RSSMicrosoft Responds to Alleged Ballmer 'Threats' Against Linux
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published February 22, 2007, 4:06 PM
Comments made by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer last Thursday to an analyst conference for the most part went unnoticed until stories this morning cited excerpts from a freshly published transcript of that conference. In one such story, an excerpted partial sentence was interpreted as part of a statement that Microsoft may yet exercise its option to sue manufacturers of Linux operating systems other than Novell for infringement of patent.
A fresh read of the extended excerpt from that transcript, however, suggests at first this may not have been Ballmer's intended meaning. Here is the extended excerpt from Ballmer's speech to the analysts' group:
But you cannot be confused: Having a competitor out there who at least nominally looks to be close to free is always a challenge, and there always is a set of pressure on us, particularly on pricing, there's a set of pricing pressure that nobody should ignore. We are competing with a value equation. We are higher priced, but we bring greater value. But I don't want to eliminate in your minds the notions of risk of pricing that comes from competition from Open Source.
The deal that we announced at the end of last year with Novell I consider to be very important. It demonstrated clearly the value of intellectual property even in the Open Source world. I would not anticipate that we make a huge additional revenue stream from our Novell deal, but I do think it clearly establishes that Open Source is not free and Open Source will have to respect intellectual property rights of others just as any other competitor will.
This morning, CNET News.com interpreted Ballmer's statement "that Open Source is not free" as "a clear threat against open source users." Meanwhile, Computerworld offered a somewhat different, though equally dire, interpretation, proposing that Ballmer may have in fact jeopardize its standing with Novell, stating, "His remarks risk reopening the rift between Novell and Microsoft over the way the deal should be interpreted."
Conceivably, as Ballmer's comments stand without embellishment, he may very well have suggested that open source developers should take inventory on those items they claim to have the right to license for free, especially since the use and maintenance of open source software is a commercial enterprise. Microsoft supporters have suggested that open source providers cannot lay claim to concepts that either belong to someone else or are in the public domain, simply because they would license the software manifestations of those concepts for free.
On the other side of the table, there is a body of opinion that maintains that Microsoft is gearing up for a legal offensive against Linux providers, with the exception of those such as Novell who may become immunized to such action by entering into a licensing arrangement with it. They contend that Ballmer and other Microsoft executives may be making veiled threats against the concept of free licensing, while simultaneously touting the benefits of its Novell agreement, as a "carrot-and-stick" approach to compel competitors into succumbing to a retroactive licensing arrangement that effectively makes them pawns for Microsoft.
In an attempt to tip the scales, BetaNews gave Microsoft the opportunity to validate one theory or the other. We contacted multiple sources at Microsoft this morning, presenting them with the complete Ballmer excerpt plus the citations from this morning's stories.
The company's response to BetaNews suggests that, if Ballmer was taken out of context, then at least Microsoft was in no mood to correct that context. At worst, it suggests the company may be comfortable with letting the "veiled threat" theory stand.
"We believe there is overlap between our IP portfolio and various open source software components," states Microsoft's response to BetaNews. "However, the agreement with Novell demonstrates that software patents are not an obstacle to working together with open source companies. Microsoft and Novell have built a bridge to connect open source and proprietary software. Rather than being an obstacle, software patents are a part of the foundation for this agreement. Our agreement with Novell is yet another affirmation of our policy to license our IP to others - including open source companies."
When pressed a second time with the question of whether Microsoft is willing to deny that it has threatened Linux users specifically, a spokesperson responded, "Microsoft has repeatedly publicly stated that they prefer to license, not to litigate."
The company's position with regard to whether it is possible for open source licensing to infringe upon intellectual property rights, is especially interesting given arguments made by the company's own attorney yesterday before the US Supreme Court, in a case originally brought against Microsoft by AT&T. There, Microsoft argued that source code cannot be patented because it is merely the instructions behind software, not the mechanism of software itself. Granted, the debate concerns patentability, not copyright.
Novell has yet to respond to our request for comment. Meanwhile, Microsoft's response not only declines to provide a softer clarification of Ballmer's comments or deny the existence of threats, but also very clearly spells out both available options. The latter of the two may not be preferable, though it has not been withdrawn.
Without MicroSoftware and Windows machine to interpret Code there would be no Open Source movement utilising IT......and improving Code.
That makes it difficult to relate to Wealth stockpiled in Computer Companies whenever it is the Industry Ninjas who Generate the Progress and Direction for their Companies....... the R&D Mobs/Digital Boffins.
Score: 0
|If Microsoft spins the deal as proof that Linux infringe some Microsoft's patents, then it's also a proof that Microsoft infringe the patents of others.
Is it not Microsoft that approched Novell to make that deal?
Score: 0
|'This morning, CNET News.com interpreted Ballmer's statement '
'Meanwhile, Computerworld offered a somewhat different, though equally dire, interpretation'
It would appear that CNET and Computerworld were doing the spinning.
