RSSMicrosoft Scrambling to Explain Ballmer Comment on Red Hat Linux
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published October 9, 2007, 5:03 PM
A team of Microsoft spokespeople have been working throughout the day to devise a plausible explanation for a comment made by CEO Steve Ballmer during a company gathering in the UK, which on its face appears to say it is considering litigation against users of Red Hat Linux for patent infringement.
But one spokesperson acknowledged late this afternoon that multiple sources have yet to come to an agreement over what the company should say.
Ballmer's comments came during a Q&A session after a talk on the UK software economy, and the role online services will play in that economy, that took place on Microsoft's British campus. Here is the video from that event. Here also are Ballmer's comments in their entirety:
So what's our strategy? A) To compete. When we have products that have open source competitors, we need to offer better value. Our products have to have more capabilities, they need to be better supported, they need more applications, they need more device support. We have to compete, where there's a direct overlap.
Now, people focus a lot on Windows vs. Linux, or Office vs. OpenOffice. Sure, we're competing. On the other hand, I'd also tell you the following is true: I would love to see all open source innovation happen on top of Windows. So we've done a lot to encourage, for example, the team building, PHP, the team building, many of the other open source components, I'd love to see those kinds of open source innovations proceed very successfully on top of Windows.
Because our battle is not sort of business model to business model. Our battle is product to product, Windows versus Linux, Office versus OpenOffice.
The only other thing I would say that is probably germane is, we spend a lot of money, the rest of the commercial industry spends a lot of money on R & D. We've spent a lot of money also licensing patents, when people come to us and say, "Hey, this commercial piece of software violates our patent, our intellectual property, we'll either get a court judgment or we'll pay a big check. And we are going to - I think it is important that the open source products also have an obligation to participate in the same way in the same way in the intellectual property regime.
That's why we've done the deal we have with Novell, where not only are we working on technical interoperability between Linux and Windows but we've also made sure that we could provide the appropriate, for the appropriate fee, Novell customers also get essentially the rights to use our patented intellectual property. And I think it's great the way Novell stepped up to kind of say intellectual property matters. People use Red Hat, at least with respect to our intellectual property in a sense have an obligation to eventually to compensate us. [emphasis ours]
There are plenty of other people who may also have intellectual property. And every time an Eolas comes to Microsoft and says, "Pay us," I suspect they also would like to eventually go to the open source world. So getting what I'll call an intellectual property interoperability framework between the two worlds I think is important.
USE DEFAMATION LAW TO CALL MS'S PATENT BLUFF
The claim that Linux infringes MS patents is presumably defamatory. In the UK and many other jurisdictions, the onus of proof in a defamation action is on the defendant (i.e. the defamer). If a party accused of violating MS patents sues MS for defamation in one of those jurisdiction, MS will have to prove the allegation. That will obviously involve specifying the patents. If MS won't specify, it will not only lose the case, but also probably be liable for exemplary/punitive damages because the refusal to specify will show that the allegation was an attempt to stifle competition. Perhaps MS has already defamed so many people in so many jurisdictions that it can be bled dry.
I am not a lawyer, etc.
Score: 0
|This is not the first time Ballmer has opened his mouth. He seems ignorant of the SCO fiasco - their CEO rattled swords for years, but ended up getting shut down in court.
Score: 0
|Microsoft plays dirty, remember that.. and remember all the stuff they tried to pull during the DOJ trial. They wanted to believe they were untouchable, and it turns out they were in the US with bushy letting them off the hook. but had anyone else pulled the stuff they tried on, they'd have been done for contempt in the very least.
Microsoft won't do it to win a judgement, they will do it to create uncertaintity.
Ironically, after SCO, I'd be inclined to think that the "uncertainty" will be about them since all of tomorrows IT people are today playing with Linux on old PC's.. things are not as they once were and Microsoft needs to face that.
They are likely to lose any patents they use against OSS simply because of 2 points.
