In comments confirming the open-source community’s suspicions, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer Thursday declared his belief that the Linux operating system infringes on Microsoft’s intellectual property. In a question-and-answer session after his keynote speech at the Professional Association for SQL Server conference in Seattle, Ballmer said Microsoft was motivated to sign a deal with SUSE Linux distributor Novell earlier this month because Linux “uses our intellectual property” and Microsoft wanted to “get the appropriate economic return for our shareholders from our innovation.”
It’s SCO all over again. Until Ballmer makes specific claims about infringements, we can all remain calm.
VFAT/FAT32 is apparently partially patented (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAT32 if you trust WP..)
Yes, but didn’t they reverse engineer the VFAT/FAT32 driver for Linux? Which would mean that it’s perfectly legal.
no, because of the patents. well, it’s legal in europe for example.
IANAL and VERY roughly, patents are there to protect ideas, or, “software ideas” in that case.
patents are an unfair system to protect innovation, else people could just copy and sell what was your original idea (that’s why patents expire too, after a while, when you gained from your ideas, everyone is free to use it)
that’s why europe voted against it for software, because it destroy more than it gives. people start patenting anything, browser, windows, icons, etc => no more competitivity
Software patents are a way for mediocre companies with an innovation complex to feel clever whenever they apply a widely recognized solution to an obvious problem.
The problem is that they’re so deluded into thinking they invented something that they’re obsessed with trying to make money with it.
You cannot patent an “idea”. You can only patent an “invention,” which is further defined as a device, method, process, or substance that is novel, useful, and inbovious to one skilled in the art. Further, the patent itself requires that the patent is sufficiently detailed that a person skilled in the art can make use of it, and it is limited explicitly to claims made in the patent.
At current, software patents are only valid in the USA, and almost all of them have been challenged have failed when tested in court. For example, MS filesystem patents all cover Windows-specific implementations of technology that pre-existed. Even if they don’t fail on the basis of novelty, in practice they fail the obviousness test because they are simply represent a decision by the company on how to do a common thing in such a way as to interoperate with their own product.
But wikipedia says that the MS FAT patents were finally accepted as valid this year. Accepted as novel and all !
And what you say about patents is strange.
Software is a representation of ideas, also called algorithms. This stupid state only affects software (in the USA) unfortunately. It would be unacceptable on other things like books for example : book writers would soon disappear. Same for films. But there are forces at play for it to stay on software (and expand to the EU).
I mean, threatening to sue others’ customers does NOTHING to protect innovations, which the system was supposed to do. You know it doesn’t work when the supposed “owner” of the idea doesn’t want to tell you what it is, and even you have no idea : the innovation is so insignificant and useless, or is so obvious, that you can’t even sort it from the rest.
For example, I don’t see what so great idea the FAT32 is protecting. That’s not like people want to steal from MS by using it in their device.
All this irrational behaviour is only spawned by money greed. I hope (and try to help for) we never get software patents in EU.
that’s what i know: reverse engineering for interoperability purposes is just legal, no matter the patent behind it
the same goes for word .doc files and the rest
Well, yeah, the Linux implementations of NTFS and FAT/VFAT support are sort of reverse-engineered. In Linux, of course, the implementation is far different, so it’s the physical format of the data on disk that’s the only part that is the same.
MS may assert that even though the physical format of data on the disk is not claimed explicitly in their patents, it is implied. That is not likely to stick. Further their patents quite explicitly indicate that they are patenting a method for implementing FOR WINDOWS functionality that was already prevalent elsewhere (long filenames, for instance). Linux isn’t attempting to provide this functionality to Windows.
Don’t patents apply whether you reverse engineer it or not, depending on what the patent owner says? Is it not the DMCA that has reverse engineering for platform compatibility allowances?
//Don’t patents apply whether you reverse engineer it or not, depending on what the patent owner says?//
Yes they do.
The MS “IP” in question is not, however, patented. They are trade secrets.
In order to have a valid patent, MS must fully publish exactly how the format or protocol works. If they do that, they can get patent protection for 20 years on that exact method.
Microsoft have not published anywhere exactly how their NTFS filesystem works. It is a trade secret.
Therefore, MS have no patent on NTFS.
Similar story for the networking protocol that Samba reverse-engineers.
generally patents are quite easy to reverse engineer, unless it is something that can only be done one way. “meatspace” patent disputes are generally quite entertaining. Company A accuses Company B of infringement, blueprints are produced to court by company A, then company B typically goes back to court with design changes that are different enough and often qualify as a new patent themselves.
Software patents shortcut the whole give and take because companies are allowed to only provide the “idea” and not the actual source code… in meatspace things like Amazon’s 1 click patent would be unenforceable, there would be hundreds of copies all using different pieces to perform the task.. when courts try to adjust these cases there’s nothing to go on, and that’s deliberate by the patent office sloppiness and lawyer’s cleverness at broad patents.
just their long file name implementation, not the file system.
What is that patent for, sucking?
It’s the lack of specificity that is the most damaging.
The last thing Microsoft wants is to have to specify what exactly is supposed to be infringing on their patents. Continuously putting the message out in the business world that Linux is a messy patent minefield that is just not worth venturing into is the best case scenario for Microsoft.
//It’s the lack of specificity that is the most damaging.
The last thing Microsoft wants is to have to specify what exactly is supposed to be infringing on their patents.//
Microsoft don’t say “patents” as far as I can see.
They say “IP”.
I think Ballmer is talking about trade secrets.
Trade secrets that are revealed by Samba, OpenOffice and ntfs-3g.
The problem (for Ballmer) is that there is absolutely nothing wrong (legally) with Linux working out some Microsoft trade secrets.
It’s just irritating when a prominent figure in a company talks about using “intellectual property.” I’m pretty sure Linux isn’t infringing on any MS trademarks, and SCO aside, it doesn’t look like Linux is violating anybody’s copyrights. Can’t Ballmer just say, “Linux is infringing on our patents,” and then cite an instance or two? Stupid weasel talk…
//It’s just irritating when a prominent figure in a company talks about using “intellectual property.” I’m pretty sure Linux isn’t infringing on any MS trademarks, and SCO aside, it doesn’t look like Linux is violating anybody’s copyrights. Can’t Ballmer just say, “Linux is infringing on our patents,” and then cite an instance or two? Stupid weasel talk…//
Ballmer can’t say “Linux is infringing on our patents” because it isn’t.
The Microsoft IP that Linux does contain are trade secrets.
Ballmer’s problem is that there is nothing legally wrong with Linux containing Microsoft trade secrets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret
So Ballmer can’t charge Linux users anything. That is the problem for Microsoft.
… for feeding the FUD.
What I don’t understand is how Ballmer is going to explain to his shareholders (“it’s all about them”) why they’re the ones paying Novell $400 million.
He doesn’t have to. They know how rotten business tactics work.
Leaving the sinking boat?
http://campd.org/?m=200611
Or was he fired?
If I were Novell, I’d fire Miguel and friends btw…
Software patent is a US thing.
Here in Europe Software patent did not exist…so f#ck you mister Ballmer !
I also agree and do not buy f#ck ing MS products anymore. Win$$$ is not mature for the desktop. They threaten others to create their product, like device drivers. The install CD of windows is useless. Try a vanilla windows on a laptop. No WIFI/MODEM/3DSynaptic touchpad/slow Ethernet/No Development/And documentation for idiots.
Oxymoron of all times.
How can you sue someone for infringing something that does not exist…
</rhetorical question>
…
More of the same, Steve. See you in court!
Well, everyone can thank Novell for this latest round of FUD. You knew it was going to happen as soon as that deal was announced. It was just another avenue for Microsoft to spread FUD about Linux. THANKS NOVELL I HOPE YOU ALL ARE REAL SATISFIED NOW! Talk is cheap MS, either put up or shut up.
Well, everyone can thank Novell for this latest round of FUD. You knew it was going to happen as soon as that deal was announced.
And some people knew this was going to happen as well. And those people (ranging from Perens through PJ@groklaw to the Samba team) were called zealots, cultists, paranoids, etc. on this board. Some claimed that “people want to see so much in this deal.” Remember Thom?
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16504&comment_id=182775
We were simply outraged at Novell for being partner to a very obvious attempt to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about linux.
And some people knew this was going to happen as well. And those people (ranging from Perens through PJ@groklaw to the Samba team) were called zealots, cultists, paranoids, etc. on this board. Some claimed that “people want to see so much in this deal.”
Indeed. I could add stupidities like “jihadists”, “nazis”, etc. That kind of talk is a red flag of desperation, that people have no real argument. It’s also self-defeating.
This is not really about “I told you so.” It’s about being honest with oneself and re-evaluating some basic assumptions or prejudices. Once that hump is crossed–and we all have to do it from time to time–progress is made.
