Microsoft sucks big time

[Sadavyk]

Linus Torvalds, lead developer of the Linux kernel, has a sharp retort to Microsoft executives' statements in a Fortune magazine article that Linux and other open-source code violate 235 Microsoft patents.
"It's certainly a lot more likely that Microsoft violates patents than Linux does," said Torvalds, holder of the Linux trademark. If the source code for Windows could be subjected to the same critical review that Linux has been, Microsoft would find itself in violation of patents held by other companies, said Torvalds.

"Basic operating system theory was pretty much done by the end of the 1960s. IBM probably owned thousands of really 'fundamental' patents," Torvalds said in a response to questions submitted by InformationWeek. But he doesn't like any form of patent saber rattling. "The fundamental stuff was done about half a century ago and has long, long since lost any patent protection," he wrote.

Microsoft should name the patents that it claims have been violated so the claims can be tested in court or so open-source developers can rewrite code to avoid the violation, Torvalds wrote.

"Naming them would make it either clear that Linux isn't infringing at all (which is quite possible, especially if the patents are bad), or would make it possible to avoid infringing by coding around whatever silly thing they claim," he said.

"So the whole, 'We have a list and we're not telling you,' itself should tell you something," Torvalds said of Microsoft's stance in the Fortune story. And for good measure, he added: "Don't you think that if Microsoft actually had some really foolproof patent, they'd just tell us and go, 'nyaah, nyaah, nyaah!'"

Microsoft would prefer not to actually sue anyone, particularly a Linux user who's also a Microsoft customer. "They'd have to name the patents then, and they're probably happier with the FUD [fear, uncertainty, doubt] than with any lawsuit," Torvalds predicted.

[Texrat]

Heh... Microsoft is currently working to change the patent review process and then invalidate many software patents they feel are frivolous. How ironic this is now... and hypocritical.

Steve Ballmer is the king of FUD. I wish they'd can him and get a human CEO.

[TA-t3]

I agree.. I can't imagine what good SB is doing for Microsoft. He keeps embarassing the company on a regular basis.

[Texrat]

Microsoft, THIS is your CEO:

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/05/ballmertongue_230pxl.jpg

Well?



http://httpchinese.engadget.com/2007/05/14/microsoft-linux-and-others-violate-235-of-our-patents/

[Sadavyk]

"We've heard all this before with the SCO (Unix) case," says Steven D'Aprano, operations manager for Windows-Linux integration consultant Cybersource. "We know that Microsoft had been funding SCO, tossing them a few million here and there to keep the case alive.

"SCO did their best to show that there was supposed patent and copyright violations in the Linux kernel. While the case hasn't completely finished yet, it has lost steam because SCO has got no evidence to support their claims.

"Until Microsoft start to actually point at particular bits that they claim are in patent violation then talk is cheap."

According to D'Aprano, an open source advocate, if Microsoft actually does put on the gloves against Linux, it will have a tough time deciding who to go after.

"Microsoft has been dropping hints that they're going to use patents as a weapon against the open source community but it's a very nebulous target for them to hit," says D'Aprano. "There's no company for them to go after. That's what SCO found. The reality is that even if they did hypothetically find that there are patent infringements the open source community would simply remove the offending code - it would be gone in the next release of Linux. People will still be able to go ahead and continue using Linux because the so-called infringing code would be gone.

"In addition there's no one to sue. Microsoft could probably make a few lead developers' lives miserable but these aren't multinational companies with deep pockets that they're going after. The worst case is that they might bankrupt a couple of individuals."

However, all of that is assuming that there are patents being violated and are actually valid.

D'Aprano says: "One of the things that may come out of this is that making a patent case is actually quite dangerous. The US Patent Office is notorious for handing over very weak patents and if it actually goes to court often the patent can be overturned.

"Even if hypothetically there are patent infringements in the Linux kernel, then the open source community would do the right thing and remove the offending code and, because open source development moves so rapidly, that means Linux would no longer be infringing before it even got to court. So even if Microsoft did have a case, by the time it got to court the case would be gone and whatever damages that they were able to ask for would be very minimal."

So what patents could Microsoft possibly believe it holds that Linux violates?

