Sunday, November 26, 2006

Why Ballmer's claim on Linux differs from SCO' claim

I am sure you may have gone through countless articles about M$ versus Linux, and M$ Novell deal, if you are interested in the subject. I have!. Google news has 2850 articles, if you search on "Novell Microsoft". And if you do a Google blog search on the same subject you get closer to 36000 results.
So how do you find the best articles, stay closer to the core. I visit Groklaw site daily to see the legal matters on it and the still continuing SCO saga. Then I browse sites like ZDNets Mary Jo's blog. What I learn today is that we cannot ask ballmer to lift up his holiday apron and show the code.The explanation come Mary Jo's post. Here is the most important part from one of her posts;
""Microsoft doesn't have to show infringing code. It has to demonstrate that some implementation "reads" on its patent. That implementation could be in grapefruit, tiddly-winks, or a final executable program.

"The 'show-me the code' thing worked with IBM SCO because SCO claims that IBM is infringing on its copyrights. "

So I think ballmer is on a well planned course on his game. Remember Lindows? I think they settled that case to keep copyright on a common word like "windows". May be ballmer and gates lived in huts without windows, prior to 1980's or 1990s, but many a people had windows, a long long long time ago.

That is why ballmer will not come forward with his patents, because some of them might get invalidated, or they are in violation some other patents. Or some patents might be containing such things as prior art. Prior art at Microsoft? Don't laugh, everything is original at M$.

There is another article that gives a yet another view on Eweek, "Is Microsoft Violating Some Patents Covering Open Source?"

Mary Jo's article (read her prior article on the same subject too)
Is Microsoft Violating Some Patents Covering Open Source?

No comments: