Ballmer Says Linux "Infringes Our Intellectual Property" 820
Stony Stevenson writes "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." From the ComputerWorld article: "In a question-and-answer session after his keynote speech at the Professional Association for SQL Server (PASS) 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.'" His exact wording is available at the Seattle Intelligencer, which has a transcript of the interview. Groklaw had an article up Wednesday giving some perspective on the Novell/Microsoft deal. Guess we'll have something to talk about in 2007, huh?
Microsoft Brand FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't seen patent one infringed upon let alone a whole balance sheet's worth so you'll have to excuse me if I seem a bit pessimistic about you strong arming me into using SuSE.
That's right, you can spin it anyway you want
It's not just any old regular FUD, it's new improved Microsoft FUD.
Enjoy your $500 million, Novell.
No need to wait for netcraft... (Score:5, Insightful)
Surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay... (Score:5, Insightful)
With Microsoft's track history, I wonder why people trust them at all. Especially when the stakes are high, like in this situation.
Company motto (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft Brand FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you, but I think it is worse than that. I think the deal changes the perception of Linux, which is what the point of it was all the time.
Put up or Shut up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft Brand FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't believe they will have any more success than SCO has had. Microsoft's biggest mistake is not understanding how well the GPL resonates with developers and how poorly DRM resonates with users. They are stuck with a DOS mindset.
Their second biggest mistakes was proxying SCO to do their dirty work. The SCO case has shown how poorly this infringement idea flies [wikipedia.org], and it is going to make it incredibly hard for Microsoft to get any traction with the general public and with Wall Street when they take their turn. The legal traction won't be there either, but they can afford far more lawyering than SCO and will manage to drag out Son of SCO for a long time. But the end result will be even better for Linux.
Patent numbers and licence fees ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Without that essential information, Microsoft are behaving in a commercially-inappropriate way. Intimidating and destructive to creativity.
I need the chance to way either that the patent does not apply where I live; or that there is prior art; or that I will do something in a different way. Or to find a patent of mine (or of my employer's) that they would like to cross-licence. I also need to know when the patent expires.
To quote someone somehow involved in this.. (Score:4, Insightful)
So THIS it was all about ah ? forcing to suse ? (Score:4, Insightful)
arent they already aware that eu is bashing them because of their similar behaviour ?
do they think that eu will just let them force people to use their own 'partner''s distro just like that ?
i can see fines raining down like hell.
Better = Infringement ? (Score:1, Insightful)
Mantra of the 2000's - "If it ain't yours, and it's better than yours...it's 'Intellectual Property Infringement'"
Damn, worst scenario happens... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft Brand FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I think the Linux community needs to with one very loud voice say...
"Bring it fat man!"
Re:Okay... (Score:5, Insightful)
As for Novell, I don't think Microsoft will take them to court, but I don't think they need to. I don't really know of anyone who was supportive of the Novell/Microsoft deal- and very few were even willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. This whole thing is going to really deamonize Novell in the eyes of the open source community. The way I see it, and a lot of other people too, is that basically Novell had the idea that Microsoft was going to start suing people over Linux, and rather than stand up for Linux and the community, they decided to become another MS lapdog.
The coming war (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that (as far as a lot of the top end guys at MS are concerned) Vista is out of the door they are looking at what is next. Customers (home, but most especially business) are not going to pay for another OS - many might not even buy Vista. There is little else MS can put into an OS that sells - stability and modularisation don't sell. They tried the "eye candy" route for Vista - because if they didn't it wouldn't sell one copy. The thing is they can't do the same thing again "Windows Corumo - just another coat of paint on the same OS" - nobody will buy it.
The future? Subscription based economics - they don't have to produce another OS - they just continually charge for the current one. That too goes for MS Office etc.
Why the current turn by MS - because linux really does cause them difficulties in that business model. $30 per month for windows or $0 for a flavour of linux.
