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:2006-01-06
His argument boils down to this: "Unless you show me the infringing code, then no infringing code exists." Which is nonsense. Microsoft, Stallman, Novell, and others KNOW that infringements exist. Novell signed the agreement with MS in order to avoid litigation. It isn't a question of IF infringements exist. It's a question of WHAT HAPPENS WHEN MS ACTS UPON THEM. Because it's going to happen, sooner or later.
Member since:2005-07-02
Actually, that's not what his argument boils down to at all. What the OP clearly said was that until any specifics are known about the *alleged* infringement, there is no reason to fear Microsoft. In other words, unless the infringement is communicated, one should not presume that it does or doesn't exist.
Innocent until proven guilty. It's the law. Look it up.
Oh really? What are your sources to make such an allegation? Or is that simply wishful thinking? Yeah, that sounds about right...
Yes, which is why Novell has declared that they do not believe for a second that Linux infringes on any MS patents.
Again, wishful thinking on your part.
Actually, yes, it is a question of known if infringements exist or not. And if the patents do exist, then how many (if any) are valid, how easy they are to avoid, and so on.
Of course, being an anti-FOSS advocate, it's in your agenda to present Microsoft as a real threat, but the fact of the matter is that - for now - Microsoft's threat remains empty. When there's substance to it (if ever), then we'll see. Until then, I don't think you will find many users/distributors who will fall for your bogeyman stories.
Well, personally I hope they are foolish enough to act upon them. Software patents are on already shaky grounds (see the recent Supreme Court decision), this could be the case that invalids them altogether.
That said, I don't think they'll be that crazy. They know they have nothing to gain from a Patent War - especially with a virtual army of volunteer to look for prior art and decimate their arsenal...
Member since:2005-08-18
"His argument boils down to this:"
Partially.
"Unless you show me the infringing code, then no infringing code exists.""
Accusing someone of something and presenting it as a fact but without providing any evidence is defamation.
It's punishable by law. MS statements, if not backup up with real evidence, are essentially libel.
"Microsoft, Stallman, Novell, and others KNOW that infringements exist"
Care to back this statement up with actual evidence?
"Novell signed the agreement with MS in order to avoid litigation."
Avoiding litigation does not mean that there are actual violations.
"It isn't a question of IF infringements exist."
I have never said there aren't, the problem is that we don't know *what* they are (if there are any) and MS is refusing to tell. It's not even certain that those patents would hold up in court.
Member since:2005-07-22
Member since:
2005-07-02
Did you even bother reading the rest of his post? He made a pretty convincing argument - I'd love to hear your rebuttal.