocked with lawyers, there is no shame or common sense to restrain the company - and no real technological leadership (since technology is, in MSFT's experience, just stuff you shovel into market voids created by legal strategy) to engage the company's energies.

The latest strategy of going directly to customers with claims that all FOSS is infringing 23,423,442 MSFT patents, entitling MSFT to unlimited claims, possibly more money than the entire capitalization of the world for the next 5000 years, will end in abject failure when really big companies like General Motors and Citi just tell Ballmer and Co. to take a hike.

Those companies have lawyers, too, and they have to put up with all manner of twits with JDs showing up threatening meritless penny ante law suits. The only thing that is novel about MSFT's approach is that a supposedly big software company would actually try to bluff and extort money out of its own customers with cotton candy patents that would not stand up to a strong belch much less a challenge in a patent court.

What next? Ballmer running around to the offices of his customers' executives, asking for ransom of their pets? Or MSFT sending them pictures of Ballmer posed with the heads of their pets in his mouth captioned "pay up or I go Ozzy on Fluffy!" ?

"Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents"

Oh, really? Please be specific.

Microsoft just keeps on getting creepier and creepier.

It's a "do business with us or else!" mentality that's akin to something from a b-movie script written for pre-schoolers.

To the troll who matter of factly stated: "Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents. In short, open source developers steal ideas from a profitable company."

Name the patents troll, so we can start the inevitable war. Enough of the FUD and BS coming from MS for way too many years.

This is what we have thus far from:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/

1. Linux kernel - violates 42 Microsoft patents.

2. The Linux graphical user interfaces - run afoul of another 65

3. The Open Office suite of programs - infringes 45 more.

4. E-mail programs infringe 15

5. While other assorted FOSS programs allegedly transgress 68.

All in all, a dual fully BS-centric attack by MS meant to destroy Linux while insuring that their bread-and-butter money makers (Office apps - Outlook, Word, Excel, etc) stop losing ground to alternative FOSS apps (until MS can come up with another strategy of attack).

Microsoft is a tired relic of the 20th century, spastically thrashing around in its death throes. This won't go on forever.

Funny thing. Bill et. al. didn't have the same compunction when they were ripping off Gary Kildahl and PARC in th '70s.

Funny thing. Bill et. al. didn't have the same compunction when they were ripping off Gary Kildahl and PARC in th '70/'80s.

M$ claimed that open source vilolated two hundred and some odd patents over a year ago. They was suposed to sue then. But they didnt! That company yells law-suits all the time. Remember "Mike Rowe" the teenager; they sued him because he had a web site named after his own birth right name, called "mikerowesoft.com"! and M$ sued him because his name resembled the company name. How sad and low can a company get! Its things like this that drives people to open source. I use MS for gaming only, but open source for every thing else!

"pay up or I go Ozzy on Fluffy!"
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

you guys captured my heart with that line. dang, now i have to continue reading your website and also bookmark it. let me open the gimp and see if i can make a graphic to match providing i don't get sick from looking at ballmers face.

"In short, open source developers steal ideas from a profitable company."

(a) you can't steal an idea - if you have an idea, someone else having it too (possibly independently) hasn't deprived you of it. The patent monopoly system itself is theft - theft from us all. And that's not even touching on the fact that patents aren't supposed to cover "ideas", only "implementations" in the first place (but I agree that in practice they effectively cover ideas in the USA).

(b) microsoft won't disclose _which_ patents linux is supposed to infringe??? Why? Because invaldiating prior art exists for almost all issued software patents, the USPTO being almost criminally incompetent at this stage. Microsoft _knows_ that its attempt at a state-endorsed extortion racket fails if its patents get overturned - and they would be overturned and/or coded around, soon after they identify with specificity what is being infringed (if anything). Actually, if microsoft themselves really opine that they won't reveal the patents, in case they are challenged, then they set themselves to lose them - because they are supposed to take steps to mitigate damages and act in good faith. Withholding such information is not acting in good faith.

(c) Microsoft's patent monopolies don't count outisde the USA anyway. America isn't the world, thankfully.

(d) Microsoft "steals" far more from other companies - if the patent cold war turns hot, Microsoft would be crushed by the likes of IBM.

"Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents"

Paul, I think you may be missing the point. That should read "Microsoft claims Linux violates 235 patents."

I've know these patents, and they would never stand up to prior art. For example, Microsoft patented the idea of symbolic file system links, a feature of every Unix platform since the 1970's.

The reason MS hasn't pursued these is most of them would be invalidated. Their only hope is to use these patents, which have not met challenge to date, to scare their customers onto paying royalties. But they have to do so carefully, since one of Linux' biggest corporate supporters is IBM, whose patent portfolio dwarfs Microsoft's by probably an order of magnitude. IBM laywers are probably chomping at the bit for MS to do this, since, while it wouldn't be "patent armageddon", it would certainly be a Microsoft Waterloo.

