Microsoft attempts to "clarify" Linux patent issue...
Category Microsoft
From ZDNet: Microsoft attempts to clarify Linux patent issue
Microsoft claims that it did not warn Asian governments against Linux and was merely referring to a study done by an open-source group, but the author of the study says his report was misinterpreted
...
But Dan Ravicher, the author of the OSRM study and the executive director of the Public Patent Foundation, criticised Microsoft for using soundbites from the report.
"Balmer makes a very bold statement by saying 'Linux infringes X patents', which is much different than saying 'Linux potentially infringes X patents', as the requirement to prove infringement is much stiffer and more difficult than the requirement to simply file a case claiming infringement," said Ravicher. "As the SCO saga shows, filing a case based on an allegation is one thing, proving the merits of the allegation in court is something completely different."
Ravicher added that he feels Microsoft's customers are more at risk of being sued for patent infringement than those who use open-source.
"Not a single open-source software program has ever been sued for patent infringement, much less be found to infringe, while proprietary software, like Windows, is sued and found guilty of patent infringement quite frequently," said Ravicher.
"For examples, we have Eolas' patent being infringed by Windows and Kodak's patent being infringed by Java. If one believes the proof is in the pudding, that stark contrast shows how open-source software has much less to worry about from patents than proprietary software."
The Microsoft spokesperson was unable to confirm that Ballmer said that Linux does infringe patents and companies will be at risk of lawsuit, but said that it could infringe patents.
"According to its 2 August announcement, OSRM states that Linux could be in violation of 283 patents and, as such, could expose customers to undetermined licensing costs," said the spokesperson.
Ravicher claimed that Microsoft's decision to back down on its initial statement is simply a marketing tactic.
"Saying something one day that is fearful and scaremongering, and then backtracking is Microsoft's tried and tested PR tactic," said Ravicher. "As they said it the first time people believe it. It's a psychology trick."
You know... You can either think Ballmer is a shrewd businessman for saying these things, or he's a liability and a loose cannon. I'm starting to think it's the latter. Pretty soon he'll have a spin control staff the size of Gate's email filtering department... :-)
From ZDNet: Microsoft attempts to clarify Linux patent issue
Microsoft claims that it did not warn Asian governments against Linux and was merely referring to a study done by an open-source group, but the author of the study says his report was misinterpreted
...
But Dan Ravicher, the author of the OSRM study and the executive director of the Public Patent Foundation, criticised Microsoft for using soundbites from the report.
"Balmer makes a very bold statement by saying 'Linux infringes X patents', which is much different than saying 'Linux potentially infringes X patents', as the requirement to prove infringement is much stiffer and more difficult than the requirement to simply file a case claiming infringement," said Ravicher. "As the SCO saga shows, filing a case based on an allegation is one thing, proving the merits of the allegation in court is something completely different."
Ravicher added that he feels Microsoft's customers are more at risk of being sued for patent infringement than those who use open-source.
"Not a single open-source software program has ever been sued for patent infringement, much less be found to infringe, while proprietary software, like Windows, is sued and found guilty of patent infringement quite frequently," said Ravicher.
"For examples, we have Eolas' patent being infringed by Windows and Kodak's patent being infringed by Java. If one believes the proof is in the pudding, that stark contrast shows how open-source software has much less to worry about from patents than proprietary software."
The Microsoft spokesperson was unable to confirm that Ballmer said that Linux does infringe patents and companies will be at risk of lawsuit, but said that it could infringe patents.
"According to its 2 August announcement, OSRM states that Linux could be in violation of 283 patents and, as such, could expose customers to undetermined licensing costs," said the spokesperson.
Ravicher claimed that Microsoft's decision to back down on its initial statement is simply a marketing tactic.
"Saying something one day that is fearful and scaremongering, and then backtracking is Microsoft's tried and tested PR tactic," said Ravicher. "As they said it the first time people believe it. It's a psychology trick."
You know... You can either think Ballmer is a shrewd businessman for saying these things, or he's a liability and a loose cannon. I'm starting to think it's the latter. Pretty soon he'll have a spin control staff the size of Gate's email filtering department... :-)
| Permalink |
Comments
Author of Linux Patent Study Says Ballmer Got It Wrong
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1729908,00.asp
By Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
November 19, 2004
When Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said he wasn't really saying that Linux violates more than 200 software patents, Microsoft followed up by saying Ballmer was only citing findings from a controversial study done this summer by OSRM (Open Source Risk Management), a risk-mitigation consultancy.
The study claimed that Linux has been found to potentially violate 283 software patents. The author of that report, however, doesn't see things the way Ballmer does at all.
"Microsoft is up to its usual FUD [fear, uncertainty and doubt]," said Dan Ravicher, author of the study Microsoft cites, who is an attorney and executive director of PUBPAT (the Public Patent Foundation).
"Open source faces no more, if not less, legal risk than proprietary software. The market needs to understand that the study Microsoft is citing actually proves the opposite of what they claim it does."
Posted by Julian Robichaux At 17:46:46 On 23/11/2004 | - Website - |
Posted by Duffbert At 04:31:17 On 24/11/2004 | - Website - |
More than you know, Tom. Check out...
http://www.edbrill.com/ebrill/edbrill.nsf/dx/11202004092153AMEBRL28.htm?opendocument&comments#anc1
Note Peter's comment (#1) and mine (#15)
They really think that's okay now, apparently.
Posted by Nathan T. Freeman At 01:52:53 On 24/11/2004 | - Website - |
Posted by Duffbert At 18:31:58 On 23/11/2004 | - Website - |
Posted by Stephan H. Wissel At 21:10:22 On 23/11/2004 | - Website - |