And no, I don't see what this has to do with the super secret U5 bomber...
Wag the Dog, anyone?
Score: 0
|I'm currently running Xandros Desktop Pro on 2 of my workstations and it is coming off both. Windows certainly has a lot of problems, but at least when an application dies I have some idea why.
Firefox in Xandros just stops working. No information about why is forthcoming. Gentoo is the only linux distro I would even think about running, but I lack the requisite knowledge to do so.
I'd give the same advice to linux geeks as they're giving to Ballmer. Just shut up!
Score: 0
|A Linux based environment beats a Windows-based environment hands-down on cost. Even the latest newsletter from Sunbelt Software, a Microsoft shop, had to admit that the latest Client Access License costs for Exchange 2007 are going to blow out the procurement costs of Windows/Exchange.
On the other hand, a combination such as Linux and Zimbra could be free of cost for both the software, and free of any Client Access Licenses.
With regard to ongoing support, I have been supporting Windows Server systems for more than a decade, and Linux Server systems for two years. Therefore I am well qualified to state that the claim about Linux support costs been higher than Windows are total FUD. In fact, the cost savings of Linux-based solutions are so significant that my clients are increasingly installing Linux-based solutions in preference to Windows server solutions.
Score: 0
|So Microsoft continued to spin FUD.
Hardly suprising - this is a company that has spent years working on Vista to deliver an operating system to which the world seems to have said "WOW.... is that it??".
Office 2007 seems to have had a similar reaction.
With security holes already being found in both of these new "secure" products and with legal cases piling up against them it doesn't look good for Microsoft in general.
So the Bully has only one path left... threaten people..
To paraphrase Monty Python: "Nice Operating System you've got there... pity if it got burned..."
Score: 0
|Microsoft will have to learn to play. The most profitable company in the world can only stay that way if they become competitive.
They've been the bully on the block for so long that they can't accept anyone else moving into the neighborhood. Companies rise and companies fall. Microsoft is no different. Microsoft has hit their peak and don't want to admit it. They don't want to tolerate competition in their game. Wake up Microsoft you're no longer the only game in town. Unless you begin making the best product in town and start competing you'll eventually end up another Wang.
If Mr. Gates is smart he will get rid of Meat Head Ballmer and put someone in charge that doesn't spread FUD, who will try to integrate compatibility with Open Source. He can maintain his philosophy for IP but knock off the threats against competition. Open Source in particular.
I for one am sick of their bully concept and will refuse to use their products until they become more civil in their attitude towards their competition.
Microsoft, you'll one day meet your demise should you refuse to accept the inevitable... "Competition". Software is made better through collaboration. Open Source has proven the concept. Come on Microsoft join the real world and start playing fair.
Nukemall
Score: 0
|If Microsoft is planning on making an aggressive move agaist Linux and open source in general, it is quite expected. It only means that they have come to understand that facing their highly overpriced operating system are more productive and cost effective alternatives for people who need to accomplish their tasks with less headache and less worrying about the system crashing in the middle of an important project or important data being permanently lost while still in the creation phase because of a system glich.
It is sort of the move Apple Computer made back when Microsoft introduced Windows 98. At that time Microsoft had been using the Windows GUI for a few years. But it was only until the launch of Windows 98 that apple felt threatened by a GUI OS similar to theirs that might cost them a portion of the market share and went on to sue Microsoft for 'stealing' their ideas and using them in their new OS.
Several years have passed since then and Apple has lerarned to accept the fact that Windows is there and that playing monopoly was wrong and cost them a lot, just as Microsoft will find out someday.
Should Microsoft find ways to bind the open source distributors we have now by something users believe is unfair, other distributors will surface and keep the open source legacy going only because it is inevitable considering human nature. By nature we do not like to be opressed and forced against our will and this applies to all aspects of life including the digital wolrd which has a major impact on our life at present.
Score: 0
|Until Ballmer makes a specific claim it's just hot air.
He is just doing job and that is to make people think they should buy Microsoft stock.
But this does not amount to anything more than jumping around, screaming, and waving his arms.
Score: 0
|OF COURSE LINUX ISN'T FREE!!!
Whilst it may cost you nothing to get a distribution, it costs you money in other ways. It takes time to install and configure it. If you're a business, that costs you money. If you've a Windows-centric IT department, training them in Linux costs you money. Linux Sysadmins can command more £/$ per hr than a Windows Sysadmin. That costs you money.
Linux is only free if you aren't in business and if your time is worth nothing.
Score: 0
|It takes me longer to administrate Windows 2003 than it does Gentoo.
Simple command every week/month for Gentoo:
emerge --sync && emerge -Dav system world && revdep-rebuild && etc-update
As opposed to browsing the (eurgh) area of Microsoft's website for "IT professionals" (my subtitle: to waste your time).