Linux developers haven't stolen any ideas from Microsoft, since none of us have read any Microsoft code, nor spent any time reading their patent filings. Most of the patents they have are for obvious inventions, obvious to all but those developers stuck in the inbred corporate culture of Microsoft product development.

Does this also include the BSDs? I like FreeBSD. It does everything that I need it to do.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court's recent decision on what constitutes patentable art will prevent Microsoft and other patent scavengers from mining frivolous claims "invented" or acquired purely as blocking strategies to challenge real risk-takers.

I can't think of a single mainstream Microsoft product that wasn't lifted in whole or in part (critical part) from someone else. It started with DOS (find an old copy of DOS 1.0 written by Seattle Computing who lifted it from Digital Research; search for "CPM" in the DOS (binary)), then Excel (Lotus<-Visicalc), then Word (Wordperfect), then Powerpoint (ExecuVision), then Windows (Apple<-Xerox PARC), then Access (Sybase), ....on and on.

Oh, BIll Gates wrote a good BASIC interpreter.

"Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents"

http://showusthecode.com/

By saying "There is big commercial [firms] like IBM and there is small commercial [firms] like Ubuntu" Microsoft means, 'People pay for open source'. This is obvious, and a good thing, from both the Free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html) and Open Source (http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php) perspectives. From Microsoft's perspective, they're bragging about losing business.

In regards to "open source developers steal ideas from a profitable company.", independent innovation is not a defense to patent infringement. So it doesn't matter if the second implementor "steals" the idea or not. As long as they're second, they can be sued.

Nonsense.

Someone whom I know recently said that Microsoft would evolve into a patent troll whose portfolio would become the main asset. Looking at this from a financial point of view:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/309852_software02.html
Software Notebook: Microsoft’s cash pile isn’t what it used to be

“But Microsoft has taken a series of steps to reduce its cash balance. Specifically, by Microsoft’s count, the company has paid out nearly $100 billion through dividends and repurchasing its own stock in the past five years.”

So, Microsoft has already lost over half of its cash pile, in just two years. Its recent financial figures came from the investors, not from sales.

http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070503/34354_id.html?.v=1
Microsoft’s Record Quarter: Shareholders Paid for Most of the Upside Surprise

“Said another way, Microsoft achieved record breaking earnings during the Vista launch quarter by taking money out of its assets, not through amazing sales of Vista and Office.” … Now taking money of its savings account isn’t necessarily a big deal… However, as a point in contrast, Apple Inc. has been launching a lot of products over the last nine months and has added almost $2 billion to its balance sheet and assets in the same period that Microsoft’s assets dropped $6 billion.”

I believe that now is the time when Microsoft will get very ugly. The anti-Google slurs and anti-Linux crusade have only just begun.

Sure is funny to see how this is playing out - on one hand we have "OSS is dead", and on the other we have "we will sue you out of existence".

What MS should be saying is, "We will out-innovate OSS and provide unmatched quality to our customers".

Microsoft's stance makes it look like a cornered rat. Sad, considering the stance they _should_ _be_ taking.

How can Linux of any flavor violate patents if MS is closed sourced? How are they going to prove that their code was infringed upon in court if all of the code in every MS product is not available for others to view?

MS is evil and this is just another example of an evil empire that will _try_ to scare people and companies into running away from Linux.

My version of Ubuntu is from South Africa and I don't think that MS's patents are valid there, so why should I be scared? To be honest, I wasn't scared anyway.

This is how companies act that are grasping for their last breat of air before they go down. Ballmer is desperate for another idea, if he ever had one of his own, and MS's new Vista is a corporate mistake and will be the final downfall of the behemoth.

The Linux community lives and MS is dead.

Linus is the new King, Bill. You must bow to your new master. We will overcome and conquer any advance by any MS entity. We are the revolution. We are the future. MS has stolen and copied for most of it's life and this is the result of the bad seed that they sowed long ago.

Thrash, crash, empty promises, stolen ideas....a horrible legacy that is about to go wrong, Bill.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

yah what paddy murphy and thomas said.

the constitution grants rights and protections to "We the People" not corporations.

Thomas hits the nail on the head:

"The reason MS hasn't pursued these is most of them would be invalidated."

And it's not just about, "scaring customers into paying royalties." It's their same old tactic: FUD.

Corporate decision-makers factor risk into decisions. FUD generates the perception of risk. This nudges the outcome of such decisions (product selection, architecture, design, etc.) in their favor a tad. In the big picture, that "tad" is hundreds of millions of dollars.