Edited 2006-11-17 19:53
At this point I believe it’s to early to start accusing Novell of sticking their heads in the sand instead of putting up a fight on behalf of their shareholders, customers and the Linux community. After all I would like to hear Novell’s comment on what they think of Steve Balmer’s comments so soon after Novell signed the deal with Microsoft. Does anyone know the exact details of the signed deal and can post a copy of what was agreed to by each company?
As a Novell customer I was interested in having access to legal codecs, etc from companies such as Microsoft be made available for customers as an optional download. This request was filed during Novell’s feedback eform on SLED with a suggestion to have something similar to what Linspire offers but not charge to access the repository, just charge for use of the patented software. If this is the reasoning behind Novell paying $40,000,000.00 to Microsoft then it’s okay but if it’s to stop legal action from Microsoft against Novell and the Linux community for claimed use of patented code then I’m against it. Microsoft is notorious for not allowing people to see their software code, claiming trade secret. So why not prove it in court if they can? After all they would have much more to gain financially since Novell doesn’t speak for all Linux developers or companies such as Red Hat.
//Microsoft is notorious for not allowing people to see their software code, claiming trade secret.//
One can only “violate” a trade secret if one “steals” the secret … say by spying or by illegally obtaining a copy of Microsoft source code.
If one works out the secret … then too bad for the original owner of the secret, the secret is now out & free for all to use.
Microsoft’s problem is that Linux has legitimately “worked out” some of the trade secrets in Windows. Samba is a good example. So in a sense, Ballmer is right to say: “Linux uses our Intellectual Property”. Trade secrets are Intellectual Property, and Linux reveals some of Windows trade secrets.
What Ballmer does not mention is that it is perfectly allowable for anyone to try to “work out” a trade secret, and if they succeed to then use that former secret for themselves.
Microsoft still wants to charge Linux users for things like Samba, even though by law they can’t.
Edited 2006-11-18 23:31
I guess Microsoft are banking on the old trick: repeat a tendentious statement often enough and people will start to believe it.
Personally I think Ballmer and co should be treated to two fingers and silence, otherwise we will all be driven mad by flames and debates about this week in week out.
Europe will be interested in hearing this…
I think it’s very clear for all parties where we stand now. Microsoft is going down, they’re looking for it, and they deserve it. Yeah, finally.
The weaker your position….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV7E_tzxdNs
Pretty bold statement from a company that has a history of taking “intellectual property” from other (often small) companies.
Until its proven in a court of law the only thing coming out of ballmer’s mouth is hot air, as usual.
I really hope this issue goes to the court. Let’s hear both sides of the argument in the court, instead of wasting time on forums.
P.S. in principle, I believe in intellectual property.
There’re lots of FUD for both Linux and IP.
The U.S. Court system systematically favors big biz. MS in particular. Of course, the people in it may not 🙂 Never know, though.
The problem with going to court in the U.S. is that the truth does NOT matter. Sometimes it actually does, but for that to occur it takes video evidence, and second-by-second 360-action shots, about thirty cameras, a DNA sample and release for each person appearing in any testimony, blah blah blah…
For instance, yesterday in San Antonio, a guy seen killing and raping a girl by two witnesses, and caught on video, was freed because the video showed him only from the back ( or some odd angle ), and the judge threw out the testimony of the two witnesses due to mishandling of paperwork by the police.
This is an everyday thing where the wrong people pay for things they did not do, and the people who should pay are either just let go, or even rewarded, in some cases ( maybe O.J. will make this happen for himself as well, given his recent book ).
Of course, fortunately, the judges that handle copyright cases are an obvious different breed than most of the judges handling murder or other physical crimes, but the system is still the same… abused, greatly.
Sadly, I know mostly of the corruption of the court system first-hand. Against my father ( federal agents had to come into the court and arrest several of the cops that arrested my dad for being in the wrong place at the wrong time (in bed, next door to some drunks playing with fireworks.. cops were called out to gunshots from ‘around our area’)). Regardless, my father was found guilty of possession of a firearm without a permit, but they never found a gun on him.
Only a loud-popping noise complaint.
Screw the U.S. injustice system!
Would you want to trust the future of computing to that? Think about if your LIFE was on the line!
–The loon
PS: I realize that not all courts will be biased, and some may even fight to-the-death to protect the rights of the individual(s)/group(s) involved. I have had ONE such experience from my seven times in court, pro se, so I am beginning fear that the level of unconventional corruption in the justice system ( at least at my previous local ) will cause irreversible harm to this nation.
Well, then again, the U.S. has been going downhill since my birth.. not-related ( I don’t think ).
Anybody in the grips of our justice system has my sincerest sympathies. Truth and justice will seldom be found there because they are so seldom sought.
I’d have to agree with your opinion of the US justice system. My parents live within several miles of a state prison.. some moron called the cops after an escape attempt was aired on the news about my step-father walking in his yard that he mows every week… the cops surrounded the poor guy with drawn guns the whole 9 yards… ON HIS OWN PROPERTY, 200 yards from the street! That law enforcement can’t recognize a citizen legally occupying their own property is the real crime.. and it happens more often every day.
MS is either playing SCO look alike or has allways been behind puppet SCO.
Browser: Links (2.1pre20; Linux 2.6.17-hardened-r1 x86_64; 80×24)
You have to admit, this looks a lot like a company that has hits it ropes-end and is grasping for anything to stay afloat. They have been bombarded with bad publicity for years: monopoly hearings, failures with Vista, EU battles, etc. What else do they have but to start attacking everyone else?
Edited 2006-11-17 14:14
You have to admit, this looks a lot like a company that has hits it ropes-end and is grasping for anything to stay afloat. They have been bombarded with bad publicity for years: monopoly hearings, failures with Vista, EU battles, etc. What else do they have but to start attacking everyone else?
SCO was almost dead when they started the crap-throwing, but Microsoft isn’t. Actually, once the “Vista sucks” syndrome of the past moths passed, everyone out there started saying that is by far the best MS product ever made. I don’t know if that’s true or not and I don’t really care (I use Linux because I like it, not because I hate MS), and we’re not going to see if Vista actually failed anytime soon. Give it, at least, two years.
IMHO, this kind of movement is just plain useless: MS won’t be able to prove anything, but they won’t lose anything by just trying to screw us (a few millions? pfft!).
Edit: a few typos.
Edited 2006-11-17 14:28
“IMHO, this kind of movement is just plain useless: MS won’t be able to prove anything, but they won’t lose anything by just trying to screw us (a few millions? pfft!).”
No, they are losing million daily to the EU and that hasn’t slowed them down. Gotta give them credit for their determination
“No, they are losing million daily to the EU and that hasn’t slowed them down.”
I don’t think they’ve actually paid anything yet: they keep putting off the fateful day with appeals and other stalling tactics. Not that the amounts involved mean much compared to MS’s revenues anyway…
“You have to admit, this looks a lot like a company that has hits it ropes-end and is grasping for anything to stay afloat. They have been bombarded with bad publicity for years: monopoly hearings, failures with Vista, EU battles, etc. What else do they have but to start attacking everyone else?”
Sometimes I do wonder about the sanity of the people on this site.
Yeah, what else do they have?
Um, they’ve got a monopoly of the desktop operating system and software office suite application markets, both of which are still growth avenues and produce several hundred million dollars of *profit* every *quarter*. And that’s just for starters. I’d say that’s not exactly negligible.
Okay, sure, maybe in some way it’d be nice if Microsoft were “grasping for anything to stay afloat”, but it’s not true – not anywhere even remotely in the same *neighbourhood* as truth. IBM was in a hell of a lot worse condition in the mid-80s, and they’re still going strong.
Wow, you were doing great right up until here:
IBM was in a hell of a lot worse condition in the mid-80s, and they’re still going strong.
And then you said something completely fallacious! IBM was in a bad way in the 80’s, and then they changed their business model and products to meet the market and are now going strong: Had they failed to do that they would most definitely be gone today.
Sorry, right analogy, wrong period – I should have said late 80s / early 90s, when they were still acting like they owned the desktop PC market and trying to sell horrible, overpriced, underfeatured machines with proprietary everything.
You have to admit, this looks a lot like a company that has hits it ropes-end and is grasping for anything to stay afloat. They have been bombarded with bad publicity for years: monopoly hearings, failures with Vista, EU battles, etc. What else do they have but to start attacking everyone else?
Yeah, poor, downtrodden Microsoft. They have annual sales of $45 billion. I don’t know how they continue to operate… /SARCASM
I’ve wondered about this for a while… Microsoft purchased a license for Unix from AT&T and came out with a version of Unix for microcomputers(I’m paraphrasing wikipedia, and yes I understand about reliability of that information, but…). After dinking around with it for a few years, they lost interest in it, as they often do, and “transfered ownership” of it to SCO for 25% ownership of SCO. Since SCO “claims” that Linux contains portions of their code and that code came from MS(sort of), it only follows to the microsoftie way of thinking that Linux contains MS code. Does anyone know if MS ever divested itself of the 25% ownership in SCO? We’ve all known that MS was behind the SCO attack, but this is more tangible evidence of the connection between the two companies.