1. Microsoft never really "innovate" they just expand on on existing stuff.
2. OSS has millions of rabid supporters who will do OSS's legal work for them and find all and any examples of prior art that are hidden out there.
Bring it on I say, I'll donate something to redhat every day of the trial. I have to support MS software at the uni where I work, but I loath their history and their ethics, and their uncaring attidude toward the customer.
Score: 0
|Go ahead and sue, Balmer. And watch what happens. I'll donate $10.00 to the RedHat legal defence fund and I hope that other Open Source users and developers around the world do the same even though I use Ubuntu. And when that runs out I'll do it again and again and you get the idea. We will see how the Microsoft fortunes stand up to that. My money is on Redhat to win or at least give Microsoft a serious black-eye.
Score: 0
|A lot of huge competitors of Microsoft, located over the world, pay the 'rent' for professional programmers to write Open Source Software, that is defeating Microsoft on many fronts, in many markets.
They surely wouldn't risk failure by trying to run any snippets of error prone Microsoft code!
FOSS provides common single users, 'professionals' in industry, and rocket scientists alike the Operating Systems that are immune to the Microsoft million virus/trojan/malware/spybot/exploits.
Microsoft has had it's 20 years, and before that was Unix, for it's two decades. The superior evolved OS has been here and fully capable and is ready for the future.
If Microsoft intends to sue over some fantasy wetdream that it could work, then Steve Ballmer has no clue about what happened to SCO, and how so much worse it will go with Microsoft.
Microsoft, to survive, needs to give due respect to the remaining users and customers who haven't jumped ship, yet, but, who have "TheOpenCD", Ubuntu, Mepis, or PClinuxOS CDroms in their libraries.
As if there could have ever been any of Microsoft's sad and in-efficient code in GNU/Linux, Steve knows that programmers would have already changed it to respect property rights and to protect from the blight!
Microsoft looks back over 8 years of declining sales figures, and can see the writing on the wall. Users want FREEdom, as is offered by GNU/Linux.
Score: 0
|Ballmer is fighting a loosing battle.
Under section 8 of the Constitution
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Once the court comes to acknowledge that the goal of promoting progress of science and useful arts is better served by FOSS license there will be exceptions carved out for free & open-source projects.
Score: 0
|I think that point is - that balmer realizes that in both the short and long run microsoft cannot compete against open source. But he/they want to take their customers for all they can while they can. So FUD and keep the dough coming in for a little while longer or simply admit. "Huh! Bill was wrong. Programmers can make a good living working on good quality free software that is given away and is available to anyone." and er! huh! eh! has no upgrade and support taxes built in."
Score: 0
|I think is point is - why do 'open source' efforts get a free ride if they are infringing on patented material, when the same patent owner will hit MS up for licencing fees? Or, just because it's free to the end user doesn't mean it has no value in a business model (real $$$ value).
Score: 0
|Ballmer is not dumb. He would never have become so successful if he was an idiot. I would venture to say that he has poor impulse control and thinks he is untouchable. From his behaviour I'd label him a 'jerk'. With that said, Microsoft won't sue. If MS attempts patent litigation, it will backfire. Operating systems, office suites, etc. are more evolutionary than revolutionary. Patents on software are ridiculous, like patenting mathematical formulas.
Cheers,
Alex C.
Score: 0
|Ballmer looks like a huge ****.
Score: 0
|Truth.
A toupee might actually help this guys looks, sadly enough.
Score: 0
|Don't you mean: Ballmer looks like a huge d!ck, only smaller. LOL
Score: 0
|In spite of Mr. Ballmer's opinions to the contrary, the world of software development does not revolve around Microsoft Corporation. Nor does his company own the rights to every significant software construct.
Software patents are a Bad Thing, when they are used to stifle innovation and interoperability, or choke off competitors.
Time for Mr. Ballmer to realize that there is more than one way to develop software, and that those who choose to give away their work shouldn't be asked to pay anyone for the use of an instruction sequence or data structure. Competition is good, it leads to better products. Vendor lock-in is bad, it leads to rebellion and, eventually, divorce.
