Most of the time, I tolerate Microsoft because it runs my computer.

But this just pisses me off.

Steve Ballmer, the worst dancer in the world and co-founder of Microsoft, was visiting Asian nations this past week telling computer users that if they used Linux instead of Windows, they would be sued.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/biztech/11/19/tech.microsoft.linux3.reut/index.html

Now the legalese behind what he said is there, but very shaky -- what a poor way to bully poorer countries into buying your buggy, hackable software.

Sue? On what grounds?

Supposed patent violations... the end user gets hit because it is open code so once they modify it they are supposedly personally violating the patent rights...but Microsoft would try to copywrite the word computer if they thought they could get away with it. They want zero competition and will do what ever it takes to monopolize a market created on the innovations of smaller companies.

SCO is suing Linux distributers left and right, claiming Linux is based on Unix. Microsoft is stirring the pot, trying to kill competition AGAIN. In other words, business as usual for Microsoft.

Heard about all of that, but not the sueing overseas thing.

Then again, since the vast majority of the software over there is pirated anyway (at least in China, not sure about other nations), I'm not convinced that it really means anything. It sounds almost like the RIAA sueing random file-sharers, only even more assinine, because these users aren't even in the same country.

But Linux does "borrow" a ton of stuff that they didn't create from scratch. I'm no expert on the subject especially since I haven't been keeping up on it, but Linux is definitely at a major stumbling block right now. No idea how courts are going to go on this one..

Wait a sec, they're not saying they're going to sue individual users--they're saying governments. I suppose that's possible...

LOL. If only there were more Linux support.....

*gasp* did I say that out loud..? OMG They might sue me!

Never mind that the SCO case has survived several attempts to have it thrown out, and more than one group that has looked at the evidence has agreed that there are patent violations in the code. Hell, an entire insurance industry has sprung up around Linux indemnification protection. Linus Torvalds himself has said that patent screening has not been a part of the open source process, which potentially exposes the use of copyrighted and patented code. If Linux makers can use anti-Microsoft rhetoric to promote their products, why is it wrong to point out that Linux users are not shielded from liability in patent infringement?

Because it's more fun to pick on Bill Gates than Linus Torvalds?

Because Gates & Co. infringe on patents and intellectual property maliciously and without "style", while early Linux developers did it with a strange combination of "innocence" and savoir faire?

Because ripping off a little Unix code now and again is qualitatively "better" than swallowing CP/M, putting the DOS label on it, and banishing Gary Kildall to a lonely, unrewarded death ten years ago? Or ripping off Apple GUI's (which Apple ripped off from Xerox Parcs, of course). Or crashing Netscape.

Because in the battle for spin and image -- Linux wins hands down over the Redmond Clone Army, despite the fact that everyone is guilty?

I'd like to take this opportunity to say, patents suck (as currently implemented). Every freaking modern creation we have is "based off of" another's idea or work in some way. Every scientific theory "borrows" from others' work in some way. Protecting intellectual property and such is fine, but not when it goes as far as it does presently. Right now it's just a hindrance to advancement and innovation. It's a great motivation for people to create and work at ideas--but once it gets to the point that it's declared "theirs", progress goes out the window.

It's not your god-given right to retain the ownership of something because you developed/thought of it first; I think it is your right to be able to benefit from that work for a short time, probably measured in a few years or so. Isn't this the reasonable choice?

This is why I'm not really 100% behind sending Linux to the dump, but they DO represent the other extreme of not giving a damn about anyone else's work. It's a shame it'll probably end up being either one way or the other when the law should probably fall somewhere in between.

Edit: Oh, one difference between the Microsoft copying and the Linux copying, I'm guessing: The MS copying was technically legal, while the Linux wasn't.