Ballmer Says: "Linux Infringes Our Intellectual Property"

So the truth comes out. Actually, I was going to post this here a while back but never got the time to do so. Anywho, apparently the whole "deal" with Novell was just so Microsoft wouldn't have to sue the pants off of every SuSE Linux user world-wide. A quote from the Computer World article:

A key element of the agreement now appears to be Novell's US$40 million payment to Microsoft in exchange for the latter company's pledge not to sue SUSE Linux users over possible patent violations.

 

Uh, excuse me? Patent violations? It's open source and released under the GNU/GPL! What are these violations?

 

Ballmer was more open Thursday.

 

"Novell pays us some money for the right to tell customers that anybody who uses SUSE Linux is appropriately covered," Ballmer said. This "is important to us, because [otherwise] we believe every Linux customer basically has an undisclosed balance-sheet liability."

 

"My reaction is that so far, what he [ballmer] said is just more FUD [fear, uncertainty and doubt]," said Pamela Jones, editor of the Groklaw.net blog, which tracks legal issues in the open-source community. "Let him sue if he thinks he has a valid claim, and we'll see how well his customers like it."

 

Officials at Red Hat, the leading Linux distributor, also dismissed Ballmer's comments. "We do not believe there is a need for or basis for the type of relationship defined in the Microsoft/Novell announcement," said Mark Webbink, deputy general counsel.

 

Red Hat has called Microsoft's legal threat a looming "innovation tax." It also said that it can protect its customers against patent claims.

 

You know, I think Microsoft should just go ahead and sue and then we'll see how everything works out. That would be Microsoft vs. Every Linux User in the World. This is very absurd. They might as well sue the Apache Software Foundation because the Apache Web Server "serves" pages and content just like it's (terrible quality) IIS server.

 

Anyways, full article here: http://www.computerworld.com.au/

 

[N]F

let's see, every Linux user can range from the ages 6 and up. Some may not even have the age of consent (for example, me), so how the hell can Microsoft even sue me?Plus, just like the hacker manifesto, take one of us down, there's a billion more just like me.xboxrulz

Yes I read the article on slashdot and everyone in the blog just laughed and pushed it aside.In my opinion it would be suicide for Microsoft to pursue this nonsense.How can Linux infringe upon Microsoft's "Intellectual Property" when they still have code in their kernel dating back to Windows 95. If you ask me its the other way around. I think Microsoft is just crying over the fact that Linux is steadily gaining power in the OS world and they can do nothing to stop its progress.

If you ask me its the other way around. I think Microsoft is just crying over the fact that Linux is steadily gaining power in the OS world and they can do nothing to stop its progress.

Exactly. Microsoft can't and won't accept change. You know what was big before Microsoft released Windows? Apple! Bill couldn't stand that another company was leading the market of operating systems so he copied and then put it on IBM's PC. Apple then had a fit and then they started suing each other and lots of other fun stuff. Then they finally settled down. Now, because the world is started going open source, Microsoft wants to do exactly what they did to Apple, just in a different form.

I also read that Microsoft made a similar move on RedHat, but RedHat made a smart move and told Microsoft, "No" so I wouldn't be surprised if the corporate idiots at Microsoft have been a little "moody" lately. The really do not like open source software.

[N]F

That's exactly what can happen when you have such as thing as "software patent". You North-American guys probably don't know but here in EU, it's not possible to apply for a patent for software. European parliament concluded that software patents would lessen innovation. And I wholeheartedly agree. Patents just don't work for software. Sure the companies need to have their products protected but that's what the copyrights are for.

That's exactly what can happen when you have such as thing as "software patent".
You North-American guys probably don't know but here in EU, it's not possible to apply for a patent for software. European parliament concluded that software patents would lessen innovation. And I wholeheartedly agree.

Patents just don't work for software. Sure the companies need to have their products protected but that's what the copyrights are for.

