Linux Kernel To Be Re-Written To Counter Microsoft FUD

Linux Business Week ^ | January 14, 2005 | Maureen O'Gara

[Golden Eagle]

IBM, Intel, the Open Source Development Labs, where Linux creator Linus Torvalds works, and other industry lights are planning to rob Microsoft of the ability to scare customers off of Linux by saying that the operating system is a patent infringer, informed sources say.

On January 25 they are supposed to announce that a consortium has been created that will rewrite the components in the Linux kernel that allegedly tread on other people's IP - or at least the 27 Microsoft patents that Linux is supposed to infringe.

The consortium will reportedly be underwritten by the state of Oregon and the city of Beaverton and will recruit its staff from local universities, which will also be backing the effort. The governor of Oregon and the mayor of Beaverton will reportedly be at the announcement.

[Golden Eagle]

A much more appropriate title would have been, "Linux being re-written to remove some of it's illegal contents". As if the original theft wasn't bad enough, now they plan to quote "rob" Microsoft of their right to persue charges. Can't help but steal one thing or another, it would appear.

[Golden Eagle]

Why have you been telling us this stuff was legal all this time? Now a whole bunch of them are going to have to go re-write the kernel? Please explain, thanks.

[Revolting cat!]

"Linux being re-written to remove some of it's illegal contents".

"to remove some of it is illegal contents"? What language is that in?

[Golden Eagle]

Linux being re-written to remove some of its illegal contents

Maybe now you get it. Maybe not. Never have before.

[ShadowAce]

Please explain, thanks.

While I know this is from LBW, the article is written by Maureen O'Gara, a known SCO, anti-Linux columnist. This itself is just more FUD. I won't believe it's being rewritten (at least officially) until I see it on the lkml.

[ShadowAce]

...a known pro-SCO, anti-Linux....

[Tarpaulin]

Which part of "allegedly" don't you agree with?

[Golden Eagle]

Is that the official IBM position transcribed from Jokelaw?

[Question_Assumptions]

I'm sorry but I would have more sympathy for software intellectual property rights if they weren't so silly. When you have people patenting things like "one click shopping" and "including multimedia content in a web page", we've wandered well into the realm of nuisance lawsuits and impeding progress. If the same sort of intellectual property rights laws had been in place hundreds of years ago, Algebra, Calculus, and equations like "2 + 2 = 4" would all be locked up in some company's intellectual property portfolio and we'd still be banding rocks together to get things done, and probably have to pay a license fee every time we buy a rock for the purpose of banging it against another rock.

If it can be shown that the Linux code was taken verbatim from another companies software or is the result of reverse engineering or industrial espionage, then by all means sue the guys who did it and pull the code out. If it's simply some well known processes or the logical way to solve a problem developed independently by Linux developers, then I don't think it's theft.

[ShadowAce]

No, I haven't actually seen this one discussed on Groklaw yet, though I have read the article.

[Revolting cat!]

[Golden Eagle]

Cross-patent agreements are the standard way of doing business between the largest tech firms in America. Foreign born Linux is either going to have to earn some patents of their own (instead of cloning everyone else's technology) and cross license them, or build a system that doesn't infringe on any.

[ShadowAce]

...or build a system that doesn't infringe on any.

It's already done that. There has never been a successful case brought against Linux code.

[Golden Eagle]

It's already done that.

Apparently not. There's well known open source advocates like Bruce Perens selling patent insurance already, and professional estimates that at least 280 patents are being violated in the Linux kernel alone.

[PokeyJoe]

This is FUD. The FOSS lawyer is not qouted directly, but paraphrased out of context. The intent of his comments are distorted, and maligned. The Linux kernel remains free of any legal challenge.

I also notice the advertising on "Linuxbusinessweekly" is all Microsoft.

[WildTurkey]

What language is that in?

It's : Possessive form of It.</sarcasm>

[Rifleman]

There are no "illegal contents." That is just an illiterate way to describe code that _might_ infringe on _possibly_ valid software patents by MS. Most software patents are bogus, invalidated by previous art or obviousness, useful only as weapons to mug a target that can't afford the lawyers to defend itself. Most of these are bogus.

And removing any infringing code would not preclude MS from recovering damages, if any, for the earlier infringment....if any.

FUD, humbug and outright lies from the yellow bird.

[ShadowAce]

I'd sell insurance too if I was certain that it contained no problems (and I was approved by the gov't to sell it).

Those "professional estimates" are no such thing. They are anti-Linux zealots out to scare the populace away from it. There is no proof anywhere that it infringes on anything. Those "estimates" are based on the the number of lines of code and some made-up statistic about code infringing on a patent for every "some number of lines of code."

Based on that, how many patents does Windows infringe?

[Tarpaulin]

(ahem)

I hereby allege that you, Golden Eagle, are a(n) {Insert Something Nasty Here}.

By the rules set forth by yourself, the burden of proof is now upon your shoulders to prove your own innocence.

My $20 Billion Bucks will see you in court.

Have a nice day.

[ThinkDifferent]

"Linux being re-written to remove some of it's illegal contents"

You left out a "potentially". No patent infringment has been proven or even alleged, as you know full well. The only thing this article showed is that Linux developers want to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.