Does Microsoft want a Linux trial?
Summary: What Matt Asay claims to want is a legal invasion. But I don't think he really wants that. He wants a peek at what Microsoft is settling for.
No.
Matt Asay hits the nail on the head. In full "knock this board off my shoulder mode," the Ubuntu COO dares Microsoft to sue Canonical, or Google, or someone else over its Linux claims who might fight back.
To torture my recent analogy (analogies can't fight back), Microsoft isn't Neville Chamberlain. It's the guy on the other side of the table, the one with the mustache.
What Matt claims to want is a legal invasion. But I don't think he really wants that.
A Microsoft-Ubuntu suit might bring Ubuntu attention and goodwill, it might let Mark Shuttleworth strut about like Winston Churchill, but it will also bring lawyers descending on London like the Luftwaffe.
I think Matt would rather put Mark Shuttleworth's money into marketing and development than lawyers.
What Matt really wants, I suspect, is a peek at what Microsoft is settling for.
Microsoft is signing cross-license deals, patent peace agreements. It tells the public they're about Linux, and its terms include a requirement that the other party keep its mouth shut. Thus we don't know Microsoft's real terms, its true bottom line, and whether the agreements are really all about Linux at all.
We don't know, for instance, if Amazon got licenses for technology other than Linux from Microsoft, or how much Amazon paid for patent peace. The Novell agreement had payments going both ways, and you may remember how Red Hat spun it as a victory for Linux.
In retrospect, I think it was. Microsoft has not moved since 2006 to get rich off Linux. It has instead sought to participate in open source.
Matt's right. Microsoft has sued no one who it knew would fight back. The closest it has come is the TomTom suit, which was quickly settled -- and we don't know those terms to this day. We didn't get legal war. We got legal peace.
As we have in this case.
My guess is that at some point, when both Google and Microsoft find it to be in their mutual self-interest, some cross-licensing deal will be signed, and a press release will go out. Probably when Google sees something in Microsoft it wants.
It has been over three years since Microsoft and Novell made their deal. War has not broken out. May that remain the case.
I don't like lawyers.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Does Microsoft want a Linux trial?
I've come to the conclusion...
Asay is an attention-craving ABMer
I haven't followed him at any length.
The thing you forget
It is highly suspicious that Microsoft won't reveal the patents, they allege are infringed, which means, if they exist at all, they could be trivially programmed around or invalidated. There is more money to be made by keeping those alleged patents secret, and doing deals like those being done.
It's not highly ethical, but Microsoft has never been known for it's ethics.
I haven't forgotten.
Have you considered...
Or is suing the users (victims) rather than the generators of Linux core code a valid legal step to sowing the seeds for a full on assault once precedents are set?
Oh that would be such good theater if you are right. nt.
To some extent
working around a patent may or may not be
possible. For instance, it's not possible to
create an h.264 encoder that doesn't violate
patent, no matter how funky the code is. If
Microsoft's patents are on unavoidable elements
of the desktop or server, then routing around
the damaging area wouldn't be possible, and
ripping out the functionality might leave a hole
so big that the system is unworkable.
Disagree...
It's feasible that copy any process without violating the patent, just by knowing specifically the intent of the patented process and working around it, although the patent owner can still sue based on interpretations of the patent issued.
Alas, I see no reason Linux shouldn't pay for the use of codecs and other stuff, which can be viewed as wrong (patenting highly intangible stuff) but no less legal. The fees incurred might be small and this codecs could be included in a "for-a-price" patch.
I'm those who think this patent madness, is just the prelude to either an overhaul of the system (unlikely) or a complete failure of it (triggered by the current Great Recession, which is not going to end soon, remember Greece and Spain).
My two cents.
It's not what you don't know that embarrasses you.
Somebody or another said something like that. It might have been Mark Twain. Then again, it might not have.
<i>All we do know for sure is that Microsoft does have some patents that linux infringes, and with some many deals being struck on that concept there has to be some truth to it. </i>
Actually, what we know is that MS claims that Linux infringes some of their patents. Whether or not Linux actually infringes any MS patents is not known as MS refuses to actually disclose what any of those patents might be.
As for the "deals being struck on that concept" theory, again, all we have is what MS claims. The other parties to these "deals" are apparently forbidden to actually discuss the terms of the "deal."
Don't expect LD to concede the point: Only allegations of IP Infringement
If you are going to make a "no more Meds" comment..
That's why it's called DayQuill.
Humor is not your strong suit anyway so I'd advise steering clear of it. Just an opinion.
Is that what's...
lol... :D
[i]No more DayQuil for LD.[/i]
They wouldn't be making deals otherwise
They must be getting something from M$ through this but certainly not Linux
Or they might be.
Then again, it might just be less expensive to make a deal than to fight it out in court. (Shades of RIAA lawsuits here) Alternatively, MS might be gaining access to patents that others have through cross-licensing and claiming only that others are licensing MS's patents. We have no way of knowing.
<i>Just because Microsoft didn't disclose it to you doesn't mean its not true.</i>
I did not say that it wasn't true. But MS making the claim is not the same thing as knowing whether or not it's true. The only things we know is that there was a deal, and that MS is making claims as to what is part of the deal.
Right on spot. What they are getting from M$ is freedom from legal battles
M$ on the other hand is now more of a law firm than anything else.
...
Do you have proof for it? come on there must be something like company
statements or incorporation registration letters or something to claim
this otherwise you are just jealous.
--Ram--
You are all totally wrong. As a good friend of Steve Ballmer...
I'll tell you, it's hell knowing how sweet and smart it is and not being able to say a word about it.
Let's just say MS knows exactly what they are doing and the Linux community doesn't have the business savvy to figure it out.