Microsoft Strikes Against The "free" World::

May 14, 2007

The software giant from Redmond may see toward a "black" future?! This question can come up if you think about how some Institutions, Staates, Politic and officials and so dealing with some situations if they get to biiiiig!

MS plans to go against the developer and user of free software like Linux &c! Read below:

""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. Users like you, maybe.

Free software is great, and corporate America loves it. It's often high-quality stuff that can be downloaded free off the Internet and then copied at will. It's versatile - it can be customized to perform almost any large-scale computing task - and it's blessedly crash-resistant.

A broad community of developers, from individuals to large companies like IBM, is constantly working to improve it and introduce new features. No wonder the business world has embraced it so enthusiastically: More than half the companies in the Fortune 500 are thought to be using the free operating system Linux in their data centers.

But now there's a shadow hanging over Linux and other free software, and it's being cast by Microsoft. The Redmond behemoth asserts that one reason free software is of such high quality is that it violates more than 200 of Microsoft's patents. And as a mature company facing unfavorable market trends and fearsome competitors like Google, Microsoft is pulling no punches: It wants royalties. If the company gets its way, free software won't be free anymore."" ..........

to get the full article go to: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/for...5/28/100033867/

rgs2001uk · May 14, 2007

the unacceptable face of corporate amerika rears it ugly head yet again.

Grover · May 14, 2007

its an interesting article and worth the read if you are interested in this type of thing.

INHO software patents are ridiculous.

regards, grover.

Phil Conners · May 14, 2007

Sounds suspiciously like the SCO vs. IBM case a few years ago.

solo siam · May 14, 2007

"and it's blessedly crash-resistant"

Thats a joke right?

I tried to go the Linux / Open Source direction a few years ago, tried installing on two computers, both crashed constantly and it was a bother to load new software etc... then I forgot my password once (I didn't even want to have to use a password) and that computer was instantly rendered useless.

Before a lot of people reply questioning my computer skills, I'm a computer user of over 20 years, I can set-up multi-OS networks, file shares, edit registries and at least on a Windows PC or Mac am very competent.

Linux and its ilk are just not simple enough for the everyday user, everythings always version 1.0412 and nothing seems to just work out of the box (there is no box) - For instance tarballs, here is the wiki entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_(file_format) , Sorry but thats just gobbledigook to me, and I never could get tehm to work properly.

I think the OEM versions of Vista are sensibly priced, however Office is a complete rip-off and IMO should come free with the Operating System.

KhunMarco · May 14, 2007

I don't remember where I read this news but I'm quite sure that Microsoft is employing the same firm of lawyers

used by the bush family for their petrol-business. Bad news guys!

waldwolf · May 14, 2007

IMHO this is just posturing on the part of Microsoft and other parties, in an attempt to pull together a tighter alliance of Linux software producers, such as the Microsoft-Novell-Dell agreements of last year, wherein, the parties agreed not to file patent-infringement charges against users of either Linux or Windows.

Oracle, the world's second-largest software maker behind Microsoft, entered similar agreements With Red Hat, on support and distribution of Red Hat's version of Linux.

Software patents are historically "weak" and vulnerable to challenge/overturn by the courts. Its my opinion, Microsoft is attempting to force Linux developers to write code allowing for smooth integration of Windows software into future Linux operating systems.

Agreements sell more product than law suits.

waldwolf

cdnvic · May 14, 2007

Anyone who's seen the support fees for "free" software knows it's a misnomer. Unless you have in-house experts on the system, the cost with support of running Windows Server 2003, and a FreeBSD server is almost the same even after you pay the license fee to MS.

yeti · May 15, 2007

Anyone who's seen the support fees for "free" software knows it's a misnomer. Unless you have in-house experts on the system, the cost with support of running Windows Server 2003, and a FreeBSD server is almost the same even after you pay the license fee to MS.

It's almost the same because most in-house technicians are more used to MS stuff than to Linux stuff. But when IT people will be versatile on both system (which should happen as IT schools around are teaching about both systems), then support fees for both system, not including the license fee, will be equivalent.

autonomous_unit · May 15, 2007

The point of open source or "free" software isn't that it doesn't require licensing fees. The freedom is with regard to the legal ability to do what you please with the software.

For the specialty systems, the open source value includes the fact that you can hire support or even product enhancements from other sources, e.g. any consultant or in-house staff can legally modify the product without any special contract or consent from the original authors/vendors. This brings a level of security in planning when you base a new business on the product, because you no longer depend on the original vendor staying in business.