If MSFT had done the right thing and upgraded Windows such that it sat on UNIX, like NeXT did with BSD, there would be no LINUX market, and MSFT wouldn’t be on the verge of “going down for the count”, like Dell is.
What else do they have but to start attacking everyone else?
Long release cycles?
Long release cycles?
Spyware? ;o)
Hmm, I think they need those long release cycles to come up with some security ‘potholes’, so they can keep being news…
Microsoft learned the lesson from SCO debacle. They learned that they can’t fight the community, there are to many players and a direct attack would cause counter attacks from all directions (IBM, Novell, RedHat, etc…).
So you see, if you can eat a steak in one peace, you have to slice it:) == break the community into peaces so you can crush each group individually.
Well, until now, they haven’t complained about the non authorized use of NTFS, Windows Media specifications and similar stuff that some of us use under Linux. I don’t know also until which point Samba services could infringe some of the MS intellectual property. And that ‘s without talking about thousands of tricky patents that they have filed, most of them never used in a court (maybe until very soon) .
Distributions such as FC maybe don’t not have this kind of problems since they came zero proprietary stuff. People like me installs from “non-authorized” repositories the required stuff to access the MS stuff. Ubuntu, which has the support to NTFS integrated to the distribution, could face some problems very quickly.
Anyway, I think that this is the very first statement coming from a top level executive from MS that indicates that they consider Linux as a real treat to their business. I mean, until now, officially they played the game of considering Linux too small to pay lawyers to sue anyone. Now, MS considers that they need to start attack by the legal ways, since it seems that from a technological point of view they can’t sustain a long term race again FOSS. This smells like real fear.
//Well, until now, they haven’t complained about the non authorized use of NTFS//
NTFS is a trade secret.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret
Microsoft have not published the specifications for NTFS and obtained a patent.
Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate for other people to reverse-engineer NTFS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret#Discovering_trade_secrets
“Discovering trade secrets
Companies often try to discover one another’s trade secrets through lawful methods of reverse engineering”
Linux does not need authorization to reverse-engineer NTFS.
Once it is fully reverse-engineered, as it has been:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=15196
… that is it. End of “IP” protection for Microsoft.
//I don’t know also until which point Samba services could infringe some of the MS intellectual property.//
Similar story with Samba. The Microsoft “IP” involved here is once again a trade secret. If Samba has cracked the secret, that is just too bad.
You do not “infringe” on trade secrets by working them out. The original company just loses the secret, that is all.
Edited 2006-11-17 22:19
Fortunately, we have the SCO precedence this time, which means companies will be a lot of skeptical to MS’ FUD this time around.
On the other hand, I think MS had already achieved their aim through this deal: to give their FUD some credibility. Let’s hope the FOSS community can leverage upon the GPL to force Novell and MS into annulling this deal.
I think you’re absolutely correct, and there was a shooter on the grassy knoll. Also, I think those rat bastard Cuban’s are behind this whole thing, them North Koreeans too. And don’t even get me started on those Iraqi WMD’s, we know they had them. We ought too, we sold it to them!!! Sarcasm off
Man , when Microsoft wags it’s tail, the whole world sits up and pays attention. As only several billion dollars can do. And when money talks , bs walks, and the bs is surely flying now. Does Ms have a plan? I’m sure they do, and I’m also sure these “public leaveraging’s” are part of it. Either that or this guy is at the same level of iq as another leader of men (GB jr.). I’m pretty sure we’ll be the last ones to know. Period.
Ballmer’s an idiot. Statements like this only confirm that. But when people of lesser intelligence reach erroneous conclusions, it is often useful to try to figure out how they reached those conclusions in order to be able to help them see their mistakes. If MS thinks the license they purchased from AT&T and the subsequent porting of Unix source to run on the 8086 gives them IP rights to code that is in Linux, that’s an obvious mistake. Let’s just hope they don’t waste millions of dollars in lawyers’ fees finding that out.
As to the rest of your comments: Whatever.
What does microsoft do when it’s facing a challenging opponent?
A) Make your own product better so you can beat the opponent by superior software
B) Use convincing arguments to gain trust of your customers
C) Spread fear amongst your competitors in the hope they give up
It’s a standard tactic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV7E_tzxdNs
😀
How about we get GPLv3 looking, sounding, and tasting like a damn good license that defends against crap like this? Dancing around a old license looks fairly simple nowadays, isn’t it time for something else?
As I said in the other threads, MS uses its power and fud and fear of lawsuits to make sure no big customer is running anything excpt Suse and MS gets paid for that as well. Then MS can simply buy them out and shut it down or MS could basically use novell linux as the “low cost edition of windows” or microsoft could…well, variations on the same theme!
What does Novell get out of all this – money that MS stole from them years ago by killing netware.
Just remmeber who owns unix and SCO just got done arguing Linux violated IP rights. If Novell owns unix, then MS buys unix and then they go to court with all the info gained from the SCO lawsuit. Think about it, they get to try again. SCO was just a practice session for them.
My take, is that SCO was a ploy to get ahold of documents and info and so forth. Partner with Novell to have access to Unix as well as linux and of course MS has their code. Weasel it all together into a winnable lawsuit in a few years.
I would bet MS funded Novell buying SUSE!
Edited 2006-11-17 14:37
If this does end up going to court, and they find that Linux has violated a bunch of MS patents, copyrights, or whatever, they could sue Linux back into the nineties. That would really suck for all of us who have given up all MS product and only use Linux or OSX now. The only positive to this whole thing is; How much credibility does MS really have anymore? And who would really want to take their side, especially with entities like the EU against them?
Probably not. They don’t have but a handful of patents that even remotely pertain to things in Linux. All of them are software patents (so, they only apply in the USA). Of those, most of those patents relate to filesystem features, which Linux natively supports using methods that pre-date MS and offer a compatibility layer for MS filesystems (for example, they have patents on the use of long file names for FAT partitions, but the use of long-filenames was established 20 year prior so the patent is really about providing Windows with functionality that existed outside of Windows).
//If this does end up going to court, and they find that Linux has violated a bunch of MS patents, copyrights, or whatever, they could sue Linux back into the nineties.//
Linux does not violate any MS copyrights.
It is exceedingly doubtful that Linux violates any valid MS patents.
If Linux has successfully reverse-engineered some of the trade secrets in MS software, then that is nothing that MS can sue over.
No, they can not sue Linux back to the nineties. They just want to make it sound as though they can.
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS4287912423.html
Or how Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols looks like an idiot now …
I for one am not interested to have my system be illegal and infringing on Microsoft IP. I know that I want my systems and OS to be legal and Free Software. Wich it cannot be if it is infringing on Microsoft IP.
So I encourage every CEO and President and Project leader of GNU/Linux to enter in discovery phase with Microsoft and Legally record the actions of asking them what they claim is there IP first and who use it and have it in there distribution so that it can be removed and replaced as soon as possible.
I also encourage them to ask Microsoft to provide there entire source code to there OS ( Windows <insert name here > ) so that we too see if Microsoft is not hidding any GNU/Linux or another company IP in there code.
Lets adress this professionnaly and review all Microsoft patent and IP to see if they where not based on prior arts or someone else IP and patents.
Lets discover the truth and deal with it accordingly by removing the infringing code if any exist and apologize to Microsoft.
Lets adress there claim once and for all and show that we are trying to be legal at all time and professional.
We need to be sure and discover the truth.
Who know’s we might discover that Microsoft owe many company money for infringing on there IP too. and that they whant to reward the IP makers/owners. Since they want to be a good coporate and OS citizen lets forget the past for a second and encourage them to become fully legit too , so that in the end everyone is perfectly legal.
Think about it , Microsoft only whant to become more legit ( Yes right , if you believe that you missed Microsoft conviction an repeat offense on the same laws , again and again ) and they whant us to help them. ( In otherword , lets call there bluff and FUD once and for all , I fnovell deal is any indication they have a lot to pay to a lot of people ).
I’m just wondering if someone (e.g. the free software foundation) could attempt to sue Microsoft for defamation or something, in an attempt to either get Microsoft to specify exactly which patents have been infringed (or stop their FUD if no patents have been infringed).
It seems to me that Linux will be trying to fight innuendo forever if it doesn’t find a way to force companies like Microsoft to be up-front about their accusations…
I’m just wondering if someone (e.g. the free software foundation) could attempt to sue Microsoft for defamation or something, in an attempt to either get Microsoft to specify exactly which patents have been infringed (or stop their FUD if no patents have been infringed).
