MUST READ: Microsoft unleashes bug bounty program — for betas, too

Topic: Microsoft

Compare

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.

Dana Blankenhorn

By Dana Blankenhorn for Linux and Open Source |

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.

Topics: Microsoft, Linux, Open Source, Operating Systems, Software

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

214 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion

  • Does Microsoft want a Linux trial?

    I don't think anyone wants a trial, that goes for both sides. People would be better off just taking Microsoft's word for it and then let it be. Its amazing why people are provoking Microsoft to sue them. They are not going to like the outcome if it does come down to it. 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.
    Loverock Davidson
    Reply Vote

    • I've come to the conclusion...

      ...that the patents in question are probably not deep or are just some of the BS patents like being able to tab through a web site. I don't think they are getting the deals really based on the merit of the patents. I think they are getting the deals based on the fact that probably every desktop in the target companies possession run Windows and Office and they all have Outlook servers. I'm sure the threat of software audits and changes in pricing are enough to sway anyone. They won't attack a company like Google probably not because they can fight back but because Google most likely has the ability to dump Windows completely and put everyone on alternative desktops. It would be a blow to their campaign. Attacking Ubuntu is pointless as well since you probably wouldn't find a worthwhile number of Windows machines in use.
      storm14k
      Reply Vote

      • Asay is an attention-craving ABMer

        It was obsession w/ Sharepoint in the past and now sth else. The guy used to came out w/ blatant lies about Sharepoint, got rebutted firmly by others W/ FACTS, refused to acknowledge it and then came out w/ another round of lies. It's the same thing over and over again.
        LBiege
        Reply Vote

        • I haven't followed him at any length.

          But there are no lies in the story being told here.
          storm14k
          Reply Vote

      • The thing you forget

        is that this is FOSS we're talking about. If the patents were known, the code could quite easily be programmed around.

        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.
        tracy anne
        Reply Vote

        • I haven't forgotten.

          I just now believe its not even anything worth coding around. They are probably trumping up ridiculous patents. They will never reveal them until someone fights. If you ask me the fact that they won't demand that the patented software be removed from Linux since its being distributed freely should stop them in their tracks.They aren't trying to protect the IP.
          storm14k
          Reply Vote

        • Have you considered...

          That where Microsoft is getting these deals to happen is with companies' (for internal use only) enhancements and customizations of Linux are (possibly) infringing Microsoft's patents?

          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?
          zkiwi
          Reply Vote

          • Oh that would be such good theater if you are right. nt.

            <i></i>
            xuniL_z
            Reply Vote

        • To some extent

          It is easy to rewrite copyrighted code, but
          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.
          daengbo
          Reply Vote

          • Disagree...

            That was tested years ago when Compaq and Pheonix reverse engineered the BIOS (which was patented and copy-written) and was tested years later when IBM patented MicroChannel and Tandy did a clean room implementation based on the protocols only (which can't be patented).

            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.
            cosuna
            Reply Vote

    • It's not what you don't know that embarrasses you.

      It's what you do know that isn't so.

      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."
      Letophoro
      Reply Vote

      • Don't expect LD to concede the point: Only allegations of IP Infringement

        No more DayQuil for LD.
        D.T.Schmitz
        Reply Vote

        • If you are going to make a "no more Meds" comment..

          you might want to try one that actually has some affect on how a person thinks or feels, since dayquil does not.
          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.
          xuniL_z
          Reply Vote

        • Is that what's...

          ...spacing him out?

          lol... :D

          [i]No more DayQuil for LD.[/i]
          Wintel_BSOD
          Reply Vote

      • They wouldn't be making deals otherwise

        These companies would not be making deals with Microsoft if there wasn't some infringement. Just because Microsoft didn't disclose it to you doesn't mean its not true.
        Loverock Davidson
        Reply Vote

        • They must be getting something from M$ through this but certainly not Linux

          Microsoft must have something they want or they would never enter these deals. However that something can not be Linux, M$ owns nothing in Linux.
          The Mentalist
          Reply Vote

        • Or they might be.

          <i>These companies would not be making deals with Microsoft if there wasn't some infringement.</i>

          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.
          Letophoro
          Reply Vote

          • Right on spot. What they are getting from M$ is freedom from legal battles

            Freedom to keep investing in innovation instead of investing on lawyers.

            M$ on the other hand is now more of a law firm than anything else.
            The Mentalist
            Reply Vote

          • ...

            >>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--
            Ram U
            Reply Vote

          • You are all totally wrong. As a good friend of Steve Ballmer...

            Well, that's what many here have told me many times over and being a highly paid shill, I do know what MS's plans are and nobody here is even close.
            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.
            xuniL_z
            Reply Vote
CNET Join | Log In | Privacy | Cookies Close