Score: 0
|Thats MS for ya. Screwing everyone that isnt a MS slave. No thanks MS.
Score: 0
|Having spent a lot of time convince people about open source and its advantages, I know why making such statements, even though baseless and evidence-less is very profitable for MS. Most of the top management of large / traditional firms CEO / CIO / CTOs are not well versed with the facts of Open Source Applications / Linux OS. So when they hear such statements from another CEO they think that their Company will be effected and thus stay away from Linux and will go towards a vendor supported OS.
Score: 0
|In this day and age do you folks honestly think that the comments made by this person were accidental and not deliberate?
These kinds of statements always generate media attention and force people to ask the questions 'What is he referring too' which then puts the spotlight on the target of the comment - in this case Redhat. This will then force them being an open source to disclose exactly what they are doing that may or may not be infringing on Microsoft’s Intellectual property - saving Microsoft millions in legal fees and forcing Redhat to change whatever/if any infringements they might have.
So, while you are all happily humping the ‘Hate Microsoft’ doll, the rest of us are laughing at how this community does not fully think these actions through and perhaps learn something from them.
Score: 0
|Huh? this does not put the onus on Red Hat to do anything other than sue M$ for libel.
Score: 0
|To sue someone for libel you must be able to prove that the statements made against you are false, and were made knowingly.
Since MS isn't publicizing the patents in question, Red Hat can hardly prove to anyone that the statements are false, thus resulting in a nasty little catch-22 of sorts.
Score: 0
|Your posit requires that we conclude that Mr Ballmer is capable of deep thought - er, I don't think I can get past that one.
Score: 0
|Actually, Ballmer used the weasel-wording "intellectual property"; what is it, Steve? Copyrights? Patents? Trademarks? ???
By calling out Linux companies, but failing to follow through, even when Red Hat has publicly asked MS to do so and reveal what patents they're claiming are infringement, they may have locked themselves out of doing so later on; look up the term "laches". If you ignore defending your patent/trademark rights in the face of known infringement, you can't turn around later and sue; you've lost your right to it.
Meanwhile MS' legal department is no doubt trying to tell Ballmer to please STFU to avoid this...
Score: 0
|they may have locked themselves out of doing so later on;
Covered that below.
Meanwhile MS' legal department is no doubt trying to tell Ballmer to please STFU to avoid this...
Pretty standard advice to Ballmer as I hear it.
Score: 0
|I have to admit that it definitely sounds like he's saying the company is going after the users of RedHat. That being the case, I think it's a mistake. It will only anger consumers and damage any credibility Microsoft has in that area.
That said, if RedHat is using Microsoft intellectual property, it should be RedHat that pays for the licensing or gets sued for violating it.
It's not the fault of the consumer that RedHat, or any vendor, violates IP laws.
Score: 0
|Really, it doesn't matter. MS itself violates more patents than ANY OS on the market. And it is actually provable publicly. IF *MS* is dumb enough to open that can of worms, the company (MS) will bury itself, as it would have to show portions of code to backup the statements as well. Now that is where it would get interesting. MS has been literally *copy pasting* open source into their own product for years. If you can get a hold of the leaked 2k code, take a look through it sometime, youll find direct code from BSD in it, which is ironic. Not to mention, hasn't anyone ever though it ironic that windows keeps "its" hosts file in /etc/hosts hmmm... (%windir%/system32/drivers/etc/) Alot of crap has been stolen over the years, MS only goal is to try and hide its own guilt by taking away anyone that has the power to question their authority.
Score: 0
|I don't think Microsoft has a lot of credibility in that area. If you're a Linux citizen, you probably avoid Windows.
Score: 0
|*goes on a copyright/patent frenzy* Since I own my name, can I sue anyone who shares my name? After all it is my name... it's mine..my precious...
Score: 0
|If your name is a relatively unique name and you are the oldest person living that has it... I don't see why not given the arguments that some people here make. Afterall, you would have first to market and first to file rights, and as long as it's not a "common" name like John Smith, you should be fine.
