Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Oct 2007 16:14 UTC, submitted by Rahul
Microsoft Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer has warned users of Red Hat Linux that they will have to pay Microsoft for its intellectual property. "People who use Red Hat, at least with respect to our intellectual property, in a sense have an obligation to compensate us," Ballmer said last week at a company event in London discussing online services in the UK.
Thread beginning with comment 277275
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Show 'em
by Duffman on Tue 9th Oct 2007 19:57 UTC in reply to "Show 'em"
Duffman
Member since:
2005-11-23

If you think that linux do not infring any patents, you should not be aware that Microsoft own a lot of patent about double click and crap like that.

Reply Parent Score: -2

RE[2]: Show 'em
by SEJeff on Tue 9th Oct 2007 20:05 in reply to "RE: Show 'em"
SEJeff Member since:
2005-11-05

Hate to break it to you, but IBM has a WHOLE LOT MORE patents than Microsoft. Also, do you not think that Linux distributors and companies around the world will not band together to fight a common enemy?

If Microsoft sues Redhat, what makes you think they won't sue the Gentoo foundation, or any other Linux "distributor"? Many very large companies make their bread based on Linux. Thinking they won't come together is naiive of Ballmer at best. Whos to say that Microsoft doesn't violate hundreds of patents owned by some of these companies like OIN or IBM? I bet they do.

Jeff Waugh put it best, "Say it with me: DON'T f--k WITH DIVERSITY. cf. The War of the Worlds, H. G.
Wells, 1898.":
http://lists.linux.org.au/archives/linux-aus/2003-August/msg00136.h...

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Show 'em
by raynevandunem on Wed 10th Oct 2007 01:55 in reply to "RE[2]: Show 'em"
raynevandunem Member since:
2006-11-24

Because it hasn't gone after non-profit software organizations like Gentoo, Fedora, Debian or GNU/FSF. It is a corporation that competes against companies like Novell, Red Hat or (in the past) Netscape.

That Ballmer has specifically targeted Red Hat, a corporate vendor that depends upon a non-profit organization, in the press puts the company closer to a dangerous precedent: suing non-profit software organizations. And since GNU/Linux distributions are usually created and distributed by non-profit projects, it seems inevitable that Microsoft will target these projects as well.

However, that is the future potential of this war, once it ever reaches U.S. courts. The current situation, from the surface, seems more like a messy battle between companies for customers.

Where this could really hit the GNU/Linux fandom is in the pocketbook, as these companies - Red Hat, Novell, Mandriva, Canonical, Xandros - are often the prime corporate backers for these projects. Customers of these companies will be scared by an impending legal battle, will back out and place their bets with Microsoft. The pro-Linux companies will then have to wage their own PR campaigns to woo back the customers, which may or may not mean that the companies will publicly distance themselves from their pet non-profit projects.

So this could be interpreted in one or more of the following ways:

1) A dirty move to win customers from, and weaken, a corporate competitor.

2) A move to weaken the relationship between corporate companies and non-profit projects.

3) A protracted, indirect move to weaken the non-profit projects through hurting the marketshare of their financial backers.


Take your pick.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Show 'em
by Ben Jao Ming on Tue 9th Oct 2007 21:30 in reply to "RE: Show 'em"
Ben Jao Ming Member since:
2005-07-26

There is a big difference between owning an American patent and having the right to IP and having that enforced in a court. If they own a bunch of crap patent, then the court can actually just say "go fsck yourself, Ballmer".

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Show 'em
by unoengborg on Wed 10th Oct 2007 18:19 in reply to "RE: Show 'em"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

Owning them is one thing, having them declared valid in a court case is quite another.

Reply Parent Score: 2