Is Microsoft About to Declare Patent War on Linux?

Look at the SCO case. It is taking years for it to travel the court system and they have shown no evidence during the process. If this even go to court Apple better cover its backside because they are probably using something that others have patented.

In a word, "NO". If they had the ammo to back up their posturing they would have pulled the trigger long ago. MS has much more to lose in a patent war than anyone else because they have the deepest pockets.

I think the SCOX suit _was_ Microsoft's shot across the bow, even though they did it through a proxy.

As such, it has been such an atrocious failure that MS can't do it openly without bringing the entire F/OSS community into direct opposition.

In a word, "MAYBE". By posturing, rather than litigating, they've kept outsiders in the dark as to what's in their portfolio/arsenal. Once they start litigating, everyone else will watch and learn from the ensuing fight, and later litigations become more difficult. E.g. SCO v. Novell, which bears much import for SCO v. IBM.

gus3 -

No. They can't keep anybody in the dark as to what's in their portfolio. Patent information is published by the US government in Searchable form, there for anybody to find.

I'm not talking just about the portfolio, but also how they use it, which lawyers they turn loose, etc. They have a strategy made out, stamped sixteen ways from Sunday, and filed for final approval somewhere in the deepest vault. (This is Microsoft, after all.) Once they pull out that playbook and start using it, the "other teams" will be watching closely, indeed.

dino, how do you know what to look for? Are there neat categories like "216 patents that the Linux kernel violates"? Microsoft has tens of thousands of patents, so it doesn't seem realistic to say "well go look, there they are." Developers are advised to never read patents, because legally it is better to be ignorant. Really, the whole system is batstuff insane.

tc -

That's getting a little closer to the real problem, but there is a bit of an answer for that, too:

Microsoft has to tell somebody what it is they are believed to infringe. You know all those nifty little "patent pending" labels you see on products, with a long number (or list of numbers) beside them?

That's a notice that the product is covered by those patents, and its there because the patent holder can't collect damages for infringement unless they make public the patents that apply to the product.

That's only a certain amount of relief: the clock starts running once notice is given, but it makes me wonder how much faith Microsoft really has in its patent portfolio, especially when you consider that software doesn't require factory retooling, etc, to modify.

Quoting:You know all those nifty little "patent pending" labels you see on products, with a long number (or list of numbers) beside them?

Does Windows have it? It certainly wouldn't fit on the box, so it has to be a thick book inside the box.

Quoting:Microsoft has tens of thousands of patents

Then here's some good news for you: Apple only has 3000 of them. Hey, given enough coffee and cheetos some geek should be able to read that in their mom's basement during a 'patent-binge' in a week, isn't it?

jezuch -

I don't think Microsoft has ever published its patent claims for Windows.

Quoting:I don't think Microsoft has ever published its patent claims for Windows.

So this requirement is only for patents on the entire product? So if you patent each and every part of the product, but not the whole, you don't have to disclose anything? Real nice loophole. Real nice.

> Real nice loophole. Real nice.

When the entire set-up is arbitrary, don't be surprised when it turns out that elements of it are arbitrary, too.

Jezuch --

If you have publish patents for every part, you have publish patents for the whole.

I don't see your point.