That said, I don't think that kind of petty lawsuit is a good idea...
Score: 0
|You're forgetting that first or exclusive usage is no longer a requirement for a patent or copyright. The practice has become "patent/copyright it, and force any challenger to pay to have it removed". Prior art is being ignored on a wholesale basis now.
Score: 0
|Ballmer.... Master of FUD (at least in his own mind)
What a joke MS is developing into, with their new boat anchor, Vista, especially.
Score: 0
|So can Red Hat sue M$ now for damage to its business? Or does M$ almost have to sue Red Hat for infringment?
There has to be laws against saying a company or entity is violating your IP. How would it look if they don't sue them? You are violating our IP, but we are not going to sue you.
Score: 0
|They're going to have to sue soon, if at all. Otherwise, I believe there is some limitation on what they can do if they've publicly admitted infringement and "allowed" it for a period of time.
Score: 0
|The scary thing is the USPTO rubber stamps any patent application that hits its desks. You could lock a junior programmer in a room for an hour and tell him to code and I guarantee he will violate "patents"... they are that obvious. No doubt Microsoft does have patents that could cause trouble for Linux, because they've been forced into the patent arms war as well. Of course, they've always held that card in reserve, until now. Microsoft will stop at nothing to frighten, intimidate or otherwise manipulate their competition... anything but compete fairly, because they has no confidence they can do that, it seems.
Score: 0
|Yes. Modern capitalism at work.....
Score: 0
|No, it's current patent law that is the problem here.
Score: 0
|MS will not disclose the patents that it claims that linux violates because linux is backed by IBM. if you want to start a patent war, don't involve IBM.
if MS discloses the patents it claims linus infringes, IBM will turn around and claim that they all violate IBM's patents. the rubber stamp method is a double edged sword.
Score: 0
|The problem for Microsoft is, surely, that their "business model" is simply "protect the monopoly" and nothing else.
This is an effective, if perhaps only in the short- and medium-term, but that's what keep the share price afloat.
Score: 0
|That's every profitable businesses model :)) Look around Skype, Facebook, Google do exactly the same
Score: 0
|I don't think Linux devs would even have to work around Microsoft patent claims. See IBM, the largest patent producer in the world for like a decade or two, loves, adores Linux. Google, not so big, but also loves Linux. If Microsoft wants a fight, they have to deal with these two gorillas, that have so much cash and nothing to lose, while Microsoft has everything to lose.
Bring it on, Microsoft.
Score: 0
|Guess what a lot of common stuff that you using in Linux actually belong to MS according to patents - taskbar for example. Novell+Sun+.... spent millions to develop Common Desktop idea...and linux just grab it all for free.... This is the message mr Ballmer try to speak - Pay and use and open-source whatever you want to.
Score: 0
|IBM could eat Microsoft for lunch, and I for one would love to welcome the return of our Big Blue Overlords. ;-)
Score: 0
|An abstract computer program implementation of a real thing is by definition obvious. Patents on obvious things are not valid.
Score: 0
|i agree, that, if you decided to go and build a car right now, and the outside model looked exactly as a lamborghini, the exact same shape, and the logo is very simular, and gave the cars away for free.. people would go for it, but do you think lamborghini would just sit there and say no big deal, they ripped off our models that we spend [massive numbers] a year on?
ah no problem, no big deal says lamborghini, we will take the loss, after all its only fair, and we dont deserve something we copyrighted, heck whats copyright for anyways... patents, who needs em.
id love to see that in a press release... but we all know thats not how it would roll out.
Score: 0
|The first Mac had a "taskbar" so prior art would negate that M$ patent.
Score: 0
|That's why there is copyright.....
Score: 0
|copyright is good for source code and other things that might be physically copied. Style and appearance of an unique work might be covered by trademark but not copyright.
Score: 0
|don't forget that microsoft has slowly developed its operating system adding graphical user interfaces and then expanding etc from a starting point of DOS.
