Microsoft has said it will not sue Linux users with regards to the company's patent claims. "We're not litigating. If we wanted to we would have done so years ago," said Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft's VP for intellectual property and licensing, in an interview. When asked for a reply regarding the claim of Microsoft that the Linux kernel infringes 42 of its patents, Linus Torvalds replied: "Can you get a list of which ones? Before that, it's just FUD, and there's not a whole lot I can say or do. Is there prior art? Are they trivial and obvious to one skilled in the art? Would we need to work around them? We don't know, because all I've heard so far is just FUD. If MS actually wanted us to not infringe their patents, they'd tell us. Since they don't, that must mean that they actually prefer the FUD."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-08
The civil legal system in the U.S. is a game of no-limit hold 'em. First position makes a claim about their hold cards, and the other players respond in kind, possibly folding for the cost of the blinds. Who actually has the best starting hand doesn't really matter. What matters is the strength of the hands represented. If any player makes a big move at this stage, the chances of seeing a flop are slim.
If they square up, the flop will give enough information to speculate on who might be ahead. Those suited connectors might be worth paying to see a flop, but they might be worthless afterwards. Depending on your pre-flop betting, it could be hard to bluff at this stage. You might have to cut your losses and get out. Now it's game time, and the bag of tricks comes out: check-raise, slow-play, table talk, etc. The game is about pot odds.
Very few hands reach a showdown. This only happens when: 1) both players are equally sure they have the best hand, 2) the pot is too important relative to their stacks to let go, or 3) one of the players is desperate. The cards only matter in these relatively rare circumstances. Every other hand is about the chips--who has the biggest stack, who bets when, and how much they bet.
Big stacks play tight and aggressive. Smaller stacks play loose and conservative. Maniacs hit it big or go bust. Only idiots show their cards just to brag about a bluff. Good players will rarely show their cards unless necessary, and they only do so to influence the perception of their strategy.
So what does this mean? Microsoft is the big stack in first position. They have no intention of seeing a flop or showing their cards. They're out to steal the blinds. But where the legal system doesn't work like hold 'em is that there are no blinds. Microsoft wants Linux vendors and users to ante up, but they can't make us sit at their table. Until they put their chips in the pot and commit to litigation, nobody owes them squat. We don't have to buy into their game, and we don't have to show our cards.
Only idiots show their cards. I'm off to find Ron Hovsepian's home game, because he's the proverbial deep-pocketed fish that everybody loves to exploit.
Member since:
2006-04-07
Neither I really get this "we have a list but we will not show to you" policy, especially if that list can take an effect so badly on a whole industry.
Also it would redraw some maps, if they were true and they could make those patent-restrictions rule over free softwares inside the US but barely elsewhere.