Microsoft patent FUD?

Hmm. What's going on?

A patent troll, with two recently hired ex-Microsoftie's in senior positions attacking Red Hat and Novell for a patent on

Ars wrote:

Microsoft is clearly pursuing a campaign to spread the perception that Linux is vulnerable to intellectual property attack, but it seems hard to believe that these lawsuits fit into the company's agenda.

I really, really hope that the Microsoft connection is as tenuous as it seems - conspiracy theorists will have a field day with it. IP Innovations, the troll, has already successfully sued Apple - ostensibly over technology from PARC that IPI had no hand in inventing.

Given IPI had no involvement in inventing the thing that they hold the patent for - I can't help but think, yet again, that the patent system in the US is screwed and doesn't help the 'little guys' out at all when there is no way a small company could defend against this sort of attack.

Ars wrote:

The language of the patent is interminably vague and could apply to any one of a dozen different user interface elements that are found in all modern operating systems, but seems to be most closely related to the idea of "tabbed" dialog boxes, like the ones seen in both Windows and Mac OS X.

Chances of IPI suing Microsoft? I'd put money on 'not going to happen'.

Edit: Quick question - if IPI do not produce *anything* how can they claim that the breach of patent is damaging to them? They make no money from the item that they have a patent on.

Rossj wrote:

Ars wrote: The language of the patent is interminably vague and could apply to any one of a dozen different user interface elements that are found in all modern operating systems, but seems to be most closely related to the idea of "tabbed" dialog boxes, like the ones seen in both Windows and Mac OS X.

Chances of IPI suing Microsoft? I'd put money on 'not going to happen'.

Agreed. I also think the patent system should be overhauled or just plain dumped...it's being abused to no end.

Heh...maybe this will go down as yet another set of (Happy) Halloween Documents. Don't forget, there's also this entity still lurking out there, headed up by an ex-softie, Nathan Myrhvold. And they have LOTS of money to blow.

Wikipedia wrote:

Intellectual Ventures is a private company founded in 2000 to invest in "pure invention." Its goal is to develop a large patent portfolio rather than to actually develop new systems.

Note, they don't develop any tangible products either. Whatever the case, true innovators, as usual, pay the ultimate price.

I don't want Linux to die.

For one, I want them to develop/finish developing the Linux platform for Palm devices.

Secondly, Microsoft NEEDs competiton. Sure, Apple is competition, but not AS much on the OS front. Linux is the only 100% OS challenger to MS, and it's that that makes MS's technologies better.

It's like I read in CustomPC a while back; If AMD were to die, Intel wouldn't have as much pressure to develop new technologies. We need rival companies, no matter how cr appy they are.

donttazemebro wrote:

Hopefully this means the death of Linux once and for all.

Darl McBride, is that you?

JChung2006 wrote:



donttazemebro wrote: Hopefully this means the death of Linux once and for all.

Darl McBride, is that you?

Don't encourage him, please.

donttazemebro wrote:



Lloyd_Humph wrote:  I don't want Linux to die. For one, I want them to develop/finish developing the Linux platform for Palm devices. Secondly, Microsoft NEEDs competiton. Sure, Apple is competition, but not AS much on the OS front. Linux is the only 100% OS challenger to MS, and it's that that makes MS's technologies better. It's like I read in CustomPC a while back; If AMD were to die, Intel wouldn't have as much pressure to develop new technologies. We need rival companies, no matter how cr appy they are.

No we don't. Some of us make money from Microsoft technologies and the less competition Microsoft has, the better we are off. Besides, Linux developers work for free and keep the rest of the software developer pay low.

Such a one track mind.

Stop being so naiive and grow up.

Yeah. Fine, I understand what you're on about.

But I still think you're being naiive. C'mon, think about it. The world would have NO choice and MS would rule everything. It's like if the world is populated by millions of /you/.. everything would get boring (unless you had a crazy version of skizophrenia allowing you to be 6b+ people at the same time)

donttazemebro wrote:



Lloyd_Humph wrote:  I don't want Linux to die. For one, I want them to develop/finish developing the Linux platform for Palm devices. Secondly, Microsoft NEEDs competiton. Sure, Apple is competition, but not AS much on the OS front. Linux is the only 100% OS challenger to MS, and it's that that makes MS's technologies better. It's like I read in CustomPC a while back; If AMD were to die, Intel wouldn't have as much pressure to develop new technologies. We need rival companies, no matter how cr appy they are.

No we don't. Some of us make money from Microsoft technologies and the less competition Microsoft has, the better we are off.

How does that work?

Without competition from Apple and the Linux  community, Microsoft would be selling us Windows95 licenses at $1000 per machine per year.

donttazemebro wrote:


And you are acting like this is a bad thing? Microsoft stock would shoot through the roof. As a big Microsoft stockholder, that would be really nice.

I'll feed the troll, once.

You obviously don't comprehend capitalism.  The utopia you describe is no more realistic than the utopia the Open Source Zealots describe.  Both sides of this debate need to shut up and let the rest of us get some work done.

