Microsoft patents vs. Open Source: a year later
It has been exactly one year since the day when Steve Ballmer declared that Linux and other Open Source projects violate 235 patents owned by Microsoft: “42 patents belong to the Linux kernel and modules responsible for interaction with hardware, 65 patents to various user elements - the menu, tools for drawing components, interfaces and similar elements, 45 patents belonging to Microsoft Office were found in document processing and printing systems, 15 patents in e-mail systems and 68 more patents in various programs, which are not part of Linux, but are actively used in it, ”it was said then.
And now, exactly a year has passed, and during this time, Microsoft has done nothing to confirm or deny its claims. She did not sue, she did not show those areas of the source code that violate her patents, so that the Open Source community could replace them. None of this has been done.
Thus, the point of view of those analysts who asserted that all Microsoft threats belong to the “FUD” class is fully confirmed, that is, their goal is one thing - to create fear and uncertainty among users of open source software. Such actions had to sow doubts from corporate clients, so some of them could refuse to migrate to OS.
')
After a year, specific conclusions can be made about the goals and methods of Microsoft's actions, which throughout this time played the “good cop, bad cop” game, carrying out maneuvers in front of the Open Source camp, then making concessions to them, then again resorting to scare tactics .
And now, exactly a year has passed, and during this time, Microsoft has done nothing to confirm or deny its claims. She did not sue, she did not show those areas of the source code that violate her patents, so that the Open Source community could replace them. None of this has been done.
Thus, the point of view of those analysts who asserted that all Microsoft threats belong to the “FUD” class is fully confirmed, that is, their goal is one thing - to create fear and uncertainty among users of open source software. Such actions had to sow doubts from corporate clients, so some of them could refuse to migrate to OS.
')
After a year, specific conclusions can be made about the goals and methods of Microsoft's actions, which throughout this time played the “good cop, bad cop” game, carrying out maneuvers in front of the Open Source camp, then making concessions to them, then again resorting to scare tactics .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/25876/
All Articles