DOS was stolen from seatle computer products 'QDOS' which in turn was taken from Gary Kildall's 'CP/M' so really when it all boils down to it - who really owns what??
Programming, as with any artform from comedy to poetry etc, is always a development of somebody elses idea!
Score: 0
|Open mouth, insert foot.. Or how to piss off your biggest customers. The ones that already run a mixture of platforms, and have the influence and money to make or break your business. MS is so concerned about "competitors" that they have lost sight of "customers". So they end up threatening customers with possible/potential lawsuits over vague possible/potential undisclosed patent infringements.
It's high time they put up or shut up. The extended open source community stands ready to either invalidate or work around any patent that MS, or any other patent holder, will identify in GPL licensed open source code or projects. If MS is so worried about it's "IP", then why not do something about it? They can do it pleasantly by simply identifying them, or unpleasantly by filing a lawsuit. Either way, the community response will be the same.
Ballmer states very clearly that they wish to compete on quality of product. If he feels they have valid and supportable patents on concepts that are used in Linux and FLOSS projects, it would be a solid and proper business move to simply identify the patents in question. Let the community scramble to work around them, possibly creating an inferior product as a result. Since MS refuses to explicitly identify such patents, the only conclusion can be that they don't feel confident in the validity of the patents in question.
Score: 0
|"Since MS refuses to explicitly identify such patents, the only conclusion can be that they don't feel confident in the validity of the patents in question."
Look at it this way. If Microsoft were to reveal these undisclosed patents, their leverage to negotiated these underhanded deals would be gone. This is due to the simple fact that the FOSS developers would do a work around to avoid being sued. So from that perspective any litigation against Red Hat, win or lose, would be detrimental to Microsoft's ability to broker these "patent covenants" because it would bring those patents into the light.
Score: 0
|Paying to use undisclosed Imaginary Property is just foolish.
Score: 0
|Read his quote carefully.. Ballmer didn't threaten to sue Red Hat, he threatened to sue customers using Red Hat software.
Of course Red hat would step in to protect their customer's interests, but the threat was to the customers, not Red Hat.
I see your point, and agree with it.. It is just another way of saying that Ballmer (and MS) is just saber rattling. It makes no sense for them to actually follow through with these threats.
Score: 0
|Ah yes, once again, Microsoft plays the racketeering card. Time to SCO the hell out of this company. Red Hat already provides full customer assurance for using any of its products.
Maybe he borrowed some of Rush's oxycontin when he said this?
Score: 0
|I'm sure Ballmer prefers cocaine.
He's not that original.
Score: 0
|Steve, file a lawsuit or shut up.
I'd rather see the lawsuit. Steve can run off his mouth even funnier than Daryl, and if he sues a company with good lawyers we'll finally see how much FOSS has found it's way into Microsoft's products.
Score: 0
|See here - http://www.lockergnome.c...nd-gorilla-growls-again/
Score: 0
|Maybe someone should send Ballmer some Red Hat Chairs that he can toss around.
Score: 0
|Amazed that's the only chair comment. Apparently there's a "Best if used on or before" date for those jokes.
I guess we missed the memo...
Score: 0
|Ouch, the stupid, it burns!
Score: 0
|At least try to update it between posts, eh?
(I do like the bits you added at the bottom, it puts a nice perspective on the whole thing)
Ya need some flash in there, bud. I'd suggest Silverlight, but... :p
Score: 0
|oh god whose is that site? That person cant manage a blog if his life depended on it.
That picture can very well apply to the admin.
Theres so much hate on there, then the person keeps trying to justify he is a fair person by saying s*** like 'Although I’ve now bought four copies of Vista'
Honestly I've seen backpackers with **** all computer knowledge manage a blog better than that and that person wants to spout hate about microsoft?
Score: 0
|I know how you feel. His type is all too common and pred***able.
Score: 0
|*laughs*
..and the M$ sucks crew isn't predictable at all, like, ya know?
God, you guys are fun.
