Manage updates with the Download App
November 18, 2004 4:22 AM PST
Ballmer attacks Linux on patent front
- Related Stories
-
Sun plans patent protection for open-source Solaris
November 18, 2004 -
Fact and fiction in the Microsoft-SCO relationship
November 15, 2004 -
Microsoft registers trademark--19 years late
November 11, 2004 -
Microsoft to back customers in infringement cases
November 10, 2004 -
Microsoft wins again in Eolas patent dispute
August 18, 2004 -
Editors' Picks: Is Linux at risk from a Microsoft patent blitz?
August 4, 2004 -
IBM pledges no patent attacks against Linux
August 4, 2004 -
HP memo: Microsoft planned open-source patent fight
July 20, 2004
Microsoft CEO says Linux may not really be free given the intellectual-property risks.
The story "Ballmer attacks Linux on patent front" published November 18, 2004 at 4:22 AM is no longer available on CNET News.
Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.
90 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
the wall, and no amount of lawsuits will prevent the inevitable.
I think he's likely to find that threatening foreign governments with lawsuits if they don't toe the MS line isn't likely to help his business, especially when they see a viable alternative. Foot, meet bullet.
I'd say that's a lot more concerning than the patent straw-man they are currently dangling.
2. Why would anybody care if they requested it?
As for the rest, that is nonsense. SCO can't prove a thing, because there is nothing there but smoke caused by an illegal, scared corporation who sees their monolopy disolving in the face on their own incompetance.
How many patches has windows XP seem in the past 3 years? After all that it is still very unsecure. The only thing microsoft stands behind is a large pile of crap.
Steve Balmer is an idiot.
is actually spelled, "incompetence."
Not a correction I would have expected to make for somebody who is claiming Balmer is an idiot.
could be formulated is the position that M$ openly recognizes
that Linux is the ultimate Windows-Killer and thus desperate
measures are needed to delay the inevitable.
On the other hand, Ballmer's previous press releases have
demonstrated that he's not the brightest bulb in corporate
mangement. Maybe he actually believes this sort of M$ BS.
Now that's a frightening thought!
Perhaps Apple should consider suiing Microsoft.
-SCO is sueing over Linux.
-Microsoft warns of upcoming Linux legal troubles.
-HP offers Linux indemnification program
-Novell offers Linux indemnification program
-Red Hat offers iLinux indemnification program
-SUSE offers Linux indemnification program
-BRUCE PERENS starts a business (OSRM) to help protect Linux users from patent-based law suits.
"I want to be very careful about that, because OSRM is not capitalizing on FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt), OSRM is going around and talking about what the real risks and benefits are."
-Perens 5/7/04 InfoWorld
OSRM = Open Source Risk Management
If you still have absolutely no concern, you are missing the big picture. Just about the only group suggesting that indemnification is unnecessary is IBM. And how would it look, given their current law suit if they agreed that protection was necessary? Consider also that IBM is about the only company not offering indemnification who can actually afford to lose a $3Billion lawsuit. Whether you think it has merit or not. OSRM alone hopes to bank over $10 million in profit to use fighting legal battles. Now, why doesn't this market exist for Microsoft software? Because it is not needed.
This sounds like blackmail to me!
Not all.
This is a competitive move that alerts others to potential legal risks involved with using Linux. It is not a lie, and it is not FUD. As a Linux advocate, it is annoying and troubling to hear, yet again. As a Windows advocate, it sounds like ongoing business.
1 single stolen movie will get you sued by the MPAA.
1 single unethical stock tip will get you thrown in the slammer.
1 single accounting scandal will destroy your life and your company.
1 single patent infringement in Linux has the potential to cause nightmares too. And in reality, there are over 200. How can so many people deny this??
Excuse me: Where did DOS come from??? Basically ripped off from some poor developer who, I'm sure, never saw a penny of the profits.
Gates calls himself the Chief Software Engineer of Microsoft. How many lines of code do you think the guy has written in his life??? NONE???
Also, I am forced to develop in a Microsoft environment. This is where I have learned that Linux is by far superior in all respects. Once again, I have delved deep into MS techology (Office 2003, Infopath, etc.) only to find the IDEs are not well concieved or even thoroughly thought through....a fact one only discovers once completely committed to the given techology of the project. I deeply resent everything Microsoft and really think Gates has a nerve. Long live Linux! I hope every government from municipal to national follows suit with China. I know our state government in Texas is going open source. Everyone is SICK OF MICROSUCK.
First of all.. the developer you describe sounds like an open-source participant.
But that aside... you are completely and totally wrong on both accusations. We'd all respect your opinion a lot more if you demonstrated that you had some clue about the matters you discuss.
Dirty OS) and was bought from Tim Paterson of
Seattle Computer Products. Microsoft did later
put an encrypted DR-DOS detector into Windows 3
which crashed the installer if it saw DR-DOS.
