Top tip. If you are going to write an article about how Microsoft has blackmailed Linux twice in a week, try to include solid information about how Microsoft has blackmailed Linux twice in a week, within the first three paragraphs.
Someone could write exactly the same article and claim Linux is ripping off Microsoft by using their past innovations. It would be equally one-sided and false. The reality is that there is probably truth on both sides of this dispute and that obscures the real issue.
The real issue is patents. We need to get away from this model of incentivizing innovation. Otherwise we will constantly have this conflict: someone will invent something (Microsoft), someone will want to clone it (Linux), and conflict will result.
Most Linux desktop distributions have plenty of elements that were popularised by Microsoft, like start buttons and task bars. As the parent says, we could go on endlessly debating who copied who, and if we cared to do our research we would have to conclude that most things were invented by previous guys anyways, people like Dennis Ritchie, Ken Thompson and Doug Engelbart.
The problem with software patents is that any modestly sized chunk of code likely infringes on at least one overly broad patent that should never have been issued. Get a codebase the size of Linux and you're infringing thousands. Basically everyone in the industry is playing Russian roulette with a loaded lawsuit gun and we just hope the chamber is empty when the trigger is pulled. That's just a horrible system, and it's appalling that it's been like that for decades and nobody has fixed it.
Some simple principles. The first to bear in mind is estoppel. If Microsoft releases a version of Linux, this indicates that they have accepted the GPL2. They cannot go back and argue that it is further encumbered by patents that they control. This would have prevented the release!
This applies to Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, and many other companies.
> It’s not only unjust; as per the RICO Act, this should come under investigation for potential violations of the law. This, in our view, is racketeering.
Dear author, present your evidence before making inflammatory statements.
If the style is not to your taste, I wouldn't ask you to read the article, but it seems rude to then make a comment about how they didn't defend their assertions when you pretty plainly bailed out of the article immediately before the section where they defend that assertion.
I believe the issue was the expectation that you would present the evidence first and then the conclusions, hence the use of the word 'before'.
Admittedly, I'm not sure that's a reasonable expectation, but you're responding to "I expected X before Y" with "you're rude because X was right after Y" which, well, yes it was, but that probably wasn't the point :)
Maybe I'm failing to fully understand the article but it seems that the two subjects involved here are not Linux and Microsoft, but rather Canonical (a private, for-profit company, which mantains one of the many Linux distributions, a distribution which, among other things, gives away the user's search data because of a lucrative agreement with Amazon) and Microsoft (another private, for-profit company).
> Maybe I'm failing to fully understand the article
It's techrights.org. Any failure is on their part, not yours, since it is crackpot conspiracy site that blames Microsoft for everything that they don't like.
They blamed Microsoft for the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, accused Bill Gates of purposefully spreading polio in Africa as part of his plan of genocide against brown people to pave the way for the west to re-colonize Africa, and have said that the governments of France and Britain are directly under the control of Microsoft.
If they ever actually get anything right it is an accident, and even then they will find some way to phrase it that is borderline incoherent.
Most of the time their sources are just earlier articles of their own, and if you then go read those and check their sources, you usually just find more techrights.org links. This can go on for several levels. When you do find an offsite link finally it often does not claim what they cited it before.
It should be on the list of domains that are banned from HN, since on those rare occasions when they say something that is not wrong there is always a massively better source that could have been submitted.
It's techrights.org. Any failure is on their part, not yours, since it is crackpot conspiracy site that blames Microsoft for everything that they don't like.
This actually seems like a proper description? I never heard of the site before just now, nor read an article, but after the first few sentences (and links therein, like "MS is turning Eclipse into a proprietary tool") my shitstorm/rant/wherethehellisalltheevidencebehindtheseclaims-radar was turning deeply red :P
The article is all over the place, but the way I understand it Canonical is just one example of a broader issue. Rakuten is another example he named.
Obviously Linux itself isn't subject, since Microsoft can't sue Linux. Linux also can't pay patent fees. This will always be about users of Linux, and Canonical is a particularly visible and outspoken Linux user.
Despite the inflammatory and badly written article, commentators here are missing the point.
Microsoft is undeniably making money out of Linux and Android by threatening companies with their patents and it's good to remind that to people who get enamored with the new Microsoft. This part of Microsoft hasn't changed at all.
To pretend that everything is fine or that the patent system is to blame for Microsoft's actions is just childish. Corporations also react on PR. If nobody says anything and they can get away with bullying others into buying "protection" from them then sure. But it's up to us to hold them to higher standard.
You can't accuse commenters who disagree with you on HN threads of being shills, even if you don't identify them by name. This is the one form of message board incivility HN actually bans explicitly.
I think the real problem is how the patent systems works today. Once meant to protect scientific investments, it does to often protects simple ideas many people would come (came) up with in no much time when confronted with a given problem.
Additionally there is the problem, that software related technology has become so complex and fast changing, that
it is hard for a patent agency to know what a patent actually covers and if it should not be issued due to priority art.
E.g. modern smartphones are just a specific case of a (kinda) general purpose computer and a cloud is just a computation cluster. Nevertheless you can get patents for "the cloud" you wouldn't get for a computation cluster.
Btw. I like comparing software patents with patents on concepts and story lines of novels, both can be argued for but both are a very bad idea ;-)
Trade secrets protected in guild systems. These where out of the control of the government. Indeed, these guilds could be more powerful than the government. The Monarchy could offer a government backed monopoly in exchange for those secrets. Not sure if it is the best idea or not. Personally, I wouldn't mind stronger programming guilds.
It seems the summary is, "Software patents are bad, Microsoft is demanding license fees from manufacturers shipping Android (Linux) based on patents, Microsoft it trying to patent things which have been in Linux for 'years' and getting away with it. Microsoft won't disclose what patents they are licensing/threatening."
My understanding was that the patent basket Microsoft was asserting was the same, and it was outlined by the Chinese[1]. An article covering that was here[2] among other places.
Software patents: In a world that changes day to day and completely re-invents itself every three years, they last 20 years...
Software patents are always going to be controversial in particular the overly broad or vague ones. But 20 years is also a huge issue. They should be AT MOST 5 years long, and even then we need new measures to preemptively attack broad or vague claims.
Patents are part of how the tech world works (unfortunately!). Does the author suggests that all Linux related project will get a 'pass' because they decided for themselves that they won't participate in the patents party? Or maybe because 'Microsoft loves Linux'? Grow up.. I think Microsoft is playing it well embracing oss and still protecting their interests, I wouldn't expect more.
The problem pointed out on the article is that (if it is to be believed) MS is attempting to patent prior art which has already existed inside Linux or in specific Linux components.
MS needs to patent stuff to defend themselves, as all tech companies should in today's market. The problem with MS is that they have shown in the past a willingness to use patents aggressively, not just defensively.