The big battle is ahead - the business model that has held firm with computers (both software and hardware) over the past 20 years is being broken up. This can be proven in the easiest way imaginable. Ask yourself this question. As a member of the "bulk" of computer users (ie not high end gamers or 3D designers - home "write an email and watch a dvd"'ers or business "write a spreadsheet or create a presentation"er's) - why would you *want* to buy a new machine/new OS? - the old one does everything just fine - super fast and relatively trouble free. That has not been the case for the past 20 years - it is now.
Fermat's Last IP Infringement (Score:4, Insightful)
This is getting really old and although many here will probably disagree, it will eventually have an impact. I can just hear my legal department now "We keep hearing case after case of Linux infringing on someone's IP. We better ban it. Microsoft is a big secure company that would never do anything like that and if they did, there is no way the effects of it could ever impact the end user"...Oh wait.. .. Scratch that. [com.com]
Microsoft is infringing upon my Human Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, they are using me and all the people i know for their own personal profit against their wishes.
i request that microsoft cease and desist immediately
Re:SCO did it! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:SCO did it! (Score:5, Insightful)
For all we know MS has some patent on Operating Systems or taking input, processing it, and giving output, or the color blue, or something.
That's the problem with software patents, as it stands right now, if Linux really is infringing on some MS patent then the functionality will have to be removed, not simply re-implemented in a different way. If this patent is on something core to the operation of Linux, then it could be very bad.
Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Linux does violate some MS patent- not because the kernel developers have been stealing from MS, but because software patents are far to broad in nature. The best possible scenario would be that Linux is violating some MS patents and that is used as a stepping stone in order to reorganize that entire software patent system so it's not so stupid. More likely is that either Linux isn't violating any MS patents, or it is but MS doesn't do anything about it in court because they are afraid of having to fight IBM on one side, and Antitrust lawsuits from the EU (and possibly the US, though we saw how effective that was the last time) on another side.
Interoperability (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:is this going to force a fork? (Score:2, Insightful)
but it doesn't mean that we - the Linux community - have to accept it. I think
snapping the Novell tine off of the fork is the ultimate answer, and we do that
by simply turning our backs to Novell and treat it as a non-entity in the Linux
community from now on. Its value to Linux has plummeted to zero this week, period.
I'm planning to migrate to either Fedora Core 6 or Debian Etch over the next few
weeks, depending on which seems to fare better during my personal bake-off. And,
Microsoft will not have any say whatsoever about what I run on *MY* computer. It's
mine, and not Ballmer's and he will not dictate what I can and cannot run or store
on my hardware in any way, shape or form.
Re:No need to wait for netcraft... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:is this going to force a fork? (Score:2, Insightful)
The only person liable here should be the author who claims to hold the copyright, like any type of publication. If there are others who wish to the challenge the claim, they would have to demonstrate prior publication and an opportunity for the offending author to have plagiarized the source.
If demonstrated, the source could be removed from distribution and replaced with non-plagiarized code.
If I write a scientific article, I don't believe I am liable for citing work which later turns out to be plagiarized. Why should it be any different with code?
Thus I would say only Novell has any serious liabilities here. It would be, however, important to get some legal advice here, perhaps the FSF could be asked to make a statement on this wrt the GPL, otherwise Microsoft might find itself a legal way to cause OSS alot of trouble.
Not really (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny thing. SCO tried this same thing about 3 years ago. It started with a reporter "viewing" the evidence and then reporting it as being a credible violation. After 3 years, NOTHING has come from it. I suspect that we will soon see a reporter reporting that they have seen numerous IP violations from Linux, but will not show the evidence and will soon say that it is credable. My guess is that it will be Dvorack or some other idiot inside of PC Mag.
Re:M$ takes and does not appreciate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft Brand FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents, were, after all, designed to spur innovation, and the only way you can do that is to provide opportunities for other players in the market. You can't have other players if they can never quite get their foot in the door, fearing that they'll be sued into oblivion by monolithic, entrenched interests.
Microsoft, moving customers daily (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Okay... (Score:2, Insightful)
A US software patent war would show what a disaster they are.
