MESSAGE
| DATE | 2017-02-10 |
| FROM | Rick Moen
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [Hangout-NYLXS] Microsofts new stratergy to beat linux | | ...
|
Quoting Mancini, Sabin (DFS) (Sabin.Mancini-at-dfs.ny.gov):
> PRM, thank you for the obvious effort you put into this. So, I come
> back to:
It was indeed an extremely good rundown, IMO. Thanks, Paul!
> 1. Is this an intentional sly scheme by MS / others to "kneecap"
> Linux / open source ?
You might reasonably say it's a small part of a larger problem: patents.
That problem has afflicted software in the United States since the 1970s
as it has hardware since the very beginning. You are never sure you
have successfully avoided patent problems through 'clean room' creative
efforts, since the patent encumbers a technique or useful invention
irrespective of how it's used or who uses it. Most troublesome are what
are called 'submarine patents', ones taken out and carefully not
publicised until after the technique in question has been widely
adopted. As mentioned, there have long been medium-sized 'patent troll'
firms whose entire business model consists of acquiring and exploiting
in court technology patents, and there are a few infamous towns in East
Texas where they like to file litigation because of juries that make a
point of being frienly to them, (This is part of those towns' business
model.)
When software companies and (more often) software-using large firms are
hauled into court on patent allegations, and especially when
_threatened_ with litigation and advised the can pay the Danegeld and
not be sued, the issue is less whether the target can win but rather
whether to fight. The threat letter will claim you are massively
violating a patent portfolio, but carefully avoid citing any specific
patents, such that you must guess wheter they exist at all, whether they
even apply, and whether they are weak patents easily voided in court if
challenged, as many are. You won't even have the information to assess
those matters unless you decline to pay the extortion and go to court.
Microsoft Corp. had extremely little to do with creating this larger
reality, and famously had little to do with software patents until after
the DoJ antitrust action. Seems to me, the announcement is just a
logical buisiness response to a problem they (far as I know in this
case) had little or nothing to do with creating.
> ( I am not a lawyer, but I cannot see how some entity could lay a
> minefield of hundreds of patents to stifle innovation, competition and
> constructive development in this manner, and have it stand up to legal
> scrutiny ).
And yet it happens.
Most recent (IIRC) LWN.net articile on the software patent situation:
https://lwn.net/Articles/694072/
_______________________________________________
hangout mailing list
hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://www.nylxs.com/
|
|