For the embedded system/appliance makers, the monetarily free software is of course attractive. The vendor spends their human effort up front on development and keeps the per-unit manufacturing costs low, because they do not need to pay per-unit licensing fees to distribute the resulting product. This is another area which threatens MS, because they would like to get some per-unit licensing for everything in the market (as they've always wanted), and also putting a patent tax on the Linux units would make the MS embedded OS seem more price-competetive.

nikster · May 15, 2007

Sounds suspiciously like the SCO vs. IBM case a few years ago.

It's actually a continuation of the exact same thing - FUD [Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt] of the cold-war variety. Long thought to be extinct, the tactic is apparently alive and well at Microsoft.

In the SCO case, Microsoft made a significant investment in SCO beforehand - at this point SCO was just a handful of patent lawyers or IP raiders.

Microsoft then also was the first and biggest 'licensee' of SCOs patents, paying 10s of millions of dollars for it. This served two purposes: To fund SCOs legal war against linux. And to give credibility to its claims - if Microsoft had paid so much for it, there must be something to it, right? SCOs strategy was to drag out the legal fight as long as possible in order to maximize FUD - that's why SCO kept secret the Linux code they supposedly found that infringed on SCOs patents. That's right, they kept that secret for years. In the end, nothing ever came of it. A prolonged PR excercise for Microsoft's benefit, nothing else.

A very good analysis of this newest war Microsoft started is here:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech....976F7BDDD4.html

As in the SCO case, it's FUD, all over again. Microsoft likely has no evidence for the supposed patent infringements. It will keep supposed evidence secret for years. It won't actually sue anybody, just keep mentioning that they might, thereby creating a climate of uncertainty around Linux in corporations. History repeating...

cali · May 15, 2007

These types of lawsuits are very normal. I don't know about now, but it used to be you simply could not make a PC without infringing on a huge number of IBM patents. Companies wait until an infringing party become big enough and then approach them with a big bill. That's just the way it works. Usually the infringing party will then counter sue for a list of infringements against their patents. It will go to the courts, the lawyers will make a fortune, then years later there will be an out of court settlement. Pretty standard stuff.

nikster · May 15, 2007

Anyone who's seen the support fees for "free" software knows it's a misnomer. Unless you have in-house experts on the system, the cost with support of running Windows Server 2003, and a FreeBSD server is almost the same even after you pay the license fee to MS.

IT must be the only area of business where dependence on a sole vendor is seen as a good thing.

Microsoft integrates very well with any other Microsoft product, more or less. But don't try to use another product. Microsoft actively prevents other products to work with its products. Why? Because they want to sell you their own products. Simple.

I think it's completely irrelevant how much "better" Microsoft products are - and they are in fact often not better - because a much, much more important factor in making a business decision for a platform for say, email delivery, is that one does not want to depend on a sole vendor. Ever. That's business 101. It should be obvious.

I am not even talking about Linux and its many very real shortcomings. I am talking about open standards. I can understand where Microsoft is coming from - it has a monopoly and if I were them I would want to extend it also, and I would not be interested in working with anyone else. What I don't really understand is why people are falling for it...

cdnvic · May 15, 2007

I think its a ploy to make hardware vendors nervous about shipping desktops and servers with Linux. Dell, who MS has been on the outs with lately, has just begun shipping Ubuntu.

toptuan · May 15, 2007

I know this thread is about free operating systems, but enough remarks about for-profit companies spur me on to the following comments...

Anyone who runs pirated versions of any for-profit software companies' products is just living on borrowed time--courtesy of a rogue government (operating pirated software on its own computers) and Microsoft's priorities with bigger things at stake right now. I believe our days are numbered.

My farang friend teaches a Business Ethics course to MBA students at a major university here in LOS. The text? A photocopied version (150baht) of a British textbook (800B). Ironic. I dare say his students are taught more by his example than his words. At the very least, IMO, he should write his own textbook (and then watch his students shaft him by photocopying his book, too).

Wait until you produce an artistic or academic product, hoping to live off your own creative efforts. It'll change your mind quite quickly!

May 24, 2007

The Battle carries on!

That's the latest news about the battle against the Open Source!!

Microsoft Steps Up Open Source Battle

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

May 22, 2007, 3:28 PM

Microsoft continued its battle against open source on Tuesday with the release of yet another company-funded study showing that developers believe the next version of GPL shouldn't cover patent deals.

This latest study was performed by the Harvard Business School, and found that developers would rather have GPLv3 stay out of the deal regulation business. Perhaps not coincidentally, the study comes a week after Microsoft claimed that open source software violates 235

The study is based on a very small sample of only 34 respondents. Researchers sent out some 332 questionnaires, but a scant 11 percent responded, according to eWEEK. Some Microsoft watchers are puzzled by Redmond's latest moves.

"I'm stunned that after taking a number of seemingly positive steps vis-a-vis its thinking and strategy around open source, Microsoft has decided to blow away any bridges it built in a matter of weeks," long time Microsoft pundit Mary Jo Foley opined.