But, carnage aside, isn't this otherwise a Good Thing? Given the absurd things that the patent office approves under the flag of "[something common], but with a computer!", this might be the most expedient way to have software patents revoked across the board.
Maybe it's time for the Linux community to pull the trigger first for a change.
But think of this (Score:3, Insightful)
make lawsuits --not-vista (Score:3, Insightful)
So this whole campaign to screw Linux with patent attacks looks desperate. And since the Novell deal isn't absolutely committed, the strategy is in jeopardy, without its foundation properly laid. With IBM already whipping Novell's last created Frankenstein, SCO, into harmless foam after years in court, Microsoft's attempt looks less likely to succeed every few days. When will Oracle come out of the woods? Does RedHat have a patent arsenal to match its brand and budgets?
Re:Samba (Score:3, Insightful)
Both projects are basically reverse engineering of Microsoft protocols or APIs with the goal of interopability, or cross-platform deployment. I think reverse engineering is perfectly legitimate. It's been supported by the courts before.
Listen to what Ballmer is saying: "Therefore, our job has got to be to help our customers get interoperability. And, of course, all vendors secretly are wondering when they do interoperability, did I do something that's going to help me win more of their customers, or something that's going to help them win more of my own customers."
The other Microsoft related headline is that Europe is trying to force Microsoft to share information about Windows protocols with open-source projects like Samba, to allow and improve interoperability with other operating systems. Microsoft's initial response was to only offer that information to other businesses at a high price. Europe persisted, and Microsoft has adopted this new strategy; still insisting they be paid for compliance with government regulation.
Re:Microsoft Brand FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly, if Linux were a person it could, I think. It is like MS saying, "Oh, don't let that Linux get near your family, he molested my children." If Ballmer said what he said about Linux about a person, with no evidence, he would likely end up in court.
Is there a case here? Is it possible to have a case? I'd love to see someone (or better, a group of someones
Re:Surprised? (Score:3, Insightful)
They give Novell a wad of cash and gave Suse and Mono MS's blessing. MS will allow a handful of Linux distros to operate (read: suse, rh) and send cease and desist letters to every other distro because Linux and its various popular applications infringe on 326,038 MS-owned software patents. Novell sees this as good since 12,000 somewhat incompatible distributions devalue their product. Wouldn't it be nice if linux came in only 2 or 3 flavors... if you owned one of those flavors?
It's extortion. Big linux players who play ball will have MS's approval to operate, but the FUD will limit their business (or put them out of business). Since they make up a majority of linux users, and a vast majority of linux servers, this will seal linux's place in the market. All they have to do is keep IBM and/or Sun in court for a couple of years (soon!) and get the big linux players on board (done!) and the FUD will do the rest (started!).
What will stop it?
and... well, that's it. Winning in court won't matter if it drags on for another couple of years. The SCO fiasco has hurt linux adoption (not that it's the only thing). This will be worse. There's no "just show me the code" in a software patent case.
Re:Samba (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Microsoft's plan is even stupider than that. Microsoft wants to charge a per seat license for Linux users, but they aren't really offering enhanced interoperability. Novell and Red Hat are both going to include the same software. It's not like Novell is going to have its own version of Samba, for instance. The primary difference is that Novell customers are going to be able to "sleep easy" because Novell is paying Microsoft so that Microsoft won't sue Novell's Linux customers.
Microsoft isn't going to sue Red Hat's customers either, but that's only because suing Red Hat customers would be ridiculously foolish. At its heart the real issue is that Microsoft has such a poor relationship with its customers that many customers are worried that Microsoft will drag them into patent court. These customers are willing to pay money, not for any sort of patent license, but for a short term commitment from Microsoft that they won't be sued.
Next thing you know Microsoft execs will be brutalizing school kids for their lunch money.
The truly ironic bit is that Microsoft is not going to sue anyone over patents. Microsoft execs know that if they did this the various organizations that have a stake in the success of Linux (which is essentially everyone but Microsoft) would pay for a well-funded defense. Millions of dollars would be spent, and in the end the patents in question would either be shot down or removed from the Free Software product in question. Depending on who Microsoft chose to attack it could even trigger retaliation from other large players with huge patent repositories. What's more, Microsoft's patent aggression would start a wholesale migration away from Microsoft's technologies.