Yes, anyone can.
You can simply sue them for loss of business because they spread doubts without them being covered with the facts.
Example, you entered into talks with some company, company backed out because MS FUD, here you can sue them. It would be either pay up for your loss and shut up or put up (for MS).
And it would be really interesting to see a whole lot of small claims in courts. And if there would be enough of them, court would probably have to react and demand from MS that they put up what they have.
The only thing I don’t know is what would happen’ if MS would actually have something. Second fact is that you can’t count on getting money from MS, even if they would have something, they would probably played “we thought” card.
Update:
I just checked one fact, in our country there is also a law that protects business. Meaning if you enter some business, it is illegal to sue after few years.
If you enter into some agreement, or let some business operate for too long, there’s no way to stop them. After they set business practice with your knowing, you should sue them, not after few years.
Another interesting fact is suing them in EU. Patents don’t exist and what MS is doing is simply FUD and nothing more. It would be really funny to do that here. MS caouldn’t defend their claims and if enough suing parties would show up… Well, fun:)
Maybe a movement would be in order. Well, at least I’m game for this. Any other EU partisans?
Edited 2006-11-17 18:14
>>The only thing I don’t know is what would happen’
>>if MS would actually have something. Second fact
>>is that you can’t count on getting money from MS,
>>even if they would have something, they would
>>probably played “we thought” card
I really don’t believe that there is enough common code in windows and Linux to convince even the most computer-challenged judge in the world, but you never know. But, then that’s how I define infringement. If you copy a block of my code out of one of my programs and insert it verbatim into your program, you may have broken a law, if my code was copywrighted and I did not give you permission. But what if you just looked at my code and came up with your own way of doing the same thing?
This is another clear example of how Microsoft is using its monopoly power to do harm to competitors. The reason why MS has upped its Linux rhetoric (and the likely real reason it recently partnered with Novell) is that it is positioning itself for an all out attack against its only real rival Linux. It wants to crush the up and coming free operating system out of existence by scaring its advocates and users with the fear of lawsuits. This tactic has more or less worked well for the RIAA / MPAA. Sue a few thousand users and scare the rest into giving up the “contraband.” This is ridiculous!!! I really wish the wimpy US government would have split up Microsoft years ago as originally ordered during anti-trust proceedings against the company. Obviously MS is back to its old tricks and stepping up its game.
Edited 2006-11-17 14:47
And how would that help? The plan was to split it up based on products, so there would be no competing version of Windows or Office or anything, it would just be two evil software giants working together instead of one. The whole idea of splitting them up never made sense. They need to make sure there can be more fair competition, not split them up, and the way to do that is by forcing Microsoft to release full specs for ALL of their document formats and protocols to anyone who wants to implement them, for free.
I smell a lawsuit before the end of the year or near the beginning of next year….
Novell owns Unix. MS buys Unix. MS has unix code to look at, their own code to look at, all of suse code to look at, and all the information that SCO dug up and got released to look at – with all that you really think they cannot find something that looks similar enough to go to court?
well, SCO turned up big handfulls of nothing at all and the entire rest of the free software content of novell and any other distro has been available publicly (as has UNIX source in reality) so its not like they have suddenly got hold of code in which to find patent infringement
They weren’t interested in finding anything specifically so yes it was handfuls of “nothing” but it is handfuls, actually craploads of source code from various projects and documents and so on and so forth…
oh very well, you must be right and there is absolutely nothing to the whole thing….
but thats just it… it didnt turn up any code at all that wasn’t already available. IBM’s AIX and Dynix code were the only ones to which the source may not have been immediately available to MS or anyone else but SysV UNIX and the various FLOSS projects have been readily available for years, most since their inception.
The timing of all of this is nothing to do with sudden discoveries by MS of ‘offending’ code, it is entirely a business / PR driven circus
Edited 2006-11-17 20:50
Man, if SUN would GPL solaris – that would just be the bees knees right now. I better get my download started now…
… saw their stock drop 90%, and has since to turn a profitable quarter.
I think the important thing here is that IP is a marketing term, not a legal one. I think it’s pretty obvious that Linux doesn’t infringe on any copyrights. There are a couple of places in the kernel that mention Windows, but the mere mention doesn’t constitute a trademark violation. That leaves patents — software patents.
Software patents have a pretty dubious standing, being only valid in the USA and having a bad track record for enforcement (most have been invalidated in whole are part if they’ve gotten that far). Very little of Linux is not de novo implementation of industry standard APIs that are unencumbered, or are themselves pretty novel. The only MS patents I could think of that may apply are those of file-systems; and then the Linux implementation of access to MS filesystems is wildly different than MS own (for obvious reasons) — so it’s basically down to whether or not the implicit patent of the on-disk data structures applies. I don’t think so — for Windows, the patents describe a mechanism for an OS to save data, whereas Linux has a different mechanism with a plug-in to format data in a method that permits interoperability (which would grant it an exception).
Ballmer’s just talking out his tuchas to take a jibe. If MS lawyers believed it was true, instead of paying Novell $400M, they would have sued them into oblivion.
Thanks, you basically said what I was going to state to the poster who said I was wrong that Linux reverse-engineered VFAT/FAT32 and it was legal since it’s due to interoperability needs.
So all the things like Samba, Fat, NTFS, etc are all for interoperability and are legal by the terms of reverse-engineering.
By the way, he did specify IP, and not Patents. IP really is a vague term, and could be the fact that most trash can icons resemble the recycle bin on Windows.
Microsoft Innovation… that is pretty funny.
I think Ballmer is talking about patents. I’m pretty sure MS has patents on technologies implemented in Linux. Not only in things like Samba or NTFS, but also in the kernel or OpenOffice (which has taken many ideas from MS Office, and several of them are probably patented).
Believe it or not, MS does innovate. It invests milions of $ every year on R&D. And Linux is leveraging some of it (remember, patents are about ideas, not about actual implementations).
What Ballmer is not saying is that Windows also infringes IP owned by several OSS companies. That’s why they settled for example with Novell or Sun (so you can safely use SUSE or StarOffice if you are a Novell or Sun customer).
For example…
I’m pretty sure MS has patents on technologies implemented in Linux
I’m pretty sure they don’t.
Not only in things like Samba or NTFS, but also in the kernel or OpenOffice (which has taken many ideas from MS Office, and several of them are probably patented)
All of this is reverse engineered, so no problem at all. OTOH SMB is an IBM protocol, and I’m sure they have patents on that too.
The kernel has nothing to do with the kernels from MS, especially if you believe MS advocates.
Believe it or not, MS does innovate
I don’t believe it.
It invests milions of $ every year on R&D
And somehow you believe that means they innovate ?
And Linux is leveraging some of it (remember, patents are about ideas, not about actual implementations)
Someone earlier just said the contrary to what you say here.
Just say one patent from MS that Linux is leveraging. Even MS can’t.
The Linux kernel is already more efficient than any one put out by MS “in practice”.
Lots of MS advocates will tell you that “in theory” the MS kernel is innovative and much better, they just have problems proving it.
So I wonder what are those patents that MS has in the Linux kernel : to me, it looks like a low cost car maker saying he has patents on F1 cars.
What Ballmer is not saying is that Windows also infringes IP owned by several OSS companies. That’s why they settled for example with Novell or Sun (so you can safely use SUSE or StarOffice if you are a Novell or Sun customer)
He doesn’t need to say it, we know that already. And where you’re mistaken, is that everybody can use StarOffice or OOo without fear, not only Novell or Sun customers.
Even Schwarz (SUN’s head) says that the community has no fear to have from MS patents.
[Not only in things like Samba or NTFS, but also in the kernel or OpenOffice (which has taken many ideas from MS Office, and several of them are probably patented)]
All of this is reverse engineered, so no problem at all.
What? you reverse-engeener something and then you don’t need to care about patents? Come on! What you can pantent are inventions, not actual implementations. It doesn’t matter how you implement an invention, if the invention is patented.
The kernel has nothing to do with the kernels from MS, especially if you believe MS advocates.
They are both operating system kernels. They both run on the same hardware. They must have something in common (and if not, why this? http://www.networkworld.com/news/2004/0802linuxstu.html).
[Believe it or not, MS does innovate]
I don’t believe it.
[It invests milions of $ every year on R&D]
And somehow you believe that means they innovate ?
Money is not guarantee of innovation, but it helps. Take a look at .NET. MS invested a LOT of money on it. I know .NET is basically a copy of Java, but they innoved upon it. The proof is that some of the C# improvements over Java were later incorporated into the Java language. That’s just an small (but real) example.
Someone earlier just said the contrary to what you say here.
Just say one patent from MS that Linux is leveraging. Even MS can’t.
The Linux kernel is already more efficient than any one put out by MS “in practice”.
