In comments confirming the open-source community's suspicions, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer Thursday declared his belief that the Linux operating system infringes on Microsoft's intellectual property. In a question-and-answer session after his keynote speech at the Professional Association for SQL Server conference in Seattle, Ballmer said Microsoft was motivated to sign a deal with SUSE Linux distributor Novell earlier this month because Linux "uses our intellectual property" and Microsoft wanted to "get the appropriate economic return for our shareholders from our innovation."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-06-09
no, because of the patents. well, it's legal in europe for example.
IANAL and VERY roughly, patents are there to protect ideas, or, "software ideas" in that case.
patents are an unfair system to protect innovation, else people could just copy and sell what was your original idea (that's why patents expire too, after a while, when you gained from your ideas, everyone is free to use it)
that's why europe voted against it for software, because it destroy more than it gives. people start patenting anything, browser, windows, icons, etc => no more competitivity
Member since:2005-07-06
Software patents are a way for mediocre companies with an innovation complex to feel clever whenever they apply a widely recognized solution to an obvious problem.
The problem is that they're so deluded into thinking they invented something that they're obsessed with trying to make money with it.
Member since:2006-02-17
You cannot patent an "idea". You can only patent an "invention," which is further defined as a device, method, process, or substance that is novel, useful, and inbovious to one skilled in the art. Further, the patent itself requires that the patent is sufficiently detailed that a person skilled in the art can make use of it, and it is limited explicitly to claims made in the patent.
At current, software patents are only valid in the USA, and almost all of them have been challenged have failed when tested in court. For example, MS filesystem patents all cover Windows-specific implementations of technology that pre-existed. Even if they don't fail on the basis of novelty, in practice they fail the obviousness test because they are simply represent a decision by the company on how to do a common thing in such a way as to interoperate with their own product.
Member since:2006-06-16
Member since:2006-02-17
Well, yeah, the Linux implementations of NTFS and FAT/VFAT support are sort of reverse-engineered. In Linux, of course, the implementation is far different, so it's the physical format of the data on disk that's the only part that is the same.
MS may assert that even though the physical format of data on the disk is not claimed explicitly in their patents, it is implied. That is not likely to stick. Further their patents quite explicitly indicate that they are patenting a method for implementing FOR WINDOWS functionality that was already prevalent elsewhere (long filenames, for instance). Linux isn't attempting to provide this functionality to Windows.
Member since:2006-01-04
Member since:2005-11-11
//Don't patents apply whether you reverse engineer it or not, depending on what the patent owner says?//
Yes they do.
The MS "IP" in question is not, however, patented. They are trade secrets.
In order to have a valid patent, MS must fully publish exactly how the format or protocol works. If they do that, they can get patent protection for 20 years on that exact method.
Microsoft have not published anywhere exactly how their NTFS filesystem works. It is a trade secret.
Therefore, MS have no patent on NTFS.
Similar story for the networking protocol that Samba reverse-engineers.
Member since:2005-07-17
generally patents are quite easy to reverse engineer, unless it is something that can only be done one way. "meatspace" patent disputes are generally quite entertaining. Company A accuses Company B of infringement, blueprints are produced to court by company A, then company B typically goes back to court with design changes that are different enough and often qualify as a new patent themselves.
Software patents shortcut the whole give and take because companies are allowed to only provide the "idea" and not the actual source code... in meatspace things like Amazon's 1 click patent would be unenforceable, there would be hundreds of copies all using different pieces to perform the task.. when courts try to adjust these cases there's nothing to go on, and that's deliberate by the patent office sloppiness and lawyer's cleverness at broad patents.
Member since:
2006-01-10
Yes, but didn't they reverse engineer the VFAT/FAT32 driver for Linux? Which would mean that it's perfectly legal.