If Microsoft started suing folks using its technology then its technology would become much less popular virtually overnight.
This is why Microsoft has wisely chosen a middle road. Instead of actually taking people to court, it is simply going to threaten to take people to court and hope that they'll throw money Microsoft's way.
Re:Alright, own up (Score:5, Insightful)
Who merged the Linux Genuine Advantage code into the tree? Come on, speak up - I know it was one of you.
Funny, but the wrong thing to ask.
The right thing to ask is how much open and public domain source made it to Windows? Was not Linux preemptive multitasking before Windows, POP3, SMTP/sendmail, DNS/BIND, Kerberos, telnet, ftp, http, ssl, TCP/IP itself, and probably more. At least in concept everything in Windows even windows itself is borrowed from other peoples works. Windows itself is an extrapolation of other people's prior works at best.
FUD means never having to say anything specific (Score:5, Insightful)
Msft = the fud factory.
Re:Okay... (Score:5, Insightful)
hopefully many lawyers dying in the middle.
You misspelled "getting rich".
Remember the movie 'Brazil"? (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the characters is a guy (played by Robert De Niro) who runs around repairing the horribly broken machines that everyone's required to use, but are forbidden to fix. He's hunted down as a terrorist.
Seemed pretty crazy when I first saw it.
Doesn't seem so far fetched anymore.
Re:Microsoft Brand FUD (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless you can prove any of the accounts of the Bible false, then I will consider them facts.
Re:Alright, own up (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Alright, own up (Score:5, Insightful)
They are using our IP so we paid them $234 million (Score:3, Insightful)
IMO, in the next few years we are going to see the public finally seeing Microsoft for what they really are. After all, FOSS and GNU/Linux must be doing SOMETHING or else Microsoft would not be doing so much in the public and financial markets regarding them. Unfortunately, I don't see very much of this in the United States so it must be going on elsewhere or outside of my sight.
'Gozer' has now, or will soon be, materialized and Novell could be our 'Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man'. Will it be IBM, Oracle, RedHat, or others who bust this party up? Or will the US become to knowns as "The land of Gozer", if it isn't already?
So, "Who you gonna call?".
LoB
Re:Alright, own up (Score:3, Insightful)
Another reason to prefer the MIT license to the GPL - a rising tide raises ALL ships. And I don't see BSD dying (despite Netcraft) due to lack of contributions and effort.
Re:Surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you've found the genius of it: The problem for MS is that open source is so slippery. For instance, every time they turn around there's a new linux distribution, and they can become popular quickly - e.g. Ubuntu. If an open-source business goes under, it's code assets are still out there for any hobbysit or business to improve.
But if there were only 2 or 3 legitimate flavours of Linux from large vendors, then those can be contained or attacked by conventional tactics. And the best thing is that the big Linux vendors won't object at first, since by going after their smaller competitors you're doing them a favour.
Re:Alright, own up (Score:3, Insightful)
Was not Linux preemptive multitasking before Windows, POP3, SMTP/sendmail, DNS/BIND, Kerberos, telnet, ftp, http, ssl, TCP/IP itself, and probably more.
Are you seriously suggesting that Linux is the originator of all these technologies? or is that just the implication of your words without it being your intent?
Furthermore what does that matter, some people gave their code away with the intent that companies use it how they see fit. So don't go suggesting this is wrong or bad or in any way hypocritical of any company that protects its own IP while using the IP of others who freely give it away.
Re:Patent numbers and licence fees ? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they would need to be specific if they intended to file suit against anyone associated with the development of Linux in court.
If they're just going to make public statements with the intent of spreading FUD about Linux, it's in their interest to be as NON-specific as possible.
Linux probably violates patents (Score:3, Insightful)
That doesn't mean it's not expensive to litigate.
Re:Okay... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft Brand FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
No, at worst it is a book of made-up stories.
One that is just a recollection by normal people of the events they had witnessed (see #3).
