Comments on: Behind the scenes in Microsoft's war against Linux

Microsoft continues to forge back-room patent deals with second-tier companies in its attempts to discredit the open-source operating system.

[Mr. Dee]

Microsoft is a business that is built on proprietary intellectual property. It must be protected. The Windows platform in particular is an ecosystem as you noted, there is a lot of stuff in the operating system Microsoft must protect, not for their own sake, but for their industry partners from which Microsoft licenses technologies.

[forever4now]

OK. Then why doesn't Microsoft identify what they believe is being infringed upon, instead of spreading FUD and acting like an extortionist?

[odubtaig]

If Microsoft has licensed patented technologies from others, it's up to those who own the patents to protect them, not Microsoft.

Idiot.

[Matt Asay]

I absolutely concur that IP should be protected, but the way Microsoft is going about this makes me think that its end game is not to protect its IP, but rather to muddy the water on others'. If Microsoft is worried about Linux, let it go after IBM, Red Hat, Amazon, TiVo, and others whose businesses depend upon it. Brother? Linux is a nice afterthought in its business...which is precisely why Microsoft can afford to go after it, not the others mentioned.

I think Microsoft generally makes great products. It should compete on that basis, not this sneaky patent whisper game.

[holyhope]

Microsoft has done more to hold back computer progress than any other entity. They have however been a tremendous boon to business and governmental control. Their fight against linux is like science against apostacy, it will end in victory for linux as anyone can see. And Bill Gates will die naked just like me, just like any mob boss.

[rapier1]

Why doesn't MS identify what it believes is being infringed on? Mostly because disclosing that when it doesn't need to would tip their strategic hand. Look at it this way - if Brother and MS cross licenses patents A and B from MS and C and D from Brother and announce it then HP would know that both MS and Brother are very interested in these technologies and will try to position themselves to take advantage of this. This may be detrimental to both Brother and MS so these sort of deals are often kept confidential.

[Mr. Dee]

@odubtaig: the fact that you have to resort calling me an idiot shows that you are still living in moms basement. Go to a Community College and get your GED instead of helping to tank the global economy.

[odubtaig]

No, you are an idiot. Now explain away the other part of my comment.

[iptofar]

Lawyers are called in when the innovation is over. (If MS ever actually innovated anything in the first place.)

[Cybernuaght]

As a technology buyer, I seek out products from companies that aren't threatening to sue everyone. For example, I chose to implement Alfresco over Share Point and I have Novell SuSE servers rather than MS for files, printing, email, etc ...

Good business comes from good products not good lawyers.

[xcal78]

"As a technology buyer, I seek out products from companies that aren't threatening to sue everyone."

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.

[ajauch]

That's really funny considering Novell's history of lawsuits. Remember that MSFT had to pay them off a few years back to keep them quiet. Apple is also known for bringing out the lawyers pretty freely so I guess you won't buy a Mac or an iPod.

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.

[rapier1]

There is one problem with the linked article that may have an impact on the analysis. The in the ZDNet UK article the author states "Patents, you might remember, are designed to encourage innovation by the disclosure of information."

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.

[odubtaig]

Both wrong.

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.

[rapier1]

I stand corrected. It was always my understanding that the patent was mostly for the limited monopoly rights and that the publication was to reduce infringement.

[xcal78]

What Is a Patent?
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

[seven7dust]

Wonder why people don't have a problem with MS copying in the first place
the new Windows 7 taskbar is so KDE eske
and half of Vista's new features were bloated rip-off's of OSX

[CrashPad63]

Then your saying KDE is copying Windows 95?

[odubtaig]

Because they all steal from each other these days.

I mean, where did Gnome and KDE get 'taskbars' from in the first place, eh?

[gregoien]

There are dozens of companies that enforce their patents. Their standard pitch is we own the patent either sign and pay the agreement or we will sue. Why are you picking on Microsoft?

Next time look at how IBM defends its implementation of Unix - AIX or Apple enforces the Mac patents (seen many Mac clones lately?)

[xcal78]

Good point. There is no substitute for a Mac except a real Mac. Apple has done very well to protect its' property.

[odubtaig]

Yes, let's look at companies who don't hide behind bogus threats, empty promises or dubious statistics but take real action over patents that have more substance than a wet tissue.

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.

[dune1953]

MS has developed other technologies that may be useful in a printer. A couple that comes to mind are XPS (XML Paper Specification) and HD Photo. Elements of XPS are no doubt patented. So, I think that it is likely that Brother licensed these technologies for inclusion into their printers.

[shootthecops]

microsoft has no valid patents to threaten linux with, all they have is a lot of money and enough lawyers to choke out competitors in court.

[Vegaman_Dan]

I don't like Microsoft's actions in this situation. But by muddying the waters, as they say, it may cause more confusion and doubt for all and that's something Linux has always had trouble with- getting any sort of consistent message through. It's too nebulous and unknown. With little leadership or concise direction, it is hard to determine what it is for the average person's perceptions.

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.

[smarin820]

Microsoft will be found out if they are doing these things. I for one am glad I stopped using Microsoft Windows. There is no looking back and I tell a person a day (at least) about linux. It may take a while to get more folks on board, but anything is possible. Plus, maybe, just maybe it will make Microsoft produce a better, more stable product.

--Steve
Been using Linux and Unix now for 4 years...Microsoft free and loving it.

[techninut]

Microsoft should release a competing line of Windows operating systems that are available for free. (1) Server product and (1) consumer product.

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.