"The sort of things that Microsoft might hold patents for which concern the Linux kernel could be like techniques for managing memory," says D'Aprano. "A lot of the software patents that have been granted are extremely general and obvious to anyone that's been working in the industry. The patent system works well for specific innovations but they've been granted for things that are very general and not innovations at all which is very worrying," says D'Aprano.

However, D'Aprano, like many others, believes Microsoft is simply trying to employ bullying tactics in a desperate attempt to shore up growing leaks in its client base.

"I don't believe Microsoft genuinely believes that its technology has been ripped off," he says. "If that was the case it would have done something about it years ago. The Linux kernel and all the source code is open. Anybody can download it and read it. You can't tell me that Microsoft hasn't had its people going through every line of the Linux kernel for last 10 years. Of course they have.

"The fact is this is not about preventing Linux from ripping off Microsoft technology. This is about scaring off potential Linux customers. They don't know how to compete with Linux directly.

"An awful lot of customers are going to Microsoft and saying 'we need you to interoperate more easily with our Linux server.' They're thinking if they've got one Linux server, then how long is Microsoft going to keep the Windows servers there."

The problem, according to D'Aprano, has been exacerbated with the muted reaction in the business world to the release of Vista.

"People are thinking about paying thousands of dollars to migrate to Vista with the costs of retraining, software licenses, hardware updates being incredibly significant. This explains why there's been so little interest in upgrading to Vista. When XP came out people were saying they couldn't wait to jump on board. With Vista they're bored because there's nothing in Vista that people really want. A lot of people are saying that Vista is like XP with some nice graphical themes added.

"Companies are thinking that if they've got spend tens of thousands of dollars to migrate away from XP, what's the advantage of migrating to Vista and why don't they look at migrating to Linux. That's what's got to be scaring Microsoft more than anything else."

[phi]

can we stop with the big red italicized fonts? Makes me not want to read your posts, however intelligently written they are.

[fpp]

I'd be in favour of scapping the editor's "rich rext" mode altogether :-)

[Sadavyk]

sure thing ?

[SeRi@lDiE]

sure thing ?


ahhhh aint that much better!?!

[frethop]

The posts are written like a news article. If they are indeed from a source -- on the 'Net or no -- there should be a citation as to where you got them. If they are not from another source...nice writing!

-F

[Sadavyk]

''Gee thanks guys'' but why is this a topic?

[Karel Jansens]

''Gee thanks guys'' but why is this a topic?

Yeah, you're right. It's more like a tautology.:cool:

[sherifnix]

Sweet jesus, can you skip the red formating in your posts? =)

[Windowsrookie]

Shoulda bought a Mac. :p

[YoDude]

''Gee thanks guys'' but why is this a topic?

Because you just took credit for something someone else wrote...

By Charles Babcock
InformationWeek
May 15, 2007 02:22 PM

It's always good to know the quality of the people you deal with in forums. Most are genuine human beings. A few are big steaming piles of doggy doo-doo. :)

[Sadavyk]

It is from another source, is that okay with you guys, reading on the net so i share info isn't that what some of us in for, anyway what dose it matter?

[klohmann]

Quoting what you read that was written by others is fine - but not attributing to the author is known as plagurism. In this type of forum, it is simply good taste as well as polite to do so. If, on the the hand, the material is copywrited (which, if it was from a commercial entity, it probably was), that is a completely (and far more serious) 'kettle of fish', as it were. K.

[Sadavyk]

klohmann i understand thanks for the head up

[Sadavyk]

OMG! Everyone is jumping all over sadavyk today lol I guess I took the phrase open source out of text lol.. Okay no more red okay guys..
One day the Ineternet will be free :(

[fpp]

Yes maybe it was all a bit harsh... but at least you take criticism with good humour, and listen to advice, which is a good sight better than some other we've had here lately. Thank especially for dropping the red bold italics, they did hurt my eyes, especially with the blue classic theme :-)

[Karel Jansens]

OMG! Everyone is jumping all over sadavyk today lol I guess I took the phrase open source out of text lol.. Okay no more red okay guys..
One day the Ineternet will be free :(

What's with that crappy huge font? :D

[bac522]

What's with that crappy huge font? :D

I see no crappy huge font, I see poetic wording written in pristine colors...;)

[Sadavyk]

LMAO
This is why I love this site