Gates actually came out and said that he went
dumpster-diving for other people's code
(presumbly guaranteed to be buggy) and if you
have a close look at his original Altair BASIC,
the harder parts were written by Monte Davidoff,
who doesn't appear on Microsoft's site at all
today, but does work excitedly with Linux and
Python.
Gates is (or was) a reasonably prolific if
somewhat eccentric coder; his main problem
appears to be an obsession with proving that his
"Trey" nickname isn't a diminuitive, which in
turn implies (money and) power at any sacrifice.
Which is where Microsoft's problems with
monopoly, security and the like originate.
As to Steve being a nut-job... well, he expects
at some time in the future to be able to take
security _off_ his ToDo list. Your call.
And its really funny too. Even Bruce Perens acknowledges that Linux contains over 280 patent violations, and has started a company that profits by selling legal protection to Linux users. LoL... how much more evidence do you need?
Of course... Gates is the person who spells it out the way it is, and people hate him for it.
If you willingly accept stolen property, and somebody tells you there is legitimate risk involved, they are not just spreading FUD. They are speaking truth.
--Eric Raymond 11/7/02 - pcworld.com
Seriously though, how could a corporation sue a country and the individuals of the country? Especially if the country used a completely open source non-maintained distribution of Linux that is not tied to a single corporation. The lidigation and collection of such a case would be impossible to enforce if not thrown out by the courts of said governments.
Unenforcible and without merrit globally. US patent law is just that. US Law not global law.
Only time will tell I guess.
Totally untrue. There are provisions for international business and mandates regarding respect for foreign law.
you could drive a bus through, and we've already
seen (cf TimeLine lawsuit) they they _do_
shortchange on licensing and they _don't_
adequately defend their customers (in this case
MS SQL developers). The short story is: don't bet
the farm on their assurances.
Meanwhile, how many patents dows MS-Windows
really violate? Are Microsoft goign to be honest
enough to cough up the truth on that front?
In all seriousness, MS will never, ever agree to play on an even playing field. They know they have no chance to survive then.
I can tell my wife I learned something today :D
It is not even close to inventing a new gadget, all software is, is a different way to use exisiting language constructs. Now what does that sound like? Writing a book or article or inventing something new? How are written words protected?
Copyrights, that is all that is needed for software.
if this is the kind of stuff Microsoft is building it's patent portfolio on the Linux community has little to worry about.
That is all that needs to be said about software and patents. What a frelling joke.
But SO WHAT?
Microsfts lobbyists in Washington will make sure Bush, the DoC, the FCC, the Supreme Court, the USPA and the rest of Washington "see" things their way. There will only be the slimmest chance for logic, reason and public benefit.
All this "Naw, no chance... it doesn't make sense if you really think about it" is a load.
The only chance is if IBM and HP lobby just as hard the other way. But they really don't give a damn because they've got their own pattent portfolios and lawyers to protect them.
Enjoy your GNU/linux while you can. I certainly am. Because things will only get worse.
Your not sure? Read: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.free-culture.cc" target="_newWindow">http://www.free-culture.cc</a>
If computer users prefer Linux over other software, should we force them to use Microsoft products instead in order to protect the "software industry?"
Why don't you consider Linux to be part of the software industry? How can software destroy the software industry? Your post makes no sense at all.
I wish you the best in dealing with change.
that Microsoft doesn't hold and is pretty much in the same boat
as Linux because of it.
So everyone is affected by patents and litigation.
Who do you sue when Linux incorporates some piece of technology you own? Unless you know who stole your code, you are left with no recourse other than sueing Linux users.
Who do you sue when Windows has incorporated some piece of technology you own? Your only option is to sue Microsoft.
Personally... if I wanted to severely reduce legal liability from IP infringement in my software, I'd be considering Microsoft software... not OpenSource.
the code is closed (and Microsoft is not about to open it up), it is
very hard for IP owners to evaluate whether Microsoft is
infringing or not.
More and more these days companies make their money and survive off the fees they get from their patents. Like at the browser plug-in patent that IE and some other browsers not to mention millions of web sites had to deal with and are still dealing with. Or the patent law suite that Adobe filed against Macromedia over tabbed palettes.
Companies, especailly the greedy ones and that is pretty much all of them will go after every cent they can. They can't see the forest for the trees and realize that Linux should it make it to maturity could be PC users' only hope for a viable ulternative to Windows and just let the patents slide for the benefit every PC user.
Know Microsoft is counting on corporate greed to put an end to Linux and you can bet that corporate greed will do it. Just like Copyright greed is going to kill off P2P, MP3 players and many other devices when the induce act or some other half-as*ed similar law gets passed by the anal repulicans how running this country.
Robert
Corporations exist to increase shareholder value. If they do so successfully, investors make money, employees make money, jobs are created, retirement is supported, and health-care is provided.
Businesses are making decisions to increase shareholder value. Ideas like... reshaping the industry and personal greed are dangerous to a business, and are generally not supported by shareholders. The decisions in the future will be made the same way they've been made in the past. Options will be evaluated against their potential affect to net present value. Those with the best outlook will be accepted.
