Microsoft Apparently Owns Linux

If they are trying to nuke the Linux kernel then *BSD is still out there and works with most of the same apps.

Click to expand...

QFT, I have been wanting to try PC-BSD anyway.

Edward78 said:

QFT, I have been wanting to try PC-BSD anyway.

Click to expand...

I have been wanting to try it too, but it doesnt like my hardware!

yay... way to go Microcrap.... Can't they keep their grimy multi-billon dollar hands out of anything thats not theirs? They're like little kids who keep trying to steal the lunch money from someone else, even though they have a $20 bill in their pocket.... The punks

We have been through this several times already.

The BSD people in particular actually made it through a whole lawsuit to a judgment and they survived. Granted, it cost them the race against Linux but they are alive and kicking.

The problem is that Steve Ballmer doesn't have the capacity for thought.

Click to expand...

ROFL

Seriously, this looks an awful lot like SCO's lawsuits...

HA HA HA HA Steve has to eats his own words by causing a PR war http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35895

Misfit138 said:

I have been wanting to try it too, but it doesnt like my hardware!

Click to expand...

Well maybe by version 2.0 it will work from 1 version to another on the same hardware.

Why would a company that already has a monopoly on the OS buisness and who makes millions of dollars a day do this? Greedy mother truckers, thats why. Screw M$

Ummmm i don't mean to threadjack, but uhh could someone pleae inform me on what exactly the SCO thing is about?

hitbyaprkedcar7 said:

Why would a company that already has a monopoly on the OS buisness and who makes millions of dollars a day do this? Greedy mother truckers, thats why. Screw M$

Click to expand...

To keep their monopoly intact. It's a defensive maneuver meant to kill potential competition before it can get both feet on the ground and build momentum. If M$ waited until another OS emerged and started grabbing market share, and I mean real market share - to the point that Billy Gates feels it in his wallet - it will already be too late to do anything at that point. The key to maintaining the monopoly is quickly identifying the competitors that create risk and either buy them out or sue them into oblivion.


M$ has a real problem, however. This possible fight over Linux, should M$ pursue the claim that it infringes on their intellectual rights, can not be won. It's unlike any war M$ has fought before. The problem here is that Linux is open source / public domain. The cat is out of the bag, and there's no stuffing it back where it came from. Development will continue and more and more people and organizations will transition to Linux. This is not all that different than the battle the RIAA and MPAA are fighting against piracy.

What M$ could do - if they are able to prove infringement (I'll address this in a sec) - is prevent companies from profiting from Linux without paying a tribute to M$. The legal system provides ample means to accomplish that. So commercial endeavors such as Linspire could possibly be at risk, and no doubt would be the first targets. It's even possible that a free but highly organized distro like Ubuntu could be successfully targeted and shut down. The RIAA proved their case and brought down Napster, and well as several P2P solutions that operated from a centralized server. The battles the RIAA has won all have a common characteristic - there's an easily identifiable central target at the heart of the operation.

That's all well and good, but the RIAA hasn't stopped piracy. Not by a long shot. Why? Because there are multiple decentralized P2P apps with which to exchange files. How do you even attack that? There's no heart to cut out. Well, the RIAA has opted to attack the only way they can, by singling out offenders and slapping them with lawsuits. It's tedious, creates bad PR, and worst of all (for the RIAA) it's pretty ineffective. Sales for music are still way down and piracy is still very common. Actually piracy is more than just common, it's considered a harmless, acceptable practice by many people.

Sorry for the tangent, but M$ will be facing basically the same battle should they try to go for the jugular and claim Linux as their own. That said, I don't see it happening. There's not a shred of evidence to support the claim that Linux infringes on M$'s patents. If it were true, Ballmer wouldn't be whispering about it out of the side of his mouth. No sir. Instead, he'd have some flashy powerpoint presentation highlighting the offensive sections of Linux code at a press conference / media circus. No such presentation exists, because no such code exists.

I think if anything, this attempt by Ballmer to spread fear and disinformation (he must be taking notes from certain politicians) only legitimizes the Linux threat. It screams out "Hey, Linux is for real". I apologize for the long post, but I have a personal interest in how this pans out. Like many, I'm a long time M$ user who is absolutely sick of their BS. I've known about and played with Linux on and off for years, but only got serious with it a few months ago. Now I've got two machines at home that are totally M$ free. My short term plan is to convert everything over, except my gaming rig. And I hope it won't be long before I can game fully on Linux too. So I've got my fingers crossed that M$ loses this possible showdown.

doublejack said:

There's not a shred of evidence to support the claim that Linux infringes on M$'s patents.

Click to expand...

The only evidence is in the general incompetency of the patent office, the standard of your average software patent, and the number of patents that Ms has.

I know of several patents (admittedly, not by MS) that the Linux kernel violates, as the patents are essentially on common programming techniques. The patents would in most cases be easily swatted down with prior art but the costs of doing so are not insignificant. Especially if the party holding the patent has deep pockets and ties it up in court for years (ie: standard Microsoft techniques). Getting rid of all the completely bogus patents (with extensive prior art) that cover parts of the Linux kernel would probably cost in the 10's of millions. Getting rid of the "obvious" patents (a la "one click") would cost much more. And the gain of doing so would be minimal, as most of these patents would not have been acted upon anyhow.

Which is essentially the problem with the software patent industry at the moment. It's far too easy to get a bogus patent through the patent office, and if you do and have deep pockets, you can cause a huge amount of damage. If MS comes after you with a patent violation, any prior art is meaningless as MS will happily bury you in legal costs until you go out of business or give up the fight.

They won't be able to stop Linux on the home desktop this way (not worth suing individual users) but they'll be able to prevent it gaining any traction in corporate environments and in pre-built computers, and that's where the money is.