Fear, uncertainty and doubt. I don't want to get sued. Is my cost model accurate? What I have to pay royalties? My predecessor used M$, do I want to "stick my neck out"? What if my supplier of product X / service Y folds because of legal pressure or changes to their economics? Blah, blah, blah.... Fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

If they were smart... if they had any balls... what we would be seeing instead is OpenVista, with massive spin-offs into about 150-250 specialized, service-oriented companies.

But they have the strategic agility... the "turning radius"... of a battleship.

i have vista on 2 computers, they have each crashed about 8 times in 2 months, seems funny, if linux is stealing ms code why linux does not crash ???

Software patents are treacherous. Because every larger software program involves tens of thousands of ideas (algorithms, data structures, ...), it is virtually guaranteed that Linux infringes on some Microsoft patents and Windows infringes on some of the patents held by the companies participating in the Open Invention Network (OIN).

I doubt that Microsoft would risk an injunction on selling Windows (or Office) by filing a patent lawsuit against any of the companies participating in OIN. The patent scare is more valuable in the hands of salesmen than in the courtroom.

This is not about Microsoft VS Open Source Software. Its about an entire industry of commercial software providers trying to maintain the value of their software products. Microsoft spear heads commercial software. Microsoft generates billions of dollars a year. Governments are likely to side with Microsoft on legal issues because the system is based on capital. Governments would lose billions of dollars in taxes generated by Microsoft If people woke up and realized that free and open software solutions can do just about anything a Microsoft product can do. A copy of windows only has value if people use it. Several years ago I was asked how Microsoft could ever compete with free offerings like Linux. I knew Microsoft would reduce the prices of its offerings especially in emerging markets around the world and now we see 3.75 cents versions of windows for sale in poor markets. This reveals the real game. The profits that Microsoft makes are not justified and the world is beginning to see that. The windows operating system probably cost less than 5 dollars to manufacture package and distribute. What we get as consumers is a 5 dollar CD if that after distribution and if they can sell it for 3.75 and still make a profit that tells you how much it is really worth. The other 95 dollars is what we pay to use the software in the form of a license agreement. Now on each copy sold the government from local to federal collects taxes either in the form of sales taxes or corporate income taxes. I would guess around 12 to 14 dollars per copy if purchased by a end user at a store in the US. The vast majority of licenses are sold to computer manufactures who then resell the operating system installed on new computer equipment.

The Windows End User License Agreement is a tax on computer users. The operating system itself doesn't really have any value thus Microsoft doesn't sell you the operating system they sell you a license to use the operating system. Windows its self is worthless. Not only does the licensing model (EULA) tell us that the software is worthless but other offerings from the open source community also confirms this. The way in which Open Source Software is developed and distributed
gives you a peek into how much any Microsoft product is really worth. How is it developed? By a community of some paid and some volunteer software developers. How is it distributed? You download it and copy it to a CD. How much did all this cost the consumer? In most cases nothing. How do the developers get any return on their work? By providing other services like support and realizing the real value of the work in which they provide. They could never expect to make billions of dollars off of providing the coding that goes into the software. The people that do the coding at Microsoft don't make billions either its the share holders, officers, board those who do very little in the form of coding software that make all the money.

I can do some things on a windows based PC that I can not do on Linux or FreeBSD based machine. Like wise there are a many things I can do on a FreeBSD or Linux machine that I could never do on a Windows based machine. At this time the only thing that separates windows PC from a PC running Linux or FreeBSD is high end gaming and some high end multimedia applications. As for email, web browsing, instant messaging, CD/DVD burning, listening to music and DVDS any open source operating system is more than capable of functioning at this level. The vast majority of new computer users will never use a computer for more than that and Microsoft is well aware of it. Open Source software in most cases but maybe not by design is the sword that will force a fair distribution of capital in information technology as a whole (if the world as we know it is still around by then). It will help the guy who used to be able to assemble computer components and still sell the computer and make a profit. It gives the control back to small services providers and leverages the real value of something compiled once then sold over and over for billions of dollars in the form of a license to use. Microsoft is trying to prove to the world that its software offerings will continue to have value. If this was not the case Microsoft would not be asking the world to have faith in the value of its products by playing this patent game.

What has happened is that the quality of open source software has been greatly improved and has become more end user friendly. Now the world and especially Microsoft investors will want to know how the windows operating system will maintain its smoke screen of a monetary value. Microsoft is looking in the wrong place by threatening the use of litigation over patents. It will backfire because any smart investor knows that litigation means desperation. No investor wants to see a 4 or 5 year long battle over software patent issues. They don't reveal the alleged violations because they would be readily fixed. I expect that next quarter MSFT profits will be in decline. Taking companies to court that use Linux is not a reality. That would make any smart Investor run like hell. Just because you sue doesn't mean you win. Who would Microsoft sue if there was a possible patent violation the individual developer that wrote the code? No they would go after the companies that use the product. Investors don't see any profit coming out of litigation especially if when they could loose. Litigation is an expense and nothing more we are talking 250 plus possible cases of patent violations and 4 to 5 years to prove each one. Microsoft investors better run! They are telling you they don't have any other solution to the competitiveness of open source software solutions other then to go back and threaten to sue for something they are not willing to reveal. This is real FUD how will you fair? will you lose your money? You have to remember that those at the top already know the outcome. They stand to make billions of dollars off of you when they fall.