Have you had first hand experience for the graphical/menu based installers for Linux? Have you had experience setting up a web server for Windows, and securing the system?
Do you know of an (essential) kernel-based mandatory access control tool for Windows?
Score: 0
|Did you actually read my post?
And yes, I've been using Linux since RH 7.3. Used RH/Fed, Mandrake, Lycoris, Ubuntu. Getting it on the computer is easy. It's what comes after that which takes the time.
Want to set up filesharing for the most widely installed OS on the planet? Well firstly you'll need to go into the package manager, enable the repositories not enabled and then you'll have to download and configure SAMBA..etc etc etc.
Score: 0
|Repositories? Irrelevant to me (and those alike), I don't use a Debian derivative.
Portage doesn't have "repositories" (yes, I've used Debian and Redhat based distributions but I disliked them, apt-get/build is tedious). And as I said (did you read my post?) One simple command is all that is needed to keep the server/workstation up to date.
emerge --sync && emerge -Dav system world && revdep-rebuild && etc-update.
That's all that's needed.
Hell, revdep-rebuild and etc-update are only needed rarely.
So, emerge --sync && emerge -Dav system world is all that's usually necessary.
Score: 0
|Tene,
You forgot to mention you don't have to reboot. Not a problem for desktops, but a pain for critical servers.
Score: 0
|Get the facts straight before you post. If you haven't tried the new versions of linux then you dont know what you're talking about. Linspire Linux takes 15 min to install. Same for Linspire. Xandros Linux takes 35 min to install, same for Mepis, PCLOS, and many others.
In FACT linux can install much faster than Windows. I can also do a network push install here at my job. It takes less time than a full install of XP w/SP2 and all the patches after it. A full install of XP, then SP2, Then all patches is 2+hours even on a fast cable connection.
Score: 0
|If Ballmer wants to take this to court, he will not only lose like SCO has, but he will bleed Microsoft dry over the next decade. Just like with ODF, Microsoft is in a desperate position and losing ground fast on all fronts. They've become the Britney Spears of software.
Score: 0
|...always a pleasure.
Someone needs to make a page of these comments.
Like bash.org, only way, way more pathetic.
Score: 0
|Thanks for leading me back to that website, I haven't seen it in a long, long time ...
Score: 0
|Good for a weekly laugh. :D
Score: 0
|Ouch, the stupid, it hurts!
Score: 0
|Wow. Someone spent all that time....
They must really hate me.
Gives me warm fuzzies.
Thanks, man. I haven't laughed that hard in a *long* time.
Score: 0
|You know what's funny?
Microsoft won't tell you that they've implemented open source code into Vista. They won't tell you that the DVD boot-time GUI that comes up (unlike XP and previous versions) is really based on CD Shell, an open source project based on isolinux. In short, even though it may not be the actual operating system per say, it still doesn't give Microsoft the right to implement open source code into their projects without disclosing this information to the general public.
Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates don't scare me, they just make me angry. How you gonna implement code that is free into your proprietary code, package it up into a neat, pretty product, and charge such a high price for it?
How you gonna copy the Widgets concept from Mac OS X into Windows, and call it Gadgets?
Why are you lying to the general public Microsoft? Why can't you just admit you've been stealing (pirating) or buying other people's code and calling it your own? (i.e. Dos, the code for the Mouse, the entire NT kernel, etc)
At least have the descency to be more discreet if you're going to lie to the general public. At least disguise the open source code a litte better in Vista, than having the "boot" folder within the source, which contains the fonts used for the boot-time GUI, which is a sure sign that it's an implementation of CD Shell.
You, of all companies, Microsoft, should know that patented intellectual property doesn't necessarily protect the "company" who owns the patents, simply because the intellectual property was not developed from any "company", but from individuals.
At least give credit where credit is due!
Score: 0
|Ballmer scares the hell outta me .
Score: 0
|I can't decide what scares me worse, the fact that he's a complete jacka** or that they are letting this fool run the company.
Score: 0
|Just wait till he picks up a chair. Then things get *really* interesting.
Score: 0
|Ballmer is far from a fool. Without Ballmer, Microsoft wouldn't be in the position it is now and Bill Gates wouldn't be the worlds richest geek.
Ballmer is far from a fool.
Score: 0
|Ruthless, psychotic, histrionic, but not foolish.
Score: 0
|It'll be interesting if the supreme court rules that software can't be patented.
Microsoft's patent portfolio will go *POOF*.
Score: 0
|So long as it can still be copyrighted...
Score: 0
|True, but if it can't be patented it can't be used to attack Linux.
;-)
Score: 0
|Anything can be used to attack Linux. AS an example, I have a cat, it attacks my linux box several times a day. Well, sleeps on it, but....
Score: 0
|I think Ballmer's trying to recoup some of that 50 million dollar SCO investment.
Score: 0
|