At least they aren't flat out trying to shut down the OS market directly just though a slow demise due to licensing.

I wonder if MacOS is infringing on any patents and if they are, will microsoft go after them?

They know they would opening Pandora's box if they did. They're claims would be found to be largely unsubstantiated. Not to mention they will invite a storm of litigation on them for patent infringement. I'm sure they wouldn't like to have dozens of teams pouring over the Windows source code. It would only end badly for M$.

(I do think companies are entitled to protect their IP, but this is baseless. Not to mention, software patents are a dumb idea in the first place.)

Linux and free software traces it's roots back to Unix which was invented in 1970. Microsoft wasn't created until 1974. That alone invalidates a lot of patents due to prior art. With the recent Supreme Court decision reinforcing the non-obvious requirement of patents a lot of the ones issued in the last decade have been neutralized. There is also a lot of cross-patenting between Microsoft and other companies already due to past business dealings and lawsuits. Software patents in particular are only usable in a few countries. Microsoft's patents are more useful for marketing than any legal threat.

Ironic, seeings how DOS was originally QDOS and not a microsoft or even a Bill Gates product. That's right! Their flagship OS for IBM that got them started was written by someone else, and the rewritten by Bill. (Purchased legally of course, but kinda funny to think that they are complaining about who borrowed what in the OS market.)

interesting that when Microsoft used others' ideas in their products, people complain about them copying. When Microsoft complained about others copying their ideas, yet people complain about Microsoft. So they are never right? the Anything But Microsoft syndrome.

What bothers me is the fact Microsoft embraced Linux and open source community only to turn around and say, "Hey, aren't you going to pay us the licensing fees for our products that have been incorporated into Linux?" I remember it was Microsoft's idea to step up to the plate with Novell to help give Linux a needed boost in the marketplace and now they're trying to control that too? Frankly Microsoft needs to butt out and let Linux community do what they do best via open source projects by keeping things free and dependent on programmers from open source community to countiniously improve Linux.

Darkk

In the world, its a free world. What a person wants to give to another, should not induce what is to be said. Microsoft copied others, and others later copied it... they have no say so, neither do the others. Unix was the first os along side DOS after IBM's os... but the advantages... it was FREE and OPEN SOURCE and helped alot of people learn. Thats missing in todays society, its all greed and no thirst for knowledge or 'improvements' of what we already have... only slight ones of course. Cars that are combustion on fossil fuels should be gone with by 2010, but thats not going to happen. Life is soon doomed.

Interesting question, and it opens up a can of worms. UNIX came first, Apple's original GUI-based MacOS came second (Amiga is in there somewhere)... not sure when X-Windows was introduced... But Apple has attempted in the past to lawsuit Microsoft on things related to Windows that apparently were taken from Apple's OS at the time. I think this could really backfire because if Microsoft does pursue those patent infringements, it opens a way for Apple to get back into lawsuiting Microsoft -- and this time winning.

M$ goes out and patents/copyrights things that have been developed by others (i.e. linux functions). They know these patents will not hold up in court. That is why the do not sue. They do, however, make big threats every few years as if they can sue. This keeps big companys from switching to LINUX, out of fear that M$ could sue them. It is a mobster strong arm tactic that can only be pulled off by a huge monopoly that is desperate to keep said monopoly. It shows that they are at least a little worried about the market share they have lost to open source products.

"Linux and free software traces it's roots back to Unix"

Here's a little Law 101 for you:

Linux was inspired ("only") from Minix, which was just one year earlier before Torvalds started work on Linux, a commercial Unix-derivative with a closed-source system. The Linux kernel was still (supposedly) written from scratch. (I don't buy that one bit!)

Microsoft's source code is protected by IP (intellectual property) rights, much like books, music, etc, which also means that it can be held in secrecy. What that also means is that if source code is patented, if someone writes code that is similar enough to it, they can be found infringing on those patents. Agree with it or not, according to US law, this is equivalent to someone actually stealing the source code directly from Microsoft's codebase. Microsoft can then charge the company with patent infringement in a court of law. Because Microsoft's source code is protected under IP rights and patented, they can also uphold any NDA (non-disclosure agreement) within that court of law, which means that they can still bring the case to trial without publicly disclosing their evidence (ie. their source code). They can also demand a media ban. Anybody that doesn't follow these rules during the trial (ie. leaking source code), can be further sued by Microsoft.

Obviously they could make a lot of money at it if they handled it right, but it would likely just be a headache. Microsoft is a business that makes money, unlike the FSF, so they want money where money is due. A lot of their technology is freely licensable, but for some proprietary technologies, they want to be compensated for their work. This is the real world, afterall - not some fantasy world where people develop software full-time for absolutely no pay.

This is only another "be nice to the public" announcement. MS plans are devious at best. Beware the greedy ones. For they have investors...

http://www.digg.com/linux_unix...atent_sudo
This site shows one patent that Microsoft just acquired, and could be one of the 235 "violated patents...