When sun gave up Solaris to open source it was because they had to not because they wanted it. When Microsoft open sources windows it will be to late too.

Microsoft is anti-capitalist. Microsoft is violating the liberty of the developers to create software and share it free of charge. This is also another MS FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt attack) to keep their customers kidnapped and avoid them to migrate to Linux or any other open source software. This is anti-capitalist, Microsoft is trying to stop the free competition.

All of the global 2000 run linux???? Right. I would be surprised if they dont. Most are multi thousand person companies and their IT is a rabit warren. I bet all of the global 2000 run windows as well and I bet that 95% use windows on the desktop and over 50% use it at enterprise server level. Statements like they ALL run linux are just so sad from a journalistic aspect.

Public developed linux is, correctly, dead. It is all corporately developed and has been since around 2000 when all the linux providers were floated or acquired.

I see more public open source development in the .Net world than i see in linux these days. Theres a huge amount of non-corporate work there.

IBM has tons of patents, and has had labs working on them since the 50s. MS's will be far less thats for sure.

Bill was babbling with these statements but there not for your average techos consumption. These are aimed squarely at CIO/CEO level.

Bring it on Microsoft... just remember that as soon as you do, you are attacking IBM. Yeah remember them? You screwed them a few years back. Pretty bad too. And to top it off, they use Linux for their business. You sue Linux you are suing IBM. And if you want to play patent games, they have a patent portfolio that dwarfs yours.

So please, it would be wonderful to watch you get anhilliated just like SCO did. Remember them? They tried something very similar.

"Public developed linux is, correctly, dead"

Really? I suppose all this (
http://lwn.net/Articles/222773/) research done by Jon Corbet (of LWN, which you obviously haven't heard of) is just straws from his hat then.

Individuals on THEIR OWN TIME are STILL THE LARGEST CONTRIBUTORS TO FREE/OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE.

What else would you expect from a company headed by people for whom no amount of money is ever enough? Seems to me these folks need some significant time with a good therapist. They are way too willing to turn into lying, cheating, money-grubbing souls to make sure they own the world. How many billions of personal wealth does it take for Steve and Bill to feel that they have enough? Are they really that needy? Apparently so...

It seems that LOTS of people here don't understand the difference between Copyright and Patent protections! That's understandable, because software wasn't patentable until relatively recently.

Without being clear on the distinctions, you won't understand what's going on here.

Here's a little summary. Pay attention, because it's VERY important:

Copyright is the one we're all familiar with: the one who writes something (or their employer, if for hire) can control when someone is allowed to copy it, and sue you if you do without permission. Simple.

Patents are a whole other animal, which is why everyone is so eager to get software patents. Some salient features of patents (vs copyright):

o A patent protects an "invention" (aka the IDEA).

o If someone else has the same idea and does the same thing after you file your patent, they are violating the patent.

o If someone does the same thing a different way, they are probably still in violation.

o The patent office does their best to verify that there's no pre-existing patent for your idea, but they only look at patents.

o Even so, if you can demonstrate that you, or anyone else (other than the patent holder), was doing the patented thing before it was patented ("prior art"), you can invalidate the patent.

o This is normally only done after you are sued for violating the patent.

A little ironic history: for many years (since the 60's, I think), the only "software" patent was for the "set user ID" feature of UNIX (probably infringed by "Run As" on Windows). AT&T (remember them?) submitted a patent application with a circuit that allegedly implemented the feature, but the patent covered other (i.e., software) implementations, as patents always do.

IMHO, permitting software patents is one of the top 10 mess-ups of all time of ANY regulatory agency. It's almost as if they couldn't stand being left out of the dot-bomb thing.

Microsoft is using mafia scare tactics.

Repeat after me, Microsoft is using mafia scare tactics.

Giving money to the mafia will not make it go away. Of course, something bad will happen to you if you do...

"I'm sorry but you seem to have missed the big point here: Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents."

That's what Microsoft says. It may even do so. Now, Microsoft isn't telling us what those patents are. Why do you think that is?

I'll tell you: because those patents aren't worth the paper they are printed on. If they were, Microsoft would simply try to enforce them. But Microsoft knows that most of them would be invalidated by prior art, and the rest are likely easy to work around.

While Microsoft has done some nice things, the company has invented nothing that is essential to the day to day use of a modern desktop or server machine.

