http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/11/17/1324248.shtml

Microsoft Patents Businesses Linux
Stony Stevenson writes "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." From the ComputerWorld article: "In a question-and-answer session after his keynote speech at the Professional Association for SQL Server (PASS) 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.'"His exact wording is available at the Seattle Intelligencer, which has a transcript of the interview. Groklaw had an article up Wednesday giving some perspective on the Novell/Microsoft deal. Guess we'll have something to talk about in 2007, huh?

My :

http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/blo...7/2507086.html

--jeremy

Microsoft has woken a sleeping giant...Linux will prevail...

Do they really believe anyone is going to fall for that? After Microsoft's long tradition of stealing from the little guy and screwing over their opposition, will there be any doubt within a duly appointed court of law that someone at MS is smoking crack? The truth couldn't be any more obvious. Look at Vista, its easy to see that they're trying to make it more like a Linux OS.

This is related somehow. I just know it.

I originally read about it in this article: http://www.itworldcanada.com//Pages/...5-d1b2cc308cd7

How does Linux even potentially violate MS's intellectual property? I don't get it.

How does Linux potentially violate Microsoft's patents? It's a violation to make another operating system? To give it out for free? Is it the GUI or other Windows-Like elements? Why doesn't MacOS, Unix or another operating system also violate them? This just doesn't make any sense to me, some help?

agree agree..

Guys at M$ are going crazy. They should better start thinking of how to improve thier business ethically, or else there will be more stupid comments from them.

I prefer Bill Gate style, even thought always think of money but not play this kind of tricks!!!
Previously I really thought Microsoft willing to support some application into Linux...

I see it as no more than an empty threat. Who is he going to sue? Red Hat? I doubt it. He's openly invited them to a partnership as well. Its a scare tactic he knows he can get away with. Notice no one from MS has yet to show any code that infringes. Until the papers are filed, I'm not worried about a thing.

Now that I think of it, on its face this whole deal looks like a tacit admission by Microsoft that they are indeed violating Linux IP. Who is paying the greater sum for "perceived violations"? Novell? No.

While the microsoft wienies were blatting about linux violating "their i.p." just remember -don't assume that the "intellectual property" has to be a patent infringement--it could be trademark or any other similar thing --I'm not a lawyer thank god.

Everything still not clear. And we don't know what is happening in background. However, somebody is doing action:-
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...56#post2515756

Regards,
Ks

The big menkeys at MS don't HAVE to say anything truthful. Microsoft is NOT a tech innovation corporation. It is a well oiled PR firm that happens to peddle software.

If the OpenSource community is not careful, MS is going to use its formidable and sadly, near genius ability, to confuse, confound and blur the relationship between opensource, Linux, Unix, Windows, internet, DRM, trusted computing and internet based applications. Yeah, those of us who have an idea of what's going on will know, but who cares? What matters is that MS has conned and bamboozled the patent office, lots of judges, most lawmakers, and the general public for the last 15 years.

All MS has to do is bundle some "bitchin" new software or value added "bling" into Linux and I guarantee that with NO SHAME, they would promote Suse linux as their own invention. And if nobody in the opensource community says anything, then we will be complicit in another mass hallucination perpetrated upon the general PC user.

Unfortunately I believe you are off-base with your comments.

Why would Microsoft pay Novell large sums of money for their deal? Because Microsoft needed a Linux vendor with deep pockets to appear to publically admit that Linux (used in the OS sense, not necessarily in the kernel sense) infringes on Microsoft IP and Microsoft needed to prove that a Linux vendor could pay for the use of MS IP. Of course Red Hat would not go along with this, so the second best choice was Novell.

Novell wouldn't just offer this up for free, though, and since the Linux vendor would need to pay Microsoft for the no-suing-our-customers arrangement, they would want payments in return. What Microsoft is paying for is the SuSE coupons, and an agreement that Novell won't sue MS customers in case MS infringed on any Novell IP (I'm sure there are numerous patents around the Word Perfect word processing technology, and of course around NetWare, identity management, etc, etc).

Second, Microsoft cannot pay Novell for violating Linux IP because Novell does not "own Linux". They own the SuSE distribution and the contributions that they have made to it, but they do not own the kernel or the toolchain. The kernel belongs to Linus (last I knew) and the toolchain is GNU (RWS? I really don't follow the GNU stuff).

As for the comments about "Linux" infringing on Microsoft IP, I believe what they're really talking about is some of the interoperability stuff, like FAT32 compatibility, Samba, OpenOffice, etc... I doubt they can find anything in the kernel that could be considered infringing on MS IP (although don't say anything is impossible), but Microsoft has thousands of patents in more areas than you can even think of, from web browsing, to file formats, to file & print sharing, etc... I'm sure they can come up with a dozen "violations" in different critical user-land tools that would effectively render Linux as an OS useless. Sure, you can still have the kernel, but if you can't have all the user-land tools that let you interoperate with Windows, or perform every-day tasks, what good is a kernel?

PS It would not surprise me at all if we saw a Microsoft Linux within the next 1-3 years. The easiest way for them to kill off Linux as competition would be to offer their own version. The advantage? Their version can't get you sued for using Samba, OpenOffice, etc. Sure they'd have to lower their margins a little bit on Linux, but at least they'd be getting your business either way. I might be pessemistic, but I think the future of Linux lies with IBM, Oracle, and Microsoft. Sadly I don't see room in there for Red Hat, Novell, Mandriva, etc.

Are you sure I'm the one off base?

That'd be like Coca-Cola releasing its own version of Pepsi. (sure, they did release "New Coke" but it A. had nothing to do with Pepsi and B. was piss water)