Lots of MS advocates will tell you that “in theory” the MS kernel is innovative and much better, they just have problems proving it.
So I wonder what are those patents that MS has in the Linux kernel : to me, it looks like a low cost car maker saying he has patents on F1 cars.
With patents, this last example may be real, since you don’t need an actual implementation get and enforce a patent. That’s why patent trolls exist, and why MS had to pay $521 million to Eolas.
And where you’re mistaken, is that everybody can use StarOffice or OOo without fear, not only Novell or Sun customers.
Even Schwarz (SUN’s head) says that the community has no fear to have from MS patents.
That’s probably correct, but not because of the lack of patents, but because there is very little risk of individuals to get sued. All big Linux companies offer patent protection or indemnification ONLY if you are a customer. So, what happens if you are not a customer?? (this question has raised a lot in the last days because of the Novell-MS deal, but it also applies to ALL companies offering indemnification, like Sun and Red Hat).
//What you can pantent are inventions, not actual implementations. It doesn’t matter how you implement an invention, if the invention is patented. //
This is not correct.
Suppose I have a patent for an invention I have called “an electric light”. In my patent application, I describe the way that I get a glass transparent bulb, fill it with an inert gas, and then place a thin resistive wire in the bulb. I then pass an electric current through the wire so it becomes white hot and emits light.
I have patented an incandescent electric light.
If sometime later on someone else puts a fluorescent electric light on the market in direct competition, then even though that new invention uses electricity to produce light, it uses an entirely different method to that described in my original patent and therefore it does not violate my patent for an incandescent light and I am out of luck.
//I’m pretty sure MS has patents on technologies implemented in Linux. Not only in things like Samba or NTFS, but also in the kernel or OpenOffice (which has taken many ideas from MS Office, and several of them are probably patented). //
AFAIK, all of those things are MS trade secrets.
If they are patented, show us the patent. Show us when it was registered with the US patent Office, and show us where the patent application fully describes the way these things work.
If not, then no, they are not MS patents, they are MS trade secrets.
That means they are still IP, but it also means they are fair game for Linux to reverse-engineer.
There’s a big difference between a patent and an intellectual property. I’d be supprised if MS owns anything of intellectual value.
The CEO of a company the size of Microsoft isn’t going to make a statement like that, in public, unless he believes it. He would believe it because one or another of his employees showed him where the infringement was (as far as they could tell.)
Do not dismiss this as “another SCO.”
“The CEO of a company the size of Microsoft isn’t going to make a statement like that, in public, unless he believes it.”
Not necessarily. Since this is what you believe, doubtless many others will too. It’s all part of the FUD web MS is spinning. We’re rich, we’re large, we’re successful…we MUST know what we’re talking about, right? Wrong. This is what they want people to believe. Repeated often enough (and to the right idiots), it will be perceived as true.
excellent post for me to reply to!
Most CEOs are STUPID outside their knowledge of the business deals they are actively making. From dealing with various company owners over the years, most are “shoot from the hip” types and say stuff like a whiny slashdotter all the time. They don’t KNOW the laws often they don’t even know what a competitors product even actually looks like…. They know what their sales stooges tell them, and run to lawyers to “make it legal” more often than not when they could have just listened to the other side or read the contract before opening their mouths.
I have to agree with Stallman, the term “Intellectual Property” is really confusing. Is “Linux” violating Microsoft’s Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks or Trade Secrets?
Looks like it’s just a FUD drive to scare potential Linux users into protection contracts with Microsoft (ala Novell) or away from Linux all together.
“Intellectual Property” is verbal dishonesty to confuse the issue of Trademark, Copyright, Patent, and trade secret and somehow confer those magical libertarian “property rights” to the mix. By calling them PROPERTY over and over again, as opposed to merely federal grants, it makes them appear magical and powerful that infringing on them is somehow like stealing great riches. Then it makes it harder to argue for limited terms because other property doesn’t have limited terms! That’s unfair. They have huge amounts of lawyers, psychologists, and marketers working on deceiving the public. Don’t under estimate them.
I’ve seen him talk in interviews, on documentaries about Microsoft, and other places. He’s the CEO of the comany which provides over 90% of the desktop systems used in the world. You don’t get to that position by being an idiot.
That’s not to say, however, that his company’s behavior is something that a decent person would approve of. The real question here his how he will deal with this matter.
If there are *issues* with Linux and Microsoft’s IP, then the right thing to do would be to mitigate them, not behave as SCO did and hide the so-called “information” needed to correct things until it’s become a court case.
Well, see here’s another one of those erroneous conclusions. Ballmer got promoted to a senior management position, so he must be pretty smart. Have you ever heard of the “Peter Principle”? Most people get promoted in business because the guy above them just happens to like them. So, if you’re a good schmoozer, you have a better chance of making it into the board room.
Using your logic, GWB must be a genious. But, obviously, he’s barely literate.
OBTW, you misspelled my name, too.
Using your logic, GWB must be a genious. But, obviously, he’s barely literate.
I don’t any illiterates that graduate from Yale and Harvard Business School. Do you?
I’m sure you meant to say “I don’t know any illiterates…”, so I’ll finish the thought for you. But you obviously don’t understand the differance between illiterate and “barely literate”. That being said, I wonder why I’m responding to you at all. Except to offer that can you imagine that a family that cleaned up so many of W’s messes would have let him flunk out of school? Come on, now. This is America. We routinely graduate football players who can neither read nor write. What makes you think it would be that hard to pay a rich white boy’s way to a passing grade.
What makes you think it would be that hard to pay a rich white boy’s way to a passing grade.
Does it boost your self-esteem to criticize other people? Maybe you and Dan Rather could team up and find some phony documents to prove your case.
tomcat, I wish I could post anonymously…I would just ask you to look around you, wherever you are–school, work, your social circle. Do the people who best embody the ideal of the virtuous man always succeed: are they your class president, your social club’s president, your company’s president, or your country’s president? I realize that who appears virtuous depends on where you stand but it would seem that it is the minority that achieve financial and social success through tangible meaningful achievements. This is even truer in a corporate environment where success depends almost entirely by your degree of obsequiousness. Yes, these men and women all sound like they know what they are talking about–verbal talent is a prerequisite for being a good flatterer–at least superficially, when talking to an audience similar to themselves–mostly other “business people” who are just as wedded to cliches (“intellectual property”) as they themselves are. Most of the time there is no depth, and more often profound misunderstanding. It is why commentary to articles like these are more interesting that the articles themselves.
gpierce, you rock. I wish I could have said that, but you did it better.
considering Ballmer is employee #1 as the first hired employee, he didn’t have get promoted “over” anybody.
According to wikipedia, Balmer was the 24th employee hired by Gates at MS and was an old school chum who continued the friendship even after Gates dropped out of school. I think they call that networking. And it supports my assertion.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleB…
try this one
Let’s look at the recent events here…We have Microsoft and Novell making this deal. Then on the other hand we have what is probably one of the biggest console releases ever. I say this because literally the Playstation 3 is a Computer and Game Console in one.
I think Sony is basically slapping Microsoft in the Face on this one. They could have put anything on their new Console, but they not only have sent an early development model to the makers of Yellow Dog Linux, but also have already released the manual that has instructions on how to install Linux on it.
Sony is huge. Microsoft decided to take them on with the Xbox, knowing that the video game industry is an enormous cash cow. But where Microsoft has closed off their Xbox 360 more, Sony has embraced open-ended development with the Playstation 3 (which is kind of odd seeing how they favor DRM so much in other ways, though my personal thoughts on this are that the people calling the shots for things like the Playstation 3 (Sony Computer Entertainment) is a different department than the Sony that released the rootkit)
So what do we have? Well, if the Playstation 3 has the Linux kernel on it, and Microsoft is claiming that Linux has their intellectual property, and is wanting protection money from the vendors for the users, then that means they’ll probably end up trying to sue Sony.
Oh where oh where are the corporations that actually thrive on innovation and not suing one another over stupid vague things like IP?
They’re called startups, it’s always been this way…
Well, actually, at one point there were companies with large research departments that actually innovated. However, they then sued people whenever they got any innovations going that someone else might also have going. (See Bell Labs)
“We just register BREATHING AIR as a patent. You’re breathing, you are using our intellectual property and not paying us…”
… Someone already tried it back in the bubble years (don’t have time to find the link) but failed.
Sadly enough, given the build-in-idiocy of the U.S. patent system, someone can actually patent breathing and defend that in court.
– Gilboa
Microsoft has any “INTELLECTUAL” property at all?! Amazing… 😛
Ok poor joke… to lighten up a bit. 😉
First, let’s have a look on the main heading of the referenced article. It reads out:
Ballmer: Linux users owe Microsoft
The heading here at OSNews seams to refer to the subheading of the original source:
“Microsoft CEO says Linux “uses our intellectual property”
Confusing…
But what “intellectual property” exactly is spoken about? No clue. And when Ballmer talks about Linux, does he refer to the Linux kernel? Or rather the GNU userland tools? Or other application? I don’t know, and I think Ballmer doesn’t either.