This thread will either contain Linux fanboys, Microsoft shills who are paid to talk up Windows on forums (yes, they do exist, plenty of the Fortune 500 have them now...they're not stupid), or uneducated morons who think that they understand copyright and the patent system. Or trolls, because they're everywhere.

Which one are you? James falls into the third category, i.e. people who hear a supposed "fact" spewed out and automatically assume its true. The ignorant masses. If Microsoft said that "open source infringes upon 2 billion Microsoft patents," inbreds like James would lap it up.

People like Thomas at May 13, 2007 05:26 PM, who claims "I've know these patents, and they would never stand up to prior art," also fall into said category. IANAL, that amusing little acronym, was invented for people like Thomas. Unfortunately these web-board wonders think that the Internet gives them some kind of mystical insight into law and the legal system. They're no more informed than James, really, but they're dangerous in that they _claim_ to be informed. People lap up what _they_ say, even if it's wrong.

Then there's the deranged zealots like Evil Mind: "Microsoft is anti-capitalist. Microsoft is violating the liberty of the developers to create software and share it free of charge." This is what's known as "mouthspeak;" noise that technically forms words but doesn't really say a whole lot of anything. In addition he brings into the argument the bizarre notion that Microsoft is "anti-capitalist;" whether this is true or not it has nothing to do with the discussion, and only makes Evil Mind's zealotry more clear.

What's my point in writing all this? My point is that all of you are funny as hell. All yelling loudly, trolling each other, standing up on your soapboxes -- and what are you accomplishing? Absolutely nothing. If you really wanted to accomplish something you'd be out protesting or lobbying governments...instead you're all engaged in a game of one-upmanship that none of you are going to win. The rest of us will sit back and laugh at you, the unwashed masses, while we do the important work.

I'm sorry, this is just too funny!

I'm shocked, *SHOCKED* I tell you, that someone from Microsoft might have something bad, untruthful, or disingenuous to say about Linux. What's next, he'll try to claim that they're giving Linux away for FREE or something??

Mike
http://quicktrivia.com

If Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents.
Microsoft must be violating 1,000's of Linux patents..
Come on Microsoft.. start suing so we can have the opportunity to see all the stolen code you have in all your software.

"Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents"
Even it violates 532 patents they are valid in US only. There are 5 billions people in the world.
Do you think if China is going to pay ransom to MS?

@Paul:

I'm printing your check right now... $2500 sound right?

Love,

Steve B.

To guy with "Linux violates 235 Microsoft Patents" Microsoft should be forced to publish these alleged patent violations and not just make thinly veiled threats that is tantamount to defamation.

"I´m sorry but you seem to have missed the big point here: Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents. In short, open source developers steal ideas from a profitable company. How is this right?"

Don't you just love reading messages from shills?

Nice one Paul! Please pick up your check on the way out.

For a statement like 'the entirety of all opensource code violates 235 of our patents' to be even remotely plausible, Microsoft would have to have the resources to check _trillions_ of lines of code in excruciating detail and cross check these against every single one of their patents.

To put it bluntly, its phony and a scam - it would be a task requiring decades of work for a company the size of Microsoft. Picking even a single tiny piece of software and figuring out if each line of code violates any patent owned by Microsoft is a huge task in itself. And we are expected to believe that the kernel, X, KDE, Gnome, and OpenOffice - any or all versions of each suite.. have been scrutinized in this way? Bollocks!

Its more SCO fud. Except this time the attack vector is patents rather than copyright. Similarly flawed, similarly vague assurances - 'All this code is stealing from us! Are we going to be specific about breeches? No!! We cant because we know its all unjustifiable lies so we maintain the charade of victimhood as long as we can because it harms our competition and we are too stupid and incompetent to make money lawfully and honestly'.

Thats closer to the mark, I think.

Nice to see people like Rik van Riel and Dag Wieers checking in, hey guys! I'd be annoyed too if some fat, sweaty mongoloid representing a company with such an illustrious, well documented history of criminal behavior called me a thief.

Evidently Bill didn't even read (or write?) his own blog at http://port25.technet.com where he talks about commercial layers on open source being completely in line with the open source movement.

Bill Hilf's fallen for the same shortsightedness that affects most of Microsoft - that "Free Software" cannot contain "Commercial Software", etc.

To the extent that this is a cultural problem of Microsoft's, it's unfortunate. To the extent that it is deliberate, it's rather more than unfortunate - that's how many minds wasted chasing a chimaera?

The current "Patent infringement" fuss is much the same - if the patents are so weak that merely declaring them would lead to them being groklawed to death by the F/LOSS community, then what was the US PTO doing issuing them in the first place? (There is something called "bringing such-and-such into disrepute", and the USPTO's foot-in-mouth-to-the-elbow behaviour is nothing if not bringing the USPTO into disrepute.)

