Top tip. If you are going to write an article about how Microsoft has blackmailed Linux twice in a week, try to include solid information about how Microsoft has blackmailed Linux twice in a week, within the first three paragraphs.
Not exactly the most "fair and balanced" article.<p>Someone could write exactly the same article and claim Linux is ripping off Microsoft by using their past innovations. It would be equally one-sided and false. The reality is that there is probably truth on both sides of this dispute and that obscures the real issue.<p>The real issue is patents. We need to get away from this model of incentivizing innovation. Otherwise we will constantly have this conflict: someone will invent something (Microsoft), someone will want to clone it (Linux), and conflict will result.
The problem with software patents is that any modestly sized chunk of code likely infringes on at least one overly broad patent that should never have been issued. Get a codebase the size of Linux and you're infringing thousands. Basically everyone in the industry is playing Russian roulette with a loaded lawsuit gun and we just hope the chamber is empty when the trigger is pulled. That's just a horrible system, and it's appalling that it's been like that for decades and nobody has fixed it.
I have decided not to read this article.<p>> It’s not only unjust; as per the RICO Act, this should come under investigation for potential violations of the law. This, in our view, is racketeering.<p>Dear author, present your evidence before making inflammatory statements.
Maybe I'm failing to fully understand the article but it seems that the two subjects involved here are not Linux and Microsoft, but rather Canonical (a private, for-profit company, which mantains one of the many Linux distributions, a distribution which, among other things, gives away the user's search data because of a lucrative agreement with Amazon) and Microsoft (another private, for-profit company).
Despite the inflammatory and badly written article, commentators here are missing the point.<p>Microsoft is undeniably making money out of Linux and Android by threatening companies with their patents and it's good to remind that to people who get enamored with the <i>new</i> Microsoft. This part of Microsoft hasn't changed at all.<p>To pretend that everything is fine or that the patent system is to blame for Microsoft's actions is just childish. Corporations also react on PR. If nobody says anything and they can get away with bullying others into buying "protection" from them then sure. But it's up to us to hold them to higher standard.
A bit biased Artikle, but<p>I think the real problem is how the patent systems works today. Once meant to protect scientific investments, it does to often protects simple ideas many people would come (came) up with in no much time when confronted with a given problem.<p>Additionally there is the problem, that software related technology has become so complex and fast changing, that
it is hard for a patent agency to know what a patent actually covers and if it should not be issued due to priority art.<p>E.g. modern smartphones are just a specific case of a (kinda) general purpose computer and a cloud is just a computation cluster. Nevertheless you can get patents for "the cloud" you wouldn't get for a computation cluster.<p>Btw. I like comparing software patents with patents on concepts and story lines of novels, both can be argued for but both are a very bad idea ;-)
Software patents: In a world that changes day to day and completely re-invents itself every three years, they last 20 years...<p>Software patents are always going to be controversial in particular the overly broad or vague ones. But 20 years is also a huge issue. They should be AT MOST 5 years long, and even then we need new measures to preemptively attack broad or vague claims.
Microsoft's strategies haven't changed much since (or at all) since these, circa 1999, Halloween documents: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents</a>
Patents are part of how the tech world works (unfortunately!). Does the author suggests that all Linux related project will get a 'pass' because they decided for themselves that they won't participate in the patents party? Or maybe because 'Microsoft loves Linux'? Grow up.. I think Microsoft is playing it well embracing oss and still protecting their interests, I wouldn't expect more.