And the users? Why does he speak against users? In most cases, average users (of Linux distributions or MICROS~1 products) don’t really know what they use and if there are any patent, trademark or “intellectual property” issues. I don’t think Ballmer means this for real. What will he do? Sue Joe & Jane Average for using (lets say) Ubuntu? What to they owe MICROS~1? In my opinion, they even don’t owe them any attention.
U.S. law lacks a proper definition of what “intellectual property” is, as far as I know. I think that’s a main reason why we in Europe don’t have such cases. If you can’t define it, you can’t sue someone for violating it. The conclusion: When you can’t sue someone, it would be silly to let him pay money for you to tell him he won’t be sued. Law – in the first line – is a matter of language. And Ballmer seems to impersonate studpidity raised to the power of infinity…
It would be great to have some concrete points here. What is “intellectual property”, which “intellectual property” is meant? Mr. Ballmer, please be more specific. Or in German: “Setzen, 6.” (Sit down, F [worst mark at school].) 🙂
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleB…
This discussion is too passive against Microsoft.
You can be a loyal MS shareholder and still profit (in the long term) from the following notions. Please just bookmark for later the included web links if you have no time for my long-windedness!
Forget about Linux for a moment. That’s just the name of a kernel that obscures what Microsoft is really against. I assume that historically Microsoft has made its fortune on the illiteracy, in particular computer illiteracy, of its customers. Microsoft does not want people who think for themselves and we are seeing it play out very nastily. Note that I am not saying that if you buy Microsoft, you do not think for yourself. (Learn some logic!)
I recently found about PJ @ Groklaw and that stuff must be poison to the likes of Microsoft. She can come off as way too strident, but that really is missing the point: she simply tells people about things Microsoft does not want them to know about!
It’s time to grow up and educate ourselves with the real notions that Microsoft will have to eventually accept:
http://www.gnu.org/
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/
(More educated readers may yawn at those, but here is a little-known link:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fsfs/rms-essays.pdf
See in particular, Misinterpreting Copyright. That particular one in html is at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html
)
My claim is that these notions are poorly understood, appreciated, and utilized. Not that you should fall in love with RMS (shivers), the FSF, or some such nonsense. You do not even have to truly believe it, but at least increase your ability to help people imagine alternatives to a knee-jerk acceptance of a Microsoft EULA.
Following the above suggestions is not free: you will have to set aside a little time and think about some things.
Edited 2006-11-17 16:15
So I SHOULDN’T fall in love with hairy nasal sex stallman – too late!
He is so cute and lovable. I want the little plush toy if he ever comes out with one. It can sing the song too!
HEY! dont mod me down – I was SERIOUS!
This isn’t JUST another SCO!
They have all the information and documents that SCO managed to get turned over ot them, they have novell/suse, they have their old unix, they have the company that owns unix (novell), and they have their own code. Heck they could buy the UNIX rights from Novell if they wanted to. So with all of that you honestly do not think they can fool some judge into agreeing that something looks fishy?
I honestly do not think Linux clearly infringes but I have no doubt that they will make sure that it looks that way and “prove” it.
That’s why patents should be reasonable time limited.Just to avoid a waste of resources,which is this patent stratego.Innovation would become something more meaningfull better yet stimilated.Now there to much coherence with the marketing departments,shareholders and increasingly less research and innovation.
It’s really strange watching Microsoft fighting their own war against the world while most companies with a little common sense (JBoss, RedHat, recently Sun, etc) already started to understand opensource and benefit from it. Usually, you cannot win a war with everyone stepping to the other side.. I’m curious how this will end up.
Sun has been contributing to open source for at least 15+ years (if not more).
Told ya so. Microsoft is NEVER to be trusted.
Your code and innovations are crap and nobody needs them.
hush up monkey boy!!!!! go take a shower!
The very puzzling thing is how come MS paid Novell, net? So far what we know is that MS found it to be in its shareholders interest to enter a reciprocal agreement not to sue which, financially, greatly favored Novell. And it has now alleged in connection with that agreement, that it is enforcing IPRs in a way that would benefit shareholders.
So what kind of discussions took place at senior level or even Board level in MS as they debated whether to enter into this deal? They cannot have been on the lines of, they are infringing, lets pay them, that will benefit our shareholders?
Kroc is right, the EC should take an immediate and serious interest in this. To pay a competitor large amounts of money for the privilege of indemnifying its customers against patent suits, and then to publicly announce that you have the ability to sue others, but decline to say on what grounds? This makes no sense at all. Can anyone think of a legitimate motivation for this behaviour? Ie one that is not anti competitive in nature?
The speculation that maybe MS will indemnify Red Hat customers as well (but without paying RH for the privilege) is equally puzzling, and equally insusceptible of any innocent explanation. Why would they pay one supplier for a deal where they indemnify his customers, and then expect to indemnify another’s for free? If it is so great to go around indemnifying customers, why not indemnify mine too while you are at it?
Just in case you haven’t read the whole thing:
But Hilf acknowledged that it is an awkward situation having Microsoft’s customers who use Novell’s SUSE Linux covered by the covenant not to sue, while those Windows users running Red Hat Linux are not.
[….]
“It’s a tough, awkward situation, and if those customers ask us for some kind of patent indemnification, we’ll look at this. If they ask us to do something, we’ll certainly look at all the options, but the preferred course of action would be for us to strike a similar deal with Red Hat,” he said.
(Source: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2059675,00.asp )
So, this is about idemnification for THEIR existing customers, who happen to run also RedHat. And since RedHat has stated publically to idemnify its customers on its own, MS had to apply one of the learnings from the SCO history:
Avoid suing your own customers.
Regards
EDIT: Added link
EDIT2: inserted the missing word “learnings”
Edited 2006-11-17 17:06
Yes, I did read this. Still surely has anti competitive implications? Can a monopoly in the legal sense indemnify group A of people who have bought patent violating products, and not group B, purely on the basis that group B has bought its products too? Isn’t this turning into linked sales?
I realise that not to sue your own customers makes sense commercially – most anti competitive behaviour does make sense commercially. But is this really legal?
Yes, I agree, the whole Ms-Novell deal triggers several of my “Are they allowed to do this, since they are a monopoly ?” alarm bells too. And since I wonder how they plan to dance around the threat of anti-competative lawsuits, esp. if they decide to stay that vague wrt to their claims, from day one (or two) on, I’ve only thought about the economical implications.
In so far, I have misread your post, thanks for bringing this line of argument back to my attention.
Regards
OK, say for a moment MS wins against Linux and effectively shuts all the distros down. Do they then attack BSD? If they can get some leverage with BSD they can then attack OSX. By the time I retire we will all be either owe MS our souls or using slide rules again.
Intresting reading on the MS – Novell deal can be found here: http://www.groklaw.net/
Edited 2006-11-17 16:48
Well, I don’t know what Balmer & Co have in their sleeves
but I know for sure they cannot “shut all distros down”.
There’s an army of coders, developers and enthousiast/hobbist keying their code and algoritms just to get something that works for them and maybe for other people willing to use their software.
As for IP they can also remove very quickly an infriging
lines of code and stay “Micros~1 free”.
Get the facts:
a- idea of free software was born and is here to stay
b- there will always be pople willing to contribute and
share their code ( Open Source Movement)
c- there’s also growing number of computer users sick tired of perpetual threat from commercial software vendors.
Conclusion: If there’s no Linux something else would
come to free us from obscure code ruling our (computing) lives.
They couldn’t shut Linux down. Here’s their problem: they do have some patents, but it’s all on software. The US is the only place where they could be valid, and in the US very few software patents hold up in court.
If, they were able to find a patent and make it stick, however, then there would be the problem of enforcement. Linux is developed globally, and any patent they have doesn’t apply to the rest of the planet. Worse though, is that the USA is a signatory to WTO treaties that would forbid exclusion of Linux from the US market. A Linux distribution imported (or downloaded) from overseas would still be legal and without liability. The best MS could hope for would be to exclude vendors from developing and distributing in the USA the few bits that they might have patent position on.
They could tell RedHat: OK, don’t ship with FAT filesystem drivers precompiled, but they couldn’t prevent people (and businesses) from downloading it from linux.filesystems.fr, for instance. There’s actually no precedent that would permit RedHat for auto-downloading it during installation (arguably, treaties exist that would seem to support that).
(FWIW, FAT is a bad example since it was widely sold prior to the patent filing and invented 30 years ago; the patent exists, but would be invalidated on that basis alone if challenged).