It is open-source that has changed the landscape. Introducing the concept that changes should be made to business models and the industry as a whole to provide detrimental influence to existing software businesses without directly benefitting any investors, employees, retirees, or anybody else who helps to build software. Think about it. If open-source were to suddenly prevail on a massive global scale... how many software companies would be destroyed? How many jobs lost? How many investors sunk? And what do we do about all these new jobless people? Try to employ them all as customer service representatives for Linux distributors? How much will they make doing that? Customer service is commonly outsourced...
The existing system is in place, and is strong, because it works. Because it provides benefits to tens of millions of people around the world.
Oh, wait.
Someone did.
They seem to rally up a campaign over at <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.fudfactory.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.fudfactory.com</a>
There is absolutely no similar activity surrounding Windows.
So... you want to speak reality? Okay... There is far more evidence supporting IP theft within Linux than any other operating system. Court cases that are scheduled and have been refused early dismissal will iron out any more proof you need.
SCO has nothing, because there is nothing, and they are about to get the majority of their case tossed out.
As for windows, who knows how much of the code was stolen and who really cares? It is all garbage.
Here's a simple question...
Are you really that ignorant of such BASIC FACTS as,
...The fact that Microsoft has, in fact, been repeatedly found, by both U.S. AND Foreign COURTS, to have STOLEN the INTELLECTUAL-PROPERTIES of others.
...The fact that much of the MOST DAMNING EVIDENCE against Microsoft (in the numerous SUCCESSFUL cases AGAINST the company) often came directly from Microsoft's OWN 'e-mails', and 'internal-memos' (...to which, Microsoft's IMMEDIATE response to 'Court ordered monitoring' of their activities was to implement an 'internal policy' of "...rapid e-mail destruction", ...and, COINCIDENTALLY', to redesign "Microsoft Office's"-'Security-features' in such a way as to prevent future 'leaks' of such "...internal-memos" to "...unauthorized recipients").
...The fact that Microsoft has been acting like a 'PARANOID-PSYCHOTIC" when it comes to ANYBODY getting a hold of ANY of the "...MS-Windows source-code", ...even though, by law, any such release would ACTUALLY STRENGTHEN any of Microsoft's future 'IP' and 'copyright' claims (kinda makes you wonder what they’re HIDING).
...The fact that, in actuality, there have been NO SUCCESSFUL CLAIMS of 'IP theft' brought against "Linux", ...despite the endless 'FUD' and the apparently baseless, legal-claims made primarily by a SINGLE 'failing-company' (...right after Microsoft, just happened to have, pumped 'tens of millions’ of 'life-saving' dollars into it).
...The fact that Microsoft's obvious "FUD Campaign"" is INAPPROPRIATELY trying to 'lump together' such 'HOTLY-DEBATED' "IP concepts" as 'license infringement', 'copyrights', and 'patents' (...Frankly, it appears that they [Microsoft] are doing this so that they can FALSELY CLAIM that, somehow, 'end-users' can be held responsible for such 'IP violations', ...which, in reality, most legal-experts will tell you is simply NOT the case).
...the fact that much of the so-called 'Patent Issue' actually seems to revolve around a large number of recently applied-for, and incredibly WEAK, 'patents' (many of which were apparently hastily created, or held, by, ...surprise, ...surprise, ...Microsoft).
And finally, ...the fact that many of these CLEARLY BOGUS PATENT-CLAIMS have already been, or are currently being, 'INVALIDATED' in court.
Sure, many people are talking about this issue (that is the 'nature' of "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" campaigns, after all). But it also seems that MOST people DO realize what a 'SHAM' this is.
So, for the supporters of this 'Anti-Linux' NONSENSE, ...just how desperate are you to justify these ludicrous claims? And, ...WHY?
This whole Open VS Closed thing is turning into a FUD war. Personally, I think both camps have a lot to win if they'll just sit down together and work it out, but maybe I'm just an idealist. The thing is, people tend to get so emotional about open source (myself included) and emotion clouds judgement. IMHO open source would benefit from a few more level-headed individuals.
Copyrighted code is likely not going to found in Linux. SCO's claims do not seem to be holding up in court, and are also being debunked web-wide. I can't seem to find much of a support group for the SCO claims, try as I might. Linux and GNU apps likely infringe on some patents, but the patents will have to hold up in court. I doubt they will because it will be too easy to demonstrate prior use in most cases. Killing Linux in the US wouldn't even do anything to stop the development momentum; I bet it would spark even more world-wide interest in developing the OS & apps. Ah, but here I am talking about the future again, and it's all speculation; educated speculation, I hope. I think open source software is the future, and countries that enforce companys' ability to block open source will find themselves technologically inferior in short order, and will learn from it and reverse the decision. But that's just what I think and I'll just have to wait and see. I want to be a driving force for Linux when the time is right, and I even have some crazy ideas for business plans.
We'll just have to see how well they pan out in the real world.