As for the rest of this thread, I fully agree.  Patents are broken, and it *appears* Microsoft is playing games they should not be.

donttazemebro wrote:



Ray6 wrote:  donttazemebro wrote:  Lloyd_Humph wrote:  I don't want Linux to die. For one, I want them to develop/finish developing the Linux platform for Palm devices. Secondly, Microsoft NEEDs competiton. Sure, Apple is competition, but not AS much on the OS front. Linux is the only 100% OS challenger to MS, and it's that that makes MS's technologies better. It's like I read in CustomPC a while back; If AMD were to die, Intel wouldn't have as much pressure to develop new technologies. We need rival companies, no matter how cr appy they are. No we don't. Some of us make money from Microsoft technologies and the less competition Microsoft has, the better we are off. How does that work? Without competition from Apple and the Linux  community, Microsoft would be selling us Windows95 licenses at $1000 per machine per year.

And you are acting like this is a bad thing? Microsoft stock would shoot through the roof. As a big Microsoft stockholder, that would be really nice.

Well that's odd because Apple's doesn't seem to make anywhere near as much money as Microsoft, and yet I don't hear their shareholders complaining ... so obviously being a a monopoly is not the only way to make your shareholders happy.

wkempf wrote:

As for the rest of this thread, I fully agree.  Patents are broken, and it *appears* Microsoft is playing games they should not be.

Please, there is exactly zero evidence of any Microsoft involvment in this crap. Let's leave the innuendos and retarded speculations to groklaw and slashdot, ok?

PaoloM wrote:

Please, there is exactly zero evidence of any Microsoft involvment in this crap. Let's leave the innuendos and retarded speculations to groklaw and slashdot, ok?

But. Given that one of the two 'softies involved used to be on the Microsoft IP team it is certainly feasible, and with only past experience to go on ...

I'm not saying Microsoft *are* involved, but the potential is there, and the timing is .. erm .. interesting with recent announcements about RedHat.  Like I said in the OP, it will be interesting to see if they go after Microsoft - I am amazed they haven't gone where the money is.

donttazemebro wrote:



wkempf wrote:  donttazemebro wrote:  And you are acting like this is a bad thing? Microsoft stock would shoot through the roof. As a big Microsoft stockholder, that would be really nice. I'll feed the troll, once. You obviously don't comprehend capitalism.  The utopia you describe is no more realistic than the utopia the Open Source Zealots describe.  Both sides of this debate need to shut up and let the rest of us get some work done. As for the rest of this thread, I fully agree.  Patents are broken, and it *appears* Microsoft is playing games they should not be.

Why is not realistic?  You think a big $300+ billion dollar company like Microsoft can't beat a bunch of hippies coding in their parent's basement? Linux beating Windows is unrealistic. Opposite way around is inevitable.

Seriously dude, quit with the anti-linux attitude.

Sure, this is a Microsoft forum, but that doesn't mean you have to be such a naiive, childish person. Linux has it's pros and cons. As does windows. It's not like the sun shines out of Windows' orb shaped rectum, y'know.

If you can't accept that we have decent (most of the tiem) debates here concerning the two, then you really shouldn't be here. Go find a pro-MS forum to join.

Rossj wrote:



PaoloM wrote: Please, there is exactly zero evidence of any Microsoft involvment in this crap. Let's leave the innuendos and retarded speculations to groklaw and slashdot, ok?

But. Given that one of the two 'softies involved used to be on the Microsoft IP team it is certainly feasible, and with only past experience to go on ...

I'm not saying Microsoft *are* involved, but the potential is there, and the timing is .. erm .. interesting with recent announcements about RedHat.  Like I said in the OP, it will be interesting to see if they go after Microsoft - I am amazed they haven't gone where the money is.

Who are these two 'softies involved (I know who they are, the question is more like "why are you bringing into the discussion?")? You mean that they're working for the same company, or that they are directly involved in this specific action?

You do, of course, realize that there are people working at RedHat that used to work for Microsoft, right?

You also understand that Microsoft has been (and I think it still actually is) the target of litigation from the same company, so there is really no ground for these speculations, other than FUD.

PaoloM wrote:

You also understand that Microsoft has been (and I think it still actually is) the target of litigation from the same company, so there is really no ground for these speculations, other than FUD.

It just looks so convenient, one day Ballmer says Redhat owes Microsoft money (but again with no proof) and days later IPI hire a 'softie from the IP team who then sue Redhat.

I also can't find any evidence of IP Innovation suing Microsoft - any pointers?

Rossj wrote:



PaoloM wrote: You also understand that Microsoft has been (and I think it still actually is) the target of litigation from the same company, so there is really no ground for these speculations, other than FUD.

It just looks so convenient, one day Ballmer says Redhat owes Microsoft money (but again with no proof) and days later IPI hire a 'softie from the IP team who then sue Redhat.

Well, yeah. However, did you notice how everybody was saying that Gore would win the Nobel prize and *then* he actually won it?

Concidence?

Rossj wrote:

I also can't find any evidence of IP Innovation suing Microsoft - any pointers?

No IP Innovation itself (after all, they have zero relationship with Microsoft) but the parent company, Acacia or something, that's where the two former MSFT execs work... I read it on groklaw, by the way, so it must be true

PaoloM wrote:

Please, there is exactly zero evidence of any Microsoft involvment in this crap. Let's leave the innuendos and retarded speculations to groklaw and slashdot, ok?

Considering Microsoft's stance about Linux and IP, as well as deals a la SCO in the past, excuse me if I don't have any qualms of accusing you of drinking Kool Aid and all that.