If this isn’t abuse of a monopoly I don’t know what is. It was one thing for SCO, a relatively small player, to attack Linux. This kind of abuse can’t be tolerated, MS should be at the very least be heavily fined, if not taken down entirely.
We can all speculate and make assumptions, but believe me when I say that Ballmer and Co. are beginning a well written and planned drama that will play out over the course of the next few months. Whether we can see it or not, there is a plan. As the old cliche goes “there are many ways to skin a cat”. MS is in the business of computer dominance and EVERYTHING they do will go towards achieving that goal.
Microsoft is a master strategist. Respect how powerful they have become, how they have told stories, that if you use Vista or MSOffice you will be more productive, be happier, etc.
“Free software” and “open source software” does not have to be about only technical considerations. What about business? A critical difference in FOSS, however, is that education of users is necessary to make it all viable in the long run.
Ballmer’s power here rests in a context of the legal system. People like myself who in the past thought that FOSS was just a better development model have been fooled. Licenses matter.
Regardless of whatever FOSS projects you support, please help out the projects’ leaders by better understanding the code, including the legal code they have chosen for protecting the computer code.
If we ever have a doubt about why a particular license was chosen, it goes without saying that we had better have an extremely careful and well-informed argument to show why that choice was a mistake.
Edited 2006-11-17 17:32
1.) The long filename extensions to FAT16 and FAT32 (how filenames can appear as 8.3 as well as longer)
2.) Apparently they patented any and all font antialiasing.
3.) NTFS support in the kernel (the broken one)
4, etc.) Various bizarre things like… I dunno, scroll bars in applications or some crazy thing like that?
Now… how many of these are defensible in court? Who knows.
It’s just more of a scare tactic. Ballmer’s hoping the accusation alone has the same effect that accusing someone of rape does: just the accusation convicts. So in this case he’s hoping to scare companies to keep forking over cash to MSFT to run their servers instead of using Linux.
“Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon ’em” — Shakespeare
Now is not the time for Sun to be the self-defeating loose cannon that it was sometimes in the past. Instead, they must try harder than ever to work with the FSF, Red Hat, etc. to profit at Microsoft’s expense, to turn the massive FUD machine against Microsoft in order to gain the marketshare that they squandered long ago.
This is bigger than IT. Ever since Enron, MCI, etc., corporate america has suffered from a rotten, corrupt image. It doesn’t have to be that rotten.
Schwartz could fit into Shakespeare’s third category. He needs a lot of help to pull it off. Now is the time for him to strike out and seek the glory. (Not that he deserves it *grin*.)
EXACTLY!!! c’mon SUN!
This year has presented a number of opportunities for IT companies to speak for or against free software.
Do not be surprised to see some being forced to acknowledge that they should have taken a more principled stand. However disguised these acknowledgements may be, pressures will be brought to bear to move away from the GPLv2 to the GPLv3.
Show us the code stolen and we will remove them and replace it with something better !
Edited 2006-11-17 18:32
their code for stability and security…oh wait thats vaporware on Win32.
Its not an innovation if you make a change when you own 90% of the market share. Thats called gravity.
If common sense were a commodity the vast majority would be using Linux.
F*** You Novell.
-nX
This last bit of FUD from Redmond is the least effective yet. Even when the viability of Linux was seriously thrown into question with SCO, adoption of the OS was at its fastest ever.
The only people who will listen to this FUD will be Microsoft shops who are interested in Linux but currently running little of it. Those shops running Linux, MS or otherwise, are likely using Red Hat and are happy with that.
The U.S. government and most U.S. businesses use Red Hat. Most other governments using Linux are using some form of Debian, and most European businesses use SUSE, but the Europeans tend to not trust MS.
So if you made some sort of Venn diagram of all this, the people most likely to listen to MS are those who have been already been listening to MS’s Linux rhetoric anyway. I can’t see mass defections over from Red Hat or Debian to SUSE over this. And with IBM and Oracle still pushing Red Hat’s OS, and Red Hat’s refusal (thank god) to enter a similar patent agreement with MS, I don’t see how MS’s new spin on old FUD will matter at all.
Not to mention that Sun is starting to push Ubuntu on SPARC.
MS is still reaping the huge benefits from its strategic positioning in the 90s, but I don’t see it having a very strategic position for the upcoming decades … not unless they can come up with a better revenue stream for .NET than just bundling it with Windows licenses. The Novell deal might be more than just FUD … it may also be their attempt to start creating a real cross-platform ecosystem with .NET. I’d say at this point, MS is just hedging their bets between defaming Linux to some extent or moving their stakes somewhere higher up the software stack, from the Windows OS to the .NET platform.
Edited 2006-11-17 19:16
I think MS is getting worried.
Another back-slapping Linux circle jerk…
Another back-slapping Linux circle jerk…
It’s worth repeating.
However rude you may think it is, it points to a horrible problem: complacency.
Wake up. Assuming that Microsoft is weak is a sport for fools. Put your negativity to better use.
Eventually Microsoft will learn and have a largely responsible business model. Then some will have to find another devil. *grin*
I started my IT career about 8 years ago being pretty much an all MS guy – VB, VC++, SQL Server, and all Windows.
But I got fed up with Windows lack of stability, and horrible security.
Then XP came out, and it’s ridiculous licensing, and forcing the user to get “permission” if they upgraded/changed their hardware.
And of course, I was tired of hearing about all the anti-trust, monopoly stuff. I don’t like doing business with a company that has such a blatant disregard for the law, or end user’s rights, or real competition. It’s very very immoral, and downright un-American.
About this time I really started checking out and liking both Linux and Java.
After this I started liking the *nix world, and the Java world, more and more, and hating MS more and more (sorry, I just don’t like bullies that put out lousy products – that’s not irrational zealotry – after all, who likes a bully?).
But then I decided I didn’t want to be too religious about FOSS, or a Java zealot. And I kind of got the impression (which I now know is false) that MS was starting to learn it’s lesson, that it needed to “play nice” a little more, otherwise alienate their customers.
I also started to open my mind a bit more to their products. Windows did improve a bit. Most of Office is tolerable. And .Net is pretty nice.
But then it became abundantly apparent that MS was entirely behind the SCO lawsuits. Then the MS/Novell deal. And now Steve “dumbass blabbermouth” Ballmer’s latest comment.
Thus, it’s all over for me. I will only use MS products as much as I’m forced to, in order to maintain gainful employment (to support my family). Apart from that, I will avoid MS products like the plague, and will actively recommend that customers, family, friends, etc do the same.
Luckily, their are vastly superior choices to any of MS’s offerings. 🙂
But f&^% MS.
F%$# Steve Ballmer
They are anti competitive, anti customer, anti freedom, anti quality, anti innovation, anti law-abiding, and full on, completely immoral.
MS is no better than Mafia thugs.
It is high time that the U.S government, now that a bunch of the MS-bribed Republicans have been booted out of office, the anti-trust stuff, break up the company stuff can resurface. Not trying to bring in politics, same criticisms can be leveraged at the Democrats, but once Bush came in, and the Reeps controlled Congress, MS went on it’s big money lobbying effort, and the anti-trust, break up the company stuff was dropped, and MS got a slap on the wrist.
It’s time for the anti-trust stuff to come back, from all comers (USA, EU, Asia) and a anti-trust jihad waged against MS.
The bully needs to be slapped down, and slapped down hard.
I also welcome an MS lawsuit against a Linux customer, a distro (Red Hat), and let the counter suit ensue, forcing MS’s code to be exposed, and be thrown into the GPL (they are just as likely to be violating the GPL as any of their phony baloney patents are being violated by Linux).
“Apart from that, I will avoid MS products like the plague, and will actively recommend that customers, family, friends, etc do the same.”
I feel so hurt.. *sniff*
To even be compared with MS, oh the pain..
sorry, couldn’t resist.
Edited 2006-11-19 18:15
Not sure if this was thought of already because I didn’t read all the posts, but here is my take:
MS is providing a covenant for certain Linux distributors who are corporate…Novell and Red Hat, for example. MS can deal with these guys using the normal tactics that businesses use on each other. They are established entities that have stock and follow the normal rules that corporations must follow, so MS has a leg up on them.
Now, with all the other Linux distro’s, especially community ones that MS can’t really go after anyone, they setup the scenario where if companies decide to use these that there is no guarantee that MS will not sue for IP infringement. THE THREAT IS THERE, and whether MS can or will do anything about it, it may be enough to keep the MS customers from switching to them.
OK, so now MS customers could switch to Novell or Red Hat Linux. Since both these companies will eventually be under the thumb of MS and can be dealt with legally like any other corporation, MS will have funneled all current MS shops into one of the 2 (or more later) Linux vendors that they can control.
This is how they control a movement.
This is how they control a movement.