I have tried. I have been the guide to the perplexed, advising Microsoft to diversify into F/LOSS, and release the source code of the OSes, Office Suites and development tools which they've finished with, under a suitable OSI-approved license or one that would be approved by the OSI such as the template Microsoft Community License, so that they can maintain some form of presence in the marketplace.

But no, Microsoft has decided to go down with the ship, and are busily gnawing holes in the hull, just to make sure it happens. ;) You just can't talk to some people, can you?

Great!

I absolutely love some of the comments on here.

Microsoft have achieved several neat things with this patent scam:

1. They have created lots of new publicity for Free and Open Source software - that's good!

2. They have demonstrated they have no answer to FLOSS - that's good!

3. They have angered lots of their own customers - that's good!

All-in-all it's a brilliant piece of marketing from (what used to be) one of the best companies at marketing... Only it has worked against them!

Keep it up boys!

Yes MS is super dominant. But people do forget that Microsoft really makes money on two products. Windows and Office. The rest of the software pretty much loses money. If OSS starts eating heavily on these two markets (the exact two markets that Linux and OOo plays in)then MS is in a world of hurt. They have nothing else to back them up. Unlike other diverse companies like Symantec (as an example). Norton Utilities was about the only profitable software for the company. Then Norton Antivirus, now a very wide range. They can lose in one space but actually have a portfolio to fall back on. Microsft is trying to do this now, but have a problem Nothing to fall back on, if the platform switches to say a *nix world. They used to, way back when. Xenix I believe it was. Not anymore though.

The funny thing here is that Microsoft is claiming massive patent violations, but won't say which patents. Why not?

That is the real question here. If Microsoft is not just making the whole thing up (surely not?!) then you have to ask why these ultra-serious patents have to be kept in the dark.

Obviously, Microsoft doesn't dare to reveal these patents, in spite of all they've said.

Several possibilities:
1) For fear the patents wouldn't stand up to a court challenge. If the patent's invalidated, then they can't make any legal threats.
2) For fear the patents wouldn't stand up to a non-courtroom challenge. That is, that the patents are not good enough to extort -- I mean, encourage -- payment
3) For fear that identifying the patents publicly would allow those with expertise to identify the weak patents, ruining their value
4) For fear that the "patent infringement" could be easily removed from the software in question -- for example, by alternative solutions, disabling of features, adoption of a non-infringing library, etc.
5) For fear of the patents being invalidated by prior art. This is a big one, since software patents are notoriously not well-screened for prior art.
6) For fear that the patents would be invalidated under the newer patent rules laid out by the Supreme Court. Considering this is the most recent change to the patent landscape, and that only NOW is Microsoft changing its tactics on patent "enforcement", the timing raises a very big question
7) For fear that disclosing the actual patents would allow the "client" to get expert advice about how seriously to take them
8) For fear of patent retaliation. Many commercial supporters of open source software have bigger patent portfolios than Microsoft.

Just curious....

I have a crazy question, what is there to say that M$ is right and Linux does violate 235 patents? (Please don't flame me, let me finish) Could not M$ (being the low life they are) patent code and then submit that code into the open source community? They have produced FUD, lies, and other junk so it wouldn't surprise me to see them doing this. I'm not a programmer nor a lawyer and thats why I ask these questions. Does the OSS community keep track of who submits what, does the GPLv2 have any defense for something like this?

Was it significant that Apache was not named as voliating IIS patents? Probably. It's possible that the FUD will backfire in a very big way this time, and it could happen as soon as a customer goes to IBM, Red Hat, or any business that supports FOSS and says "We're going with Microsoft on this one because we fear being sued." At that point, I thing that IBM, Red Hat, or any business that supports FOSS would have pretty strong grounds for an unfair business practices lawsuit that basically says "Put up or Shut up." I doubt that MS is ready for that yet.

@Paul
Only people over the age of 15 should answer.
Patents retard development.
So, to avoid the patent argument, we should take off the mouse, icons, screensaver, menu's, oh and the GUI.
It's just a bunch of B$ that Microsoft is trying to force down our throats, because they are AFRAID, afraid of Linux emerging and challenging them. So they fight back with words, FUD, so they can be right.

I agree with Blah. There is a lot of hot air being generated here. If Microsoft is on the way down then why this trolling and shouting? It is ok to diss MS and be on the side of IBM and Linux?
Face it, the reason so many people are blowing hot air here is because they are frustrated that after years of predicting MS's doom it is still alive and kickin.

