Microsoft is not the real patent threat Linux and open source developers should be worried about, said Ubuntu founder Mark Shuttleworth. In fact, the software giant will itself be fighting against the software patents system within a few years, Shuttleworth predicted.

“I’m pretty certain that, within a few years, Microsoft themselves will be strong advocates against software patents,” Shuttleworth wrote on his blog. “Microsoft is irrevocably committed to shipping new software every year, and software patents represent landmines in their roadmap which they are going to step on, like it or not, with increasing regularity.”

Microsoft makes the “perfect target” for software patent lawsuits, and the company will pay more for such suits every year until they finally threaten its business, Shuttleworth said.

“Microsoft will lose a patent trench war if they start one, and I’m sure that cooler heads in Redmond know that,” he wrote. “The real threat to Linux is the same as the real threat to Microsoft, and that is a patent suit from a person or company that is NOT actually building software, but has filed patents on ideas that the GNU project and Microsoft are equally likely to be implementing.”

But even such companies – sometimes known as “patent trolls”, although Shuttleworth said he himself dislikes the term – are not themselves the real enemy. “They are only following the rules laid out in law, and making the most of a bad system,” he wrote.

I’ll withhold my opinion of Patent Trolls and the lawyers who represent them – for now. I’d rather see some discussion of Shuttleworth’s opinion.



  1. ArianeB says:

    I’ve always though software patents and business practice patents were dumb ideas, they hinder new development and competition.

    Copyrights and trademarks should be sufficient to protect software.

  2. James Hill says:

    No company that makes money off of patents will argue against them until they are no longer making money.

    Likewise, M$ has the brainpower to always find ‘another way’ to do something.

    Therefore, Shuttleworth is wrong.

    As for software patents themselves, I prefer them… but there need to be some bounds as to what can and cannot be patented in the segment.

  3. Mr. Fusion says:

    MS most likely has thousands of patent infringements held inside their software. While the other software vendors were all patenting their stuff back in the 1990’s, MS didn’t start to seriously patent anything until 2000. MS is most likely aware they would eventually lose a real patent shooting war and thus would like to continue profiting off the backs of others.

  4. TJGeezer says:

    Mr. Fusion has a point – the Microsoft practice of “borrowing” others’ ideas, embracing and extending them (or sometimes constricting them) inherently bears a risk of violating others’ patents. There will eventually come a ballbuster of a suit against Microsoft unless it buys a few senators and has the patent law rationalized a bit.

    Personally, I like the “use it or lose it” idea to disable the practice of buying and holding patents in perpetuity, in hopes of later catching some innovative company out in an accidental violation. “Use it or lose it” would remove at least one impediment to innovation. Not that I expect to see congress do anything that rational and reasonable.

  5. Angel H. Wong says:

    The patent troll concept unfortunately extends beyond the software realm. There’s plenty of “scientists” who patent a DNA strand they just sequenced yet they have no idea what such particular DNA strand does.

  6. BubbaRay says:

    Wish I knew more about patent law . Did M$ even identify the 235 patents that were violated? Isn’t there something in the patent law that mandates triple damages for knowingly violating a patent? How many bubble sorts, priority scheduling processes, cursors and stacks can you patent? Cheese, this is one big morass of money for lawyers.

  7. GregAllen says:

    I’m no expert but that never stops anyone here from sharing their opinions!

    I tend to agree that the patent system screwed up. Like the patent on “one click checkout” … should and idea like that be granted a patent?

    http://tinyurl.com/36k4lc

    That kind of sloppy granting of patents just encourages law suits.

    I’m not sure how it would work, exactly, but I think a patent should go into the public domain if the holder doesn’t develop the technology within a certain frame. It’s bad public policy to let someone reserve a technology but then not allow anyone else to develop it.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5292 access attempts in the last 7 days.