They are most likely friends on good terms of amity.
The organized Linux core products are to end soviet control, and make a nucleus, so that microsoft can pay them off, (if not entirely orchestrated by them in the first place).
Linux must have breached the verbal contract of cease fire. Micro had to go in and show them that the Don does not mess around.
Hmm, this takes place right after Dell was offering Linux in its product line.
I'm sorry Mr. Gates, but if your Vista didn't stink
so much, then maybe you'd have less double agents.

"Microsoft's source code is protected by IP (intellectual property) rights, much like books, music, etc,..." We're not talking about Microsoft's source code, we're talking about owned patents: a big difference. If you read anything that's been written on this lately, you'll see that the supposed "patent violations" are actually minor. The study which is quoted was actually written to say that, not to focus on how MUCH it infringes, but how LITTLE. Almost all software infringes on patents -- because patents are granted willy-nilly on stupid concepts, not actual implementations. The reason Microsoft and others build up such huge patent portfolios is for protection, not fees. Microsoft infringes on many patents -- as do most other software makers. There aren't "patent wars" because each company agrees to allow certain patent infringements in turn for allowing infringement of their own patents. It's a broken system that needs to be replaced.

By the way, books, et al. are protected by "copyright" not patents. A completely different beast, that.

"Agree with it or not, according to US law, this is equivalent to someone actually stealing the source code directly from Microsoft's codebase." Wrong again, bubba! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CODE!!! Microsoft has patents for things they not only didn't "invent" but that they've never implemented!

Microsoft never intended to sue, because they can't -- not really. If they bring many of their patents out into the light of day, many will be invalidated, either for "obviousness" or for prior art, as with almost all patent portfolios. Even if Microsoft prevailed in court (which is highly doubtful) they would lose more than they would gain.

This was for the hope that it would put some fear into any business thinking of escalating their investment in Linux, but no one is buying it. Microsoft is going to do all they can to make this go away, and they'll try to spin it as a sign of their beneficence while doing so...

A low handed tactic to sow seeds of fear and reasonable doubt. It’s just the bully at school tossing a fake punch at someone in front of the teacher and then pretending it’s a joke.

It’s time to join together and face the bully. Would some companies (it needs an organized group) please come out with some better (as in better supported, better documented, better speed, better tested) software!

The other day I wondered into an Apple store and found OSX is simply a rip off from Windows! It is so obvious! Apple has the cash, so why not go after Apple instead? This is really confusing.

Even if Apple has won before, Microsoft should keep trying. `

MS owns a large piece of Apple so they would not go out of business part of a settlement.
Gates stated NT is very similar to UNIX.
Many remember UNIX commands software for NT.
So IP infringement hmmm.
Lets not skip over many Disk OS's like cpm mpm drdos and Radio Shack trs series Or 3Com 3series and others.

There was a law suit and a settlement was reached. Windows could never sue Mac, because as the above poster stated they would open the door for Mac. Microsoft bought stock in Mac because Mac was going to sue them for monopoly tactics and they where about to go bankrupt. They basically where forced to because they could show Microsoft practices contributed to it.

We don't have software patents in Europe. For me it really looked like some rich American corperations tried to make software patents possible in Europe, it's a good thing they failed. So if Microsoft goes the wrong way, and OIN can't save Linux/OSS (I doubt it), then Americans are all welcome to download your Linux distro from Europian servers.

MS will never sue apple, because without the existance of an apple, MS could be hit with anti-trust suits. Bill Gates has to keep apple around, preferably with as little market share as possible. Am I the only one that remembers MS staving off an Apple bankruptcy?

No kidding, MS has always coppied Apple...the poster above really is clueless in thinking it's the other way around. MS copies everyone, they see a good idea and make it their own or often make it even better. There's nothing wrong with that when you think about it. Makes perfect sense - and less risk! Go MS.

thanks for the offer, i'm running Ubuntu. Our government is retarded, and ms is just ticked that open source is going to take all their business because they can't make a decent operating system. Linux and it's variations are the only good option for pc users unless apple decides to release an osx that will run on pc platform...which wouldn't be a bad idea for them. Oh yeah, and does this also mean that only microsoft can create an operating system that will run on intel and amd architectures? Once you really get down to the nitty gritty, this is just completely stupid... and unless the programming is EXACTLY the same from top to bottom (which means it'd just be windows) then they're not infringing anything. just mimicking... MS needs to just learn from their own stupid mistakes instead of pointing fingers like a bunch of flipping losers. ms usgov... i'm sorry to see that anything like this even has credibility in our country... but in a country where stupidity is admired and revered, it will continue to happen.

Actually, the first "point and click" interface was created by Xerox before Apple came up with the Macintosh computer. The execs at the time didn't go with the idea. Apple is technically third. The Amiga didn't retail until 1985.

Also, Unix was originally created in the 1960's. It picked up steam in the 1970's.

Gates was also full of crap when he made the statement that NT is similar to UNIX. The "unix" commands for NT was an add-on which you had to pay for and was only available for server unless you had their "Resource Kit" (which no surprise, you had to pay for also). And they only thing they actually added was the option for Windows NT to allow UNIX servers to be able to communicate and be seen on an MS network and nothing more than that.

If Microsoft didn't make a decent OS, 95% of the world wouldn't be using it.

Yes bill did copy MAC os and he paid for it too!