See, this is where I get divided. I've come up with some stuff that I would LOVE to be patented, but it is software. I hate software patents as well. Copyrights I have no problem with. They're accepted everywhere now and EVERYTHING is automatically copyrighted. Even this post!

Personally, I think copyrights are more powerful than patents. Patents say "Here's how you make me (plans available on the patent listing) but don't you dare try to build me." and copyrights say "Here's what you can and cannot do with me, and I make sure my creator gets credit." Much better when applied to software. Patents should be for physical inventions.

[N]F

Regarding SUSE, I think it was not under Open Source GPL/GNU until OpenSUSE was released. Maybe that's where the problem struck. You never know. There must have been some problem with SUSE that's why SUSE had to kneel in front of MS, otherwise no one would dare to challenge a "huge" public community (open source i mean).

Patents say "Here's how you make me (plans available on the patent listing) but don't you dare try to build me." and copyrights say "Here's what you can and cannot do with me, and I make sure my creator gets credit." Much better when applied to software. Patents should be for physical inventions.
[N]F

Exactly. I don't know about the policy regarding software patents in US, but I'd guess the description of how the program is done has to be pretty accurate, as it is with physical inventions.

Being not-physical is where I think the line is crossed. You can patent software which is "nothing" so why not patent music or poetry?

Regarding SUSE, I think it was not under Open Source GPL/GNU until OpenSUSE was released. Maybe that's where the problem struck. You never know. There must have been some problem with SUSE that's why SUSE had to kneel in front of MS, otherwise no one would dare to challenge a "huge" public community (open source i mean).

Yeah, but isn't Microsoft bascically accusing SUSE of using their code [their "intellectual property"]? If SUSE didn't, then SUSE didn't do anything wrong. And also, I don't see how not licensed under Open Source GPL/GNU makes SUSE vulnerable to Microsoft. Something unlicensed can be stolen by others but that doesn't give them the right to steal from others.
Personally, I think the only reason Microsoft is acting in such a childish way is because of their anger. They're just irritated that Linux is more successful than they would've warranted.

Personally, I think the only reason Microsoft is acting in such a childish way is because of their anger. They're just irritated that Linux is more successful than they would've warranted.

I agree. The success of Linux has been phenomenal recently and Linux is more and more penetrating the Desktop market, which, apparently is Microsoft's core business. Microsoft is not acting childish, it is trying to play corporate politics that it has always played on other companies.

But I really wonder what made SUSE bow to them?

First off, you don't sue the people using the software, you go after the big corporate enities distrubting the product. (Hey maybe MS can also sue SCO...or whatever they're called these days). Then you go after the big hosting companies, etc. etc.. Most patents that are filed are defensive, meaning someone files them to prevent others from coming up with the idea and then turning around and suing originators. They are rarely enforced. Sounds like the Linux group have probably stumbled into this area. They aren't big enough deals for MS to spend the legal fees on, I'm guessing, but reach a deal with the distributors for save your own *bottom* type stuff. Simply put, Novell made the deal so they could move on and no worries. MS is happy, novell's happy, and if microsoft goes on the offensive, then they have a serious selling point: hey use SuSE, we're safe.Linux isn't a threat to Microsoft in the desktop market. Apple is. Microsoft is starting to loose market share to Apple in that arena for the first time in a decade. Linux was the death nail to the Commcerial Unix market. Linux killed IRIX and most of the systems that would have been going to SUN or IBM are now running some form of Linux. I'm sure that's cut into the server side of MS as well, but the big customers of MS servers are small & medium sized businesses. Generally people without a dedicated IT department that sub-contracts out to other firms.

Trust M$ to be stupid.I think they would only target the large companies that endorse Linux, those that favour linux over M$.

Yeah, like I read somewhere a while back they tried to do the same thing with Red Hat. Except Red Hat being smart told MS "No."[N]F

Doesn't vista stand for Vista Includes Stolen Technological Advancements?It doesn't? Oops, my bad.