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: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:2005-11-14
But wikipedia says that the MS FAT patents were finally accepted as valid this year. Accepted as novel and all !
And what you say about patents is strange.
Software is a representation of ideas, also called algorithms. This stupid state only affects software (in the USA) unfortunately. It would be unacceptable on other things like books for example : book writers would soon disappear. Same for films. But there are forces at play for it to stay on software (and expand to the EU).
I mean, threatening to sue others' customers does NOTHING to protect innovations, which the system was supposed to do. You know it doesn't work when the supposed "owner" of the idea doesn't want to tell you what it is, and even you have no idea : the innovation is so insignificant and useless, or is so obvious, that you can't even sort it from the rest.
For example, I don't see what so great idea the FAT32 is protecting. That's not like people want to steal from MS by using it in their device.
All this irrational behaviour is only spawned by money greed. I hope (and try to help for) we never get software patents in EU.
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