FUD FTL

[unixronin]

First, we got Microsoft claiming that Linux infringes on 235 Microsoft patents and saying it expected royalties from distributors and users.  But to the best of my recollection, MS has never once actually come up with a list of those 235 infringed patents so that anyone who wanted to could, like, try to avoid infringing them (or, conversely, verify whether the claim was actually true).

Then we got the promise from Microsoft "not to sue open-source developers for products that connect to Microsoft software".

Well, except for TomTom, that is.  Three of Microsoft's claims against TomTom relate to file management techniques in the Linux kernel.

But that's just a one-off.  Honest! Microsoft isn't going to sue anyone else for using open-source.  Or maybe they will.  Their top IP lawyer "declined to say whether other suits over the open source operating system might follow".

Asked whether that meant that Microsoft would seek compensation from all products that use the Linux kernel, Gutierrez said, "No.  That is really not what we have in mind.  This case is about TomTom's infringement."

He stressed Microsoft's preference for signing licensing deals with companies, including those using Linux.

"Our position is and has been that we believe licensing is the right way to approach and resolve these things," he said.

Sure, you can use all the open source software you want ... as long as you pay Microsoft up-front first.  Nice little open-source product you have there.  Be a shame if anything were to happen to it.

But "he acknowledged the suit could hurt some of the efforts the company has tried to make in recent years to mend fences with the Linux world."

No shit?  What was your first clue?  The open-source world is not going to fully trust Microsoft as long as we can see that the other hand tucked casually behind Microsoft's back is still holding a baseball bat.

Comments

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

This one should be fun! Near as I can tell, the patent at the heart of the linux issue is for ... FAT. That patent is under threat in the USA, Canada and Germany. Meaning that if they don't use it now, it may disappear.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Surely unless they really dragged their heels on patenting it, any patent on FAT should have long expired. (Though FAT32 might just possibly still be patented.)

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

That patent still has life. The software description of the format could not be patented when it was developed. It was only in the 1990's that software patents were being accepted routinely. Since that heyday, several restrictions on what software could be patented have emerged. The FAT[32] formats would not be allowed today, and that was before Bilski. Even so, latches should keep the format from being enforceable. Courts can do strange stuff, so nothing is certain.

The biggest issue is the ITC complaint. They tend to decide relatively quickly (about a year.) That process can completely shutdown imports. Closing the US market would likely be a fatal blow to the company. (Even in this market, we are a ginormous economy compared to other world players.)