She noted that Microsoft's threat to sue had backfired, and pointed to a website that lists over 300 open source supporters that are openly asking Microsoft to sue them over alleged patent infringement.

Microsoft is now in a tough predicament. Either it must stick to its guns, or attempt to back off and sweep what could become a public relations disaster under the rug.

Others are echoing Foley's concerns. "Microsoft perceives risks with how GPLv3 treats intellectual property. The playing field isn't level, though. There is no similiar mechanism for Microsoft licensing," Joe Wilcox, writer for Microsoft Watch, told BetaNews.

"Microsoft gets the say, with modest input from its largest customers."

LaReina · May 24, 2007

Even if they have their day in court, my guess is, the courts will rule that the suit will serve to limit creative thinking and thus for the good of mankind, they will have to get over their copyright infringements.

solo siam · May 24, 2007

Wait until you produce an artistic or academic product, hoping to live off your own creative efforts. It'll change your mind quite quickly!

Yes, because there are no rich authors or artists in the world.

Rap music for example is pirated extensively, they all still seem to drive round in gold plated rolls royces, with diamonds for wheels though.

cdnvic · May 24, 2007

Wait until you produce an artistic or academic product, hoping to live off your own creative efforts. It'll change your mind quite quickly!

Yes, because there are no rich authors or artists in the world.

Rap music for example is pirated extensively, they all still seem to drive round in gold plated rolls royces, with diamonds for wheels though.

Someone believes what he sees in cartoons.

astral · May 25, 2007

I think its a ploy to make hardware vendors nervous about shipping desktops and servers with Linux. Dell, who MS has been on the outs with lately, has just begun shipping Ubuntu.

It reminds me of the old IBM tactic -- FUD

Fear Uncertainly and Doubt.

Sumppen · May 26, 2007

"and it's blessedly crash-resistant"
Linux and its ilk are just not simple enough for the everyday user, everythings always version 1.0412 and nothing seems to just work out of the box (there is no box) - For instance tarballs, here is the wiki entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_(file_format) , Sorry but thats just gobbledigook to me, and I never could get tehm to work properly.

I just had to reply to this...

Firstly I can understand that you have trouble with the tar file format, which is widely used in unix worlds. I assume you know and understand this 100% and clearly though (as it's widely used in windows world) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIP_(file_format) ?

Only reason I ever have to restart my linux server is either longer power failures, or hardware update, while when I was using windows 2003 server, I had to restart quite frequently (not least when there was a patch)

cdnvic · May 26, 2007

Actually, Steve Gibson pointed out during the latest episode of Security Now that MS may have forgotten a loophole in the law that has rendered the whole thing a non-issue.

Steve: Well, yes. It�s interesting. Version 2 of the GPL allowed Microsoft to do this deal. But what Novell did as part of this deal in November was Novell gave Microsoft some number of coupons, basically for a free version of their Linux enterprise server. Microsoft then sells these coupons or makes them available to their customers. And their customers are able to redeem them for Novell's Linux server software. Well, it turns out that version 3 of the GPL that�s supposed to come into effect either in June or July, in a month or two, it closes a loophole that Microsoft was essentially taking advantage of that exists in version 2 of the GPL, which is what software is now being covered by, such that, if any Microsoft customer uses one of those coupons and redeems the coupon for a Novell copy of Linux, under version 3 of the GPL that makes Microsoft a distributor of free and open source software. And as a distributor, part of the GPL requires that all patents be licensed for free. That is, there are either no patents at all, or they are completely free patents. And so that forces Microsoft to essentially implicitly turn their entire patent base into royalty-free licensed patents so that no user then of any version of Linux could be sued by Microsoft for eternity.

Transcript:

http://www.grc.com/sn/SN-093.htm

Listen:

http://media.grc.com/sn/SN-093-lq.mp3

solo siam · May 26, 2007

"and it's blessedly crash-resistant"
Linux and its ilk are just not simple enough for the everyday user, everythings always version 1.0412 and nothing seems to just work out of the box (there is no box) - For instance tarballs, here is the wiki entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_(file_format) , Sorry but thats just gobbledigook to me, and I never could get tehm to work properly.

I just had to reply to this...

Firstly I can understand that you have trouble with the tar file format, which is widely used in unix worlds. I assume you know and understand this 100% and clearly though (as it's widely used in windows world) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIP_(file_format) ?

Only reason I ever have to restart my linux server is either longer power failures, or hardware update, while when I was using windows 2003 server, I had to restart quite frequently (not least when there was a patch)

I can understand the linux server never crashing, my old MS-DOS boxes never crashed either - Its when you try and get Linux to use as a desktop O/S that it all seems to go wrong.