Score: 0
|Not too often you see the CEO of a company the size of M$ make such a stupid comment.
Score: 0
|That's pretty funny coming from someone who regards Microsoft as the crappiest, stupidest and most evil company ever to sully the planet, but then you are a master of unintentional comedy.
Score: 0
|Stupid comment yep, hope he gets grilled
But all too often these days people very high up in large companys are making stupid comments :(
Score: 0
|We see the US president make stupid comments every week. ;)
Score: 0
|You're kidding right?
...at least he didn't throw a chair this time. :p
Stevie-boy's famous for this kind of stupidity. He makes the most asinine and suicidal comments I've ever heard coming from a CEO. The guy's a laughingstock.
...and this coming from an oft-accused "Microsoft Fanboy/Shill".
I'm sure he's a great guy personally, no offense to him or his friends/family, but Holy Cow this guy can spew idiocy like nobodies business when it comes to PR.
Score: 0
|Yes, but you see the CEO of a company exactly the size of Microsoft say stupid things all the time. The guy has no filter on his mouth. I find it totally amusing that in "The Pirates of Silicon Valley" he was played by John DiMaggio, who does the voice of Bender.
Score: 0
|I find it totally amusing that in "The Pirates of Silicon Valley" he was played by John DiMaggio, who does the voice of Bender.
Never heard that, I'll have to watch it again.
Score: 0
|Incidentally Bush is a corporate man as well who is totally out of touch with reality also..
Score: 0
|{Rollseyes}
Score: 0
|Note that it's not copyright infringement that Ballmer is talking about but patent infringement. Copyright infringement was the spurious SCO argument (and look where that got them, MS funding aside).
Unspecified patent infringement claims is the new cherry flavoured FUD from Microsoft. Spot the pattern?
And it looks like Ballmer keeps saying things his advisers have told him to stop spouting about, but then he never was particularly strong on restraint or insight.
But good at chair-tossing, especially if that ever becomes an Olympic sport. And there is as much chance of that happening as MS having _valid_ patents that apply to Linux.
I expect MS legal has no intention of suing. That would be a disaster for them.
Which is why they would prefer Ballmer stop stating that they will so obviously. The idea of FUD is not to say you _will_ sue, but imply you _might_ i.e. Fear AND Doubt.
But subtlety is not Mr. Ballmer's strong suit.
No wonder they are in a flap trying to figure out how to dig him out of this one without making either him or MS look stupid.
Good luck on that front!
But then again, that's why PR flacks get paid the big bucks :-) At least I _hope_ they are being paid the big bucks for handling this 'problem' client.
Managing CEOs with a propensity to go off-message and shoot off their mouth (and foot) is such fun. Kind of like Presidents, really :-)
Score: 0
|"A team of Microsoft spokespeople have been working throughout the day to devise a plausible explanation for a comment made"
Loaded speculation. Great news reporting.
Score: 0
|What, no more; "If you can't beat them, buy them"? What, instead sue them....? [rolleyes]
Score: 0
|It sounds to me like Microsoft's legal team is fairly meek. eolas could have been crushed IMO, with a proper legal team from RJR Reynolds. Justice department? Pathetic against the cigarette industry legal teams.
Score: 0
|Yet another "Ballmerism"... The nice thing is that he is good for comic relief...
Score: 0
|No he's not.
It's like putting a shotgun in a room with kittens with opposable thumbs.
Not a pretty sight.
Score: 0
|Yeah, but...
...they're only kittens.
Score: 0
|Yeah, well there could be some comedy there too... Especially if Ballmer is in the room and he pisses off the kittens...
Or better yet, speaks to them. ;-)
Score: 0
|How about they just say the truth? Like, Steve Ballmer quite often says stupid things that he shouldn't. Or, Bill should have chosen someone else to run the company. Or, Steve is an idiot.
Score: 0
|I must admit--Balmer is throwing around quite a few irresponsible statements these days. You'd think he'd at least try to open his mouth less often...that guy has a bad case of OMIF disorder.
Score: 0
|