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

[Sean Crandall]

Thomas King wrote:
>> 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.

I wonder if they really thought this one out.  Now that they've made 
serious threats to sue, they may not have to actually go through with 
the threats.  Any Linux user could conceivably bring a declaratory 
judgment action against them.  Microsoft would then be required to 
disclose the patents it believes are infringed, and then those can be 
attacked.  Granted, they could try to play shell games with discovery 
like SCO has done for several years by refusing to identify the 
allegedly infringing code, but we're also not talking about a company in 
its death throes with nothing to lose.  I don't think Microsoft wants to 
be the next SCO.  They could have already paved the way not only to 
having many of their patents declared invalid as obvious, but possibly 
even to answering the bigger question the Court just dodged in Microsoft 
v. AT&T---are software patents even valid.

I guess they should be careful asking questions when they don't want to 
hear the answer.

Sean Crandall