[SATLUG] Did everyone catch this--Microsoft takes on the free world

[Thomas King]

> On Sunday 13 May 2007 18:02, Hector Bojorquez wrote:
>> http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867
>> Microsoft takes on the free world
>> Microsoft claims that free software like Linux, which runs a big chunk
>> of corporate America, violates 235 of its patents. It wants royalties
>> from distributors and users.
>
> M$ is trying to play poker with a house of cards here...
>
> M$ wants to charge royalties for free software (as in Liberty AND BEER).
>
> If folks like Red Hat would just stick to the Open Source philosophy and
> maintain that the product that they $ell is NOT software, but _is services_
> (which has been everyones message from the beginning in the open source/FLOSS
> world), then what's the problem with MS getting OS/Patent royalties?  The
> patented software IS free as in liberty AND beer.  It's the nature of FLOSS.
> Follow my logic here...
>
> When you pay $400 for a Red Hat license.. you're not paying for the OS..
> you're PAYING for the right to access to RHN, Red Hat's patching service, and
> RH's phone help install support.  That's it... That's right.. You can get a
> free legit copy of RHEL5, and maybe even a 30 day RHN patching subscription
> to tinker with it.. and the Open Source OS will continue working for ever..
> at no cost.  You can get RHEL5 for free at any trade show, sometimes even
> downloaded for free (fully compiled, install ISO images) from the RH site at
> times.
> 	With Open Source, "The Product" = $ervices
> 	With Closed Source, "The Product" = $oftware
>
> So when a RHN trail subscription expires, you can no longer patch the OS. Big
> whup.  If you know what you're doing, you can use CentOS or yum repos to keep
> it patched (if you prefer).  Unlike M$ Windows which actually STOPS WORKING
> when that eval period expires.  In Red Hat's case, it's access to the FEE
> BA$ED RHN system's $ERVICE that you pay for.. and that's the message that
> could make M$'s whole point.. well... pointless. :)
>
> After all.. %20 royalties of $0 is still = $0 in my estimation.. ;)
>
> Tweeks

If MS runs after users like the RIAA and other artist groups did for
downloaders, they'll start trying to sue websites for downloader information and
then go after the Linux user. I don't believe they'd be that stupid, but MS is
not known for being truly humanitarian and will try every tactic to make end
users pay, starting with corporations. In other words and probably the most
important point, it doesn't matter to MS if RH's legalese makes the GPL feel all
warm and fuzzy, MS is going for the throat by first trying to take out the legs
through vague threats and PR speak. I love it when they try to spin this type of
stuff saying it's what is good for their customers. RIIIIIIGHT.

What lifts my eyebrow is how they skirt the issue on what patents are in
question. Instead of trying to keep their IP legally protected and make sure
developers are given the information needed to re-write whatever code is in
question. Instead, they are trying to use their patents like cold war nuclear
proliferation, as one author/blogger put it elsewhere. This smacks of the same
tactic SCO tried, but now there is a company that has a crapload more money than
SCO.

The recent court case that seems to be turning the tide on software patents is
one of the biggest things that bodes well for FLOSS. I don't think MS WANTS to
put its patents to the test because most of them are going to be overturned in
light of this precedent. I also think MS is going to try to sneak patents in
from stuff they bought licenses for UNIX. I'm hoping someone is looking over
their patents and picking them apart one by one right now. One other thing in
FLOSS' favor is the fact they cannot buy Linux out. There is no one company they
can intimidate or absorb and extinguish to make this go away. Poor MS, they
cannot use their usual tactics, and I don't think this new tactic is going to
work for them except make them even more the bad guy like SCO.