Red Hat has already rejected them. What other moves can they make against Red Hat?
Microsoft wins, Linux distros are forced to cease doing their thing. Everyone that used Linux goes out and purchases AmigaOS4. Steve Ballmer’s head explodes!
Microsoft wins, Linux distros are forced to cease doing their thing. Everyone that used Linux goes out and purchases AmigaOS4. Steve Ballmer’s head explodes!
no, everybody downloads GPL sun solaris and continues what they were doing.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. –Mohandas Gandhi”
MS is already dead, and this is FUD, move along…
Edited 2006-11-17 21:32
cmost:
I guess I get taken literally here for some reason. Must I say “is likely to believe?”
He made a public statement that “Linux users our Intellectual Property.” If that’s not true, then Microsoft could be in for a very, very serious problem; there could be lawsuits for slander, damages because of business lost due to erroneous statements about risk, and Heaven knows what else. Do you honestly thing that man would risk a company the size of Microsoft on an off-hand statement like that?
The real question here is, as I have said, “what will they do about it?” There’s also, “What intellectual property?” Just because someone holds, or believes they hold, something called “intellectual property” doesn’t mean they control it from the standpoint of the law.
Neither does it mean that Ballmer is going to use such “property” as a club against anyone. He’s a smart persone, but he’s also a smart business person. Microsoft has held patents on technology used in OpenGL, but it’s still freely available in Linux 3 years on. If commercial Linux vendors *are* at issue with Microsoft over IP, they may work out any number of agreements that will benefit both parties.
and he is very afraid. Give me please his PayPal number
Edited 2006-11-17 22:00
The result would be …
– re-opened anti-trust with the US government, EU, and Asian countries
– patent jihad from IBM, HP, Sony, perhaps even Oracle, the FSF, OSDL, maybe even Intel, AMD,
– tons of ticked off customers (at MS)
– MS loses customers
– Massive, massive bad publicity (for MS)
– Counter suits for GPL software in MS products, forcing opening of MS code in court, or upon refusal to do so, back compensation or cease and desist.
– GPL v3 out in March, all GNU chain adopts it (regardless of whether Linux kernel devs adopt it), and MS/Novell deal becomes an explicit (rather than implicit) violation of the GPL, forcing alleged MS patents to become freely available. Actually, this going to happen regardless of what MS does.
One more thing, and again, I don’t want to start a political debate. But after November 7, the U.S. Congress is now decidedly less MS-friendly, as many of who had been heavily lobbied by MS are now gone, and the Democrats now control the House and Senate, and the Democrats are historically more hostile to monopolies, and more aggressive on anti-trust. So MS doesn’t have Congress as an ally anymore.
Bring it on, MS.
I also agree with diego’s post on the Ghandi quote. This is what is going on.
What Micros$$^32oft can do if every Linux user slap fat32/ntfs partitions,any win32 codecs, any windoze applications or documents and every windoze sh!!t from his/her computer??
If anyone had any doubt before that Mono was on shaky ground w/regard to MS’s intents to enforce its patents around the .NET VM technologies, this little deal should make it very clear.
Novell knows full well that a useful Mono (e.g. one that supports Windows APIs and allows running Windows .NET applications unmodified) would violate MS patents left, right and center, so they’ve done something about it, and are assuming that they can offer an attractive migration path from Windows to Linux by providing a way to run .NET apps on Linux ‘safely’. Some customers may be looking for this, so I can’t say it’s all bad for them.
However, it is a big gamble, since they will have to not only do all the work to track MS’s APIs alone, but may in fact have to reimplement any major piece of Linux-centric technology that goes GPL3 (e.g. Samba, though this is pure speculation on my part) to include it in SuSE, and also deal with the fact that this move is going to make any attempts to push their own technologies with the Linux community (e.g. Mono in GNOME) a huge uphill battle.
Personally, I doubt it will pan out for them, and will see a major dumping of SuSE by the community – but at least it takes Mono off the table as an option for GNOME which should reduce the infighting that has been going on so long.
//However, it is a big gamble, since they will have to not only do all the work to track MS’s APIs alone, but may in fact have to reimplement any major piece of Linux-centric technology that goes GPL3 (e.g. Samba, though this is pure speculation on my part) to include it in SuSE, and also deal with the fact that this move is going to make any attempts to push their own technologies with the Linux community (e.g. Mono in GNOME) a huge uphill battle.//
Novell probably will have a problem with Samba going to GPL3, but they will certainly have an utter deal-breaker when all of GNU (from the FSF) goes to GPL v3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GNU_packages
There is no SuSe at all without gcc, glibc, binutils and coreutils.
Ms just pisses me Off. I hate them
You arn’t the only one.
I couldn’t believe it when I read this. It was like a million slashdot trolls came true at once… and from Ballmer as well.
What a f__kwit. Actions like this do nothing much energise the OS software camp even more.
I’m just surpriced that no-one saw this coming. Of course a company will sue anyone that uses their intellectual property.
Whining is useless when the law is at somebodys side. The software world isn’t anymore some separate underground movement.
Removing all the IP violating code is going to give Linux a really big boost at the market.
Removing all the IP violating code is going to give Linux a really big boost at the market.
…except there isn’t any IP violating code in Linux.
it means someone at Microsoft intentionally put it in there.
Hey Ballsack….got proof?
OK, here’s my problem with all this FUD. Let me create a scenario:
1. I decided to use Linux, let’s say it’s Sarge on a basic web server. I did this to get a job done, not knowing about any of the lawyer crap involved, save that the people that made and released this software claim it’s fine, and I have no reason to doubt them.
2. I find that MS says Linux infringes on their IP. OK, so what? Until they take it to court, it doesn’t matter.
3. OK, they take it to court, and win. Linux or an app has code changes, they’re releasd, and Kernel.org is finally having trouble providing their bandwidth. Now, then, I’ll have to update that machine (after all, it’s been running fine without a reboot for how long, now?). Alrighty, done.
Now, this is a scenario that is on MS’ side, but even then, where’s the part where what I’m doing is really in trouble? Much like the bad caps thing, it may mean some long nights for admins, but I fail to see how it will be worse than that.
Now, even if someone like RH gets hit, that offers support, I think MS would have a real battle, because many companies, like IBM, have some stake in RH’s livelihood.
If Linux uses MS “IP”, that’s MS’ problem, unless they can prove that someone at MS, or with access to that “IP”, leaked it to someone working on Linux. Or did the rules get even better for deep pockets, recently?
Microsoft should tread carefully concerning their recent “claims” of
intellectual property. I think the United States DOJ and the EU would
be very interested in *any* action Microsoft claims they may or may not
take against any competing software vendor, be it proprietary or open
source. Their “monopoly status” in the computer world is still open for
inspection in the US and EU.
It also strikes me that Microsoft would still try to threaten competitors
with IP claims, considering they are basically in contempt for not releasing
said IP as previously ruled by the US DOJ and/or the EU.
US DOJ vs Microsoft “Modified” Final Judgement (2006-Sep-07)
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f218300/218339.htm
EU vs Microsoft info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_antitrust_cas…
PS – It is interesting to note, according to Wikipedia, that the EU case
against Microsoft was started from a complaint by Novell against Microsoft
for licensing practices back in 1993.
Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive….Sir Walter Scott
Edited typos
Edited 2006-11-18 19:27
Ballmer to “linux”: “linux uses our intellectual property”
“Linux” to Ballmer: “You are irrelevant”.
Open source to Ballmer: Resistance is futile — you will be assimilated.
If Red Hat will announce to sue Microsoft for slander (for unfounded accusations of violating IP, patents, & whatever other bla), I’ll send my contribution right away. Bring up the lawyers army.
Sometimes a corporation has to know that it’s gone too far. This is most definitely one of those times.
/* We are willing to do a deal with Red Hat and other Linux distributors.” The deal with SUSE Linux “is not exclusive,” Ballmer added. */
Sad that Novell fell for ms FUD, but redhat knows better. If ms does not produce evidence where linux is infringing then ms claims are invalid.
Edited 2006-11-19 01:00
What have they produced worth a damn? A buggy, malware infested OS (I haven’t tried Vista and have no plans to, I’m speaking of Windows 2-XP SP2)? A bloated, crash-prone office suite? A piece of shit magnet for attacks browser?
IMO, MS has created some decent mice and keyboards, pretty good games like Flight Simulator, Midtown Madness, etc. And the Xbox is okay. But they are far from a company that creates excellent software, and I don’t think going after Linux users is going to change that.
Ballmer’s a schmuck, and Gates is a has-been.
Steve Ballmer: ‘Linux Uses Our Intellectual Property’
I think that Steve deserves ‘Joke of the Year’ title for that sentence
Good grief, why is Microsoft so incapable of playing nice? It’s like it is embedded in the heart of the corporation to screw people over. *sigh*