Reading such articles conjures up some thoughts when DOS and Windows got started. There were two windows systems competing, Microsoft and DeskView (if I can recall correctly). In the 80's most software was copy protected, and the biggest hobby for many was to crack the copy protection. Then Microsoft brought out it's software without copy protection, and a licence. It was quickly copied and most had a private copy. Companies bought the software, and the employees had pirate copies at home. Some believe that this was intended by MS, or maybe MS realised later that the lock-in mechanism may be the best marketing, helping all users to get to know how to work with Windows (only). Soon all other systems disappeared; like DeskView. Presently, schools and learning institutions get the software donated to prepare the future users and decision makers for using MS; company decision makers buy what they know and what most people can use, saving on costly training the users do at home on their own time.

Just having a possible "IP patent infringement" stick with which MS threaten to litigate is large enough for many; but many keep pirating. Companies with any sense will not risk pirating in their offices, they buy MS products and write it off as expenses. Most private individuals can't/won't write it off every 2-3 years.

On the one hand MS threats, on the other it does not do enough to stop piracy, intentionally keeping users locked into its products. Giving MS the benefit of doubt, they could do it but don't; so much expertise must be there for so much money they use to invest in R&D. This has been the most successful subliminal marketing ever. In this way it will not scare off enough people to go to Open-Source, keeping them hooked to buying and using only what they already know.

The threat may be real or not, but once MS comes out with what the so-called IP patients theft entails, it will get into a quagmire. Keeping it under cover and treating is like a like a blowfish (Tetraodontidae), fooling the adversary of it's 'size/power'. Most adversaries evade a conflict it cannot estimate the cost of. A legal a process may overstretch most companies' financial resources - then they rather licence. Who is going to call the bluff on this probable patents FUD with some Fugu?

What "patents"? Those 228 "Patents" mentioned in the paper Microsoft's Steve Ballmer refers to, are only concepts, without proof.

Those concepts somehow are inflated to various numbers in Ballmer's fantasy mind, to 235, and a previous quote of 283!

Show us the code, and we would comply. This is another ploy, like that of de-listed and almost defunct SCO. Sure, sue your customers!

So, sue me. Put up the patents, or shut up! You are the multiple convicted felon pirate, thief, Microsoft!

I do NOT subscribe to your "Trusted Partner" protection racket, and have migrated over 5,000 clients and customers, friends and family members, neighbors, and school systems to Open Source GNU/Linux and *BSD.

M$ spent $2 Billion of it's assets to stay viable, spread FUD; while in the same time, Apple earned $6 Billion from innovation! IBM earns it's annual $1+ Billion from Linux. It all points to a few sore losers at Felon parolee M$!

400+ million Internet users in 165 nations, all running Open Source based computers and servers, can't be wrong. The few FELON M$ FUDSTERS can't be right! Vista is a failure, M$ share holders know this, and can bail out now, before the crash.

Well, after reading over this posting, I have to say that many have been caught up in today's marketing tactics. Not by Microsoft, but by Apple and the open source movement.

If I recall correctly, in 1974, the Altair 8800 was born and then sold to MITS (Micro Instrument Telemetry Systems). Then in 1975, Bill Gates created the Altair BASICprogram. Then he joined forces with Paul Allen to write BASIC programs for Tandy & Apple. Then in 1977, Tandy created the TRS-80 and Apple created the Apple II. Then in 1979, IBM developed the IBM PC which was released in 1981.

The Apple was partially open source and the IBM was totally open source. Around this time, Digital Research owned the CP/M (Control Program/Microprocessor) operating system. IBM needed this O.S. to create their hardware products and Digital Research would not sell it.

So they went searching for an O.S. and found Seattle Computer Products' QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System). However, Bill Gates was already in talks to buy Seattle Computer Products (which he did) and renamed it Microsoft. Microsoft licensed the QDOS O.S. to IBM which in turn renamed it PC-DOS. Up to DOS v3.3, Microsoft & IBM developed this O.S. together.

At this time in history, Microsoft created MS-DOS with NO HELP from outsiders. Along with IBM and Microsoft, Bell Laboratories was busy creating an O.S. for mainframes called UNIX. Because of the fact that Windows & Unix share many commands and most directory commands, these programs are close cousins. However, Microsoft owns the license for DOS. This is where all of this fighting comes from, in my opinion.

Regardless of what side of the fence you stand on, all of these companies have had the same pool of resources & clients to grow from. All of these companies have had the whole world eating out of the palms of their hands for many-many years. And regardless of what you hear in the news, they all have decided to create "what they have" out of their creative talents and company directors. The only difference in them all is that Microsoft has over 80% of the world's machines running MS-DOS-WINDOWS. Not because of any arm-twisting or Mafia tactics (after all I am an Italian and would know) or any other strange voodoo.

Microsoft Windows climbed to the top because the "consumers of the world" decided to buy Windows...period. Microsoft did this at the direction of Bill Gates.

As for the comments about paid postings, scare tactics and the like, they must be referring to the Mac-Antics (like their misleading T.V. ads) and the open source gang.

