
Microsoft Has Just Blackmailed Linux Twice in One Single Week - chei0aiV
http://techrights.org/2016/03/10/charm-offensives-distract/
======
Angostura
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.

~~~
deadgrey19
Would give more than 1 upvote to this if I could. After searching for anything
other than vague threats in the first few paras I gave up.

------
outside1234
Not exactly the most "fair and balanced" article.

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.

~~~
ratboy666
Not sure who invented or cloned what.

Are you saying that Microsoft invented POSIX?

~~~
mastazi
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.

------
eloff
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.

~~~
ratboy666
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.

------
csours
I have decided not to read this article.

> 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.

~~~
fabulist
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.

~~~
mst
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 :)

------
mastazi
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).

~~~
tzs
> 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.

~~~
mchahn
> They blamed Microsoft for the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

You've got to be kidding. I'd like to read that. It should be funny.

~~~
tzs
Here you go: "Microsoft Windows BSOD Caused Deepwater Horizon Disaster" [1]

[1] [http://techrights.org/2010/07/23/blue-screen-of-death-and-
bp...](http://techrights.org/2010/07/23/blue-screen-of-death-and-bp/)

------
zimbatm
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.

------
randomFrog
A bit biased Artikle, but

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 ;-)

~~~
ratboy666
Patents were never meant to protect investments.

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.

------
pix64
Anybody willing to summarize without all unnecessary the ranting?

~~~
ChuckMcM
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.

[1]
[http://images.mofcom.gov.cn/pep/201404/20140408143159274.doc...](http://images.mofcom.gov.cn/pep/201404/20140408143159274.docx)

[2] [http://www.zdnet.com/article/310-microsoft-patents-used-
in-a...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/310-microsoft-patents-used-in-android-
licensing-agreements-revealed-by-chinese-gov/)

------
known
I know many MS programmers have contributed to Linux kernel

~~~
pritambaral
Contributions to make a Microsoft product (Hyper-V) work well with Linux.

------
UnoriginalGuy
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.

------
terminus
Microsoft's strategies haven't changed much since (or at all) since these,
circa 1999, Halloween documents:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents)

------
itaysk
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.

~~~
bluejekyll
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.

