Behind the scenes in Microsoft's war against Linux
Even as Microsoft has slipped into the mainstream of open source by embedding it in its products and adopting open-source strategies for services such as customer relationship management, it continues its subversive fight against Linux.
Linux is different, you see. Open source, as Microsoft is starting to recognize, is just another part of its ecosystem, one that it must support, if it wants Windows to continue to be a first-class computing citizen.
The open-source operating system, however, is competition--Microsoft's top competition, if CEO Steve Ballmer's words are to be taken at face value.
In this context, Microsoft's recent patent deal with Brother makes sense. Otherwise, as ZDNet UK opines, it's a deal that causes much head-scratching:
This time, the lucky donor of cash for secrets is Brother, which will now be allowed to use Microsoft patents to make printers.
As Microsoft doesn't make printers--indeed, (it) doesn't even make printer drivers--it is an interesting exercise to try and guess what's actually happened...(Microsoft) sends in the lads to midsize companies (that) would really suffer from a long court case, and who cares about that lovely legal fact of intellectual-property life: paying off a determined litigant is often cheaper than winning...If Microsoft cares about looking like a company more interested in innovating openly than doing closed deals, then it should be open on details such as which patents are involved.
Otherwise, Microsoft's trick of gaining revenue from licensing open-source software behind closed doors will smell more and more like extortion.
Slowly, behind the scenes, Microsoft continues to try to portray Linux as risky and Microsoft's patent coverage as insurance. Given that the company selling the insurance is also the one threatening a lawsuit, however, Microsoft needs to step very carefully to avoid the "extortionist" label. I personally believe that it has already crossed the line and needs to get back to competition between products, not lawyers.
Microsoft Windows competes well against Linux. The company doesn't need patent trickery. It has a compelling, valuable ecosystem that it can use against Linux. Why does it continue these Linux kidney punches, of which Microsoft claims it has closed more than 500 deals?
Perhaps Microsoft is the company with something to hide? The last time I checked, Linux was open source, with everything available for public inspection. In the Brother patent deal, as in all the others, Microsoft has made absolutely nothing available for public inspection to test the veracity of its claims. That's a sign of weakness, not of strength.
Follow me on Twitter at mjasay.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
Idiot.
I think Microsoft generally makes great products. It should compete on that basis, not this sneaky patent whisper game.
Good business comes from good products not good lawyers.
You just selectively pick then ones you like I guess? Novell can sue Microsoft but Microsoft can't sue Linux? Thanks for the great laugh at lunch.
Big companies equal big time legal action. Just a fact of life.
If you really want to stop the foolishness, let's talk tort reform.
This is entirely wrong. Patents are actually designed to encourage innovation by giving innovators the exclusive rights to methods and technology thereby providing them with a market advantage and, hopefully, financial gain. They are published, in part, to disseminate information but mostly to give other innovators fair warning.
In the US system at least, patents were introduced to encourage the disclosure of inventions so others could learn from the ingenuity of the inventor without the inventor risking his life's work being stolen and profited from by others (a good many historically famous inventors had their work stolen so all they ever got was their name in the history books).
The entire intention of patents was to put an end to trade secrets and encourage the sharing of information in a fashion which imposed no penalties on inventors.
It has also, of course, had the beneficial effect of allowing people to license their patents to companies with the financial backing to produce a product which would otherwise never have seen the light of day, all the while safe in the knowledge that no-one can (legally) use their idea, no matter how much they may have seen of it, withou permission.
A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees. U.S. patent grants are effective only within the United States, U.S. territories, and U.S. possessions. Under certain circumstances, patent term extensions or adjustments may be available.
The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, ?the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling? the invention in the United States or ?importing? the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention. Once a patent is issued, the patentee must enforce the patent without aid of the USPTO.
There are three types of patents:
1) Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof;
2) Design patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture; and
3) Plant patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant.
Reference:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#patent
the new Windows 7 taskbar is so KDE eske
and half of Vista's new features were bloated rip-off's of OSX
I mean, where did Gnome and KDE get 'taskbars' from in the first place, eh?
Next time look at how IBM defends its implementation of Unix - AIX or Apple enforces the Mac patents (seen many Mac clones lately?)
IBM and Apple don't make with the highly public sabre rattling (which, BTW, could have had MS sued for defamation in the UK. Look up why), they wait until they have something provable and bring down the hammer.
Microsoft: The Corp. Who Cried Wolf.
I wish MSFT would leave Linux alone to grow or wither on its own merits and not by anyone else's efforts. We all benefit from the competition.
--Steve
Been using Linux and Unix now for 4 years...Microsoft free and loving it.
- by techninut February 10, 2009 9:04 AM PST
- Microsoft should release a competing line of Windows operating systems that are available for free. (1) Server product and (1) consumer product.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(27 Comments)I don't think it's necessary for Microsoft to completely release all of their code for inspection by the public. I understand why some people want that and many argue that Linux is still extremely secure, even with this knowledge available to everyone and anyone.
The point is that Windows is on 90+ % of the worlds computers. Microsoft has a bigger risk and many people have invested a lot of money on Microsoft licenses because of the security behind their product information.
Microsoft could put a small team on an open source Windows project. That team could start with the Windows XP source code and build on that OS to create the free Operating Systems needed to compete with Linux. This would be a cost-effective way for Microsoft to quickly jump into this.
I'm no insider on this. From a consumer standpoint it makes sense for Microsoft to get involved in open source with a free Windows Operating System. Especially in a time when the world economy is in such bad shape. Cost is a huge driving factor in why people choose Linux over Windows.