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 view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-12-15
Member since:2005-08-18
"That's true, but that doesn't mean it isn't coming, or that they aren't still up to something."
Right but what can we do? All we have are very vague accusations that we can not defend ourselves against and succumbing to intimidation isn't the right thing do. At least my dad's advice to me regarding the school bully was never "Oh just give him what he wants and it'll go away". I would really hope my dad wasn't an exception to the rule.
Edited 2007-05-16 12:09
Member since:2005-07-06
They are up to something: they're waging a major FUD campaign against the free software developers and community. Don't you think that if they really had something in their hands they'd have already used it? I think Linus pretty much summed it all: until they come up with something, it's pure and simple FUD, and that's exactly what they want.
Rehdon
Member since:2006-04-21
That's true, but that doesn't mean it isn't coming, or that they aren't still up to something. The last thing Microsoft would want or need is to get themselves embroiled in a public slinging match.
They're far more calculating than that.
If a government could arrest you for violating a law, but wouldn't tell you what that law was, we'd call that government a police state.
It's time people stood up and starting treating Microsoft with the contempt police states deserve.
Member since:2005-07-02
Yes and no. I think it was a gambit on MS's part. They are gambling that the mere threat of IP litigation is going to forestall Linux adoption. In other words, it's mostly a PR offensive (which can be quite effective, mind you).
With that in mind, the reaction most people have of ridiculing Microsoft's claims is *exactly* the right one to have. If they're going to fight on the PR front, then that's where we need to fight back, with assertions that the claims are unfounded until some evidence is provided. This will prevent MS from monopolizing the message, and counter their FUD effort.
If MS actually moves from empty threats to legal action, then the counter strategy will also change, from ridiculing MS's accusations to actual action (such as counterlitigation, patent warfare, and possibly modifications to the code in the off-chance that some of the patents are actually valid...)
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:2005-07-02
Member since:
2005-08-18
"It's very difficult for any of us to make the assessment that there's no basis to Microsoft's claims"
On the contrary, it's actually very easy for us to make that assessment. The burden of proof is not on the accused but on the accuser. If you accuse me of something but *refuse* to provide evidence then you are full of it. At least that's a reasonable stance to take until such a time that you DO provide said evidence. How could I defend myself against your accusation if I don't know what it is exactly that I have supposedly done?