Finally, if Microsoft can get sued for including music players, security software and components of their software with their O.S., why shouldn't they use the same legal tools to sue others? If you had rocks thrown at you over & over for no real reason, would you (at some point) pick a few up and toss them back! I will admit the fact that I would!

If you get anything out of this posting, get the facts that all of these companies are billion dollar corporations wanting your dollars - even open source. No business is a business without the money exchange. They all have products to offer and we all get to choose what works best for each of us. No one product will work best for all, but all products will require security countermeasures and regular maintenance!

Don't buy into these new age marketing tactics.

JLR: This "Microsoft make a profit, so pay taxes, so government will side with them" argument doesn't work, for every dollar of profit on Microsoft is one dollar from another company.

In addition, lower costs mean that more productivity will be had, since lower prices => higher volumes. Even if it's bad for Microsoft, this extra productivity will come on top of the dollar for dollar savings.

Thus, on economic grounds, government in general should side with competition.

Here are some reasons why they won't:
1. "What's good for General Motors is good for America". That is, a wealthy monopoly can look more better then a competitive market to a certain mind.
2. Many of those who save money from competition will live overseas. Although these companies will be able to provide cheaper goods as a result (ie. beneficial trade), that won't register as a plus in the minds of corporatists.
3. Some of the competiting providers will live overseas. More difficult this one, as you need to understand free market mechanisms to side with this.
4. To many, "Microsoft" means "the computing industry"; I've certainly had a few people suggest that I work for them as if it's the best thing since sliced bread.
5. Microsoft lobby hard and donate campaign funds.
6. Microsoft, as a large company, have a culture that matches that of government more than a smaller company would.

"The Apple was partially open source and the IBM was totally open source"
You don't know what you are talking about.

"Because of the fact that Windows & Unix share many commands and most directory commands, these programs are close cousins."
You really, really have no clue whatsoever.

But you'll probably get a check from the MS FUD department anyway.

Sash:

If I do not know what I am talking about, correct me! Life is a learning process, and I am willing to learn something new from your post. However, I do stand by what I said.

Also, if you do know what you are talking about, why is your name hidden from seeing who you are representing?

I represent myself and noone else! I can not be bought by anyone. I call it as I see it...without regard to who it affects. That is my choice and I will continue to respond to such out-in-out lies.

Oh, by the way, there is no such department as MS FUD! Sounds like you are working on your check from the Mac-Antics or open source gang!

TIM WESSON:
I believe you think there is Justice in this world. How did Microsoft kill Netscape and Real? You act as if the World really promotes competition. You need to look around and see that in every industry there are only 3 maybe 4 real players. Lets take web portals for instance. You have MSN, GOOGLE, YAHOO. Databases you have IBM, ORACLE, SAP. How much sales tax would be generated from my many installations of open source software? A big fat 0. I have purchased several notebooks that came preloaded with windows. I have also purchased one OEM copy of windows. The tax generated from my windows purchases probably generated around 200 dollars. Thats why Microsoft sits as a monopoly in the desktop operating system market. Its not because no one can make competing technology. Its because the law protects Microsoft when it should be punishing it. In fact its a matter of national security.There are no sales tax associated with providing services. Thus the company that gives away a open source operating system then offers support does not pay any sales tax. Thats why soon after I made that Post bill gates opens his trap screaming to the world windows generates 120 billion dollars annually. Trying to prove to the world that windows is worth something while the open source software says windows is worthless. Funny bill doesn't mention how much of that 120 billion dollars goes directly in his pocket and the pockets of his top execs. The people who run Microsoft are nothing short of thieves. You should really open your eyes. You should have taken the red pill. Its obvious they are holding on to windows because of its ability to generate revenue through theft. You buy a license use the software for 3 or 4 years then they stop providing support for that software basically expiring the license. I could understand why your local motor vehicle office would want you to renew your license every 6 years or so. But why should I have to almost be forced to purchase a new license for one of Microsoft's crappy operating systems? WHY? because Microsoft must show that windows has value. If they don't keep making new looking versions they don't make any money. Its a smoke screen for our software doesn't really have any value. But our licensing scheme does. So as long as the law protects these thieves we will have a sword called open source licenses.
Bill Gates gets 51 percent of Microsoft profits. He can Make Microsoft look financially good at any time. His top exec's account for a large amount of the rest of the stock. Get real.

Comparative potencies of opioids tramadol. Tramadol no prescription. Tramadol. Tramadol ultam

White tramadol with 377 on the side. Tramadol hcl liquid. Tramadol 100mg. Rxmedsasap com purchase tramadol

Omeprazole protonix. Protonix tablets. Protonix tablets. Protonix directions

Generic meridia. Re meridia. Meridia no perception. Loss meridia result weight

Cipro uses. Cipro flatulence. Cipro mixed with milk. Drug interactions cipro