You do realize that it is simply not true that all or even most bible parts are eyewitness accounts, yes?
Unless you can prove any of the accounts of the Bible false, then I will consider them facts.
That's a bad choice IMHO. At most you should consider them as accounts that were not disproved. Or do you also consider it fact until disproved if I tell you that a friend of mine can make his head explode?
Re:Alright, own up (Score:4, Insightful)
That parenthetical note is key here. Linux didn't have an SMB server before Microsoft did; no, Samba isn't part of the Linux kernel, but it is part of a lot of Linux distributions (as well as being used on other UN*X OSes), and Microsoft do have a licensing process for SMB and various protocols that run atop it [microsoft.com], so that might be what Ballmer was referring to.
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Alright, own up (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Alright, own up (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, keep in mind that Microsoft reinvented itself back in the early 90s. MS wanted a product line that would win in the desktop AND the server markets. It crafted the desktop off of what Apple had done and it wan't to use the leverage they'd get from the desktop to win over the server market as well. The only way to do that was to create a propriety system from the ground up. The OS design was an "anything but Unix" design. It wanted to make sure no other system could talk to Windows and no Windows desktop could talk to anything other than another Windows computer. It developed its own networking protocol, its own file sharing protocols, its own Windows API. The idea was if you have a Windows desktop, it could only talk to a Windows server and that was how MS was going to win over the server market as well.
But an interesting thing happened on the way to total market dominance... There was the Internet and the WWW. Remember, Microsoft didn't originally support TCP/IP but was forced to when the Internet became widely popular in the mid 90s. There was the web browser which allow people to run applications on Unix servers and have the output displayed on their desktop screens. And worse of all, there was reverse engineering. Oh wow, the very tactic Microsoft used to become powerful in the first place was being used against it to chip away at its dominance.
Now that everyone has figured out how to get Windows computers to interact with non-Windows computers, Microsoft is feeling the pinch. Its losing the server market as the Linux market is a more efficient and more cost effective platform to put a server application on. Its losing the desktop market as low cost applications are replacing the big cash cows like Microsoft Office.
So about the time we're feeling comfortable about how everything is one big happy family, Microsoft is going to throw a monkey wrench into all of this. Vista appears to be a BIG blow to interoperability as MS vows to reinforce its proprietary dominance. A new set of protocols and a new DRM layer will make applications tougher to run and data harder to use. Now, Microsoft is going to the next level... using its near monopoly status and huge cash coffers to shut down its competition. If Vista is a failure, Microsoft could very well wither away. It's betting its future on Vista and its new line of products wrapped around Vista. It's betting Vista will bring back the Microsoft only universe. But if MS thinks Vista is going to be a slam dunk winner, why is it bothering to put out all this propaganda about Linux. Maybe its covering all the bases in that by forcing the hand of Linux and FOSS, it will convince users that the risks of using OSS are too high and they will run back to proprietary Microsoft.
Its amazing how this has flipped 180 degrees. Twenty five years ago, Microsoft was using DOS and Basic to allow people to develop software to get out from underneath the proprietary world of the large mainframes of IBM, Dec and others. Now, Linux, supported by IBM and others is offering FOSS to allow people to get out from underneath the proprietary world of Microsoft.
Now that he's admitted it (Score:1, Insightful)
If Red Hat filed this lawsuit, in order to defend itself, Microsoft would have the affirmative defense of speaking the truth, but to prove it they'd have to file a counterclaim for patent infringement, then win. In other words, put their money where their big fat mouthpiece went. Then we'd really get some answers. My guess is they're trying to buy out everyone, starting with Novell, rather than sue and lose, because that would set a precedent.
SO SUE ME!!! (Score:1, Insightful)
1. I run a non-Suse copy of Linux. If you have any patents that I may be infringing, please sue me, and please specify exactly which patents I am supposedly infringing.
2. I also have a copy of Novell Linux. Once you have identified your patents, I will sue Novell for violating article 7 of the GPL v.2
You want a fight? Bring it on.
Moron.