4 ms·

This suggestion is a good one, but I have a better proposal. The problem here is that Microsoft is free to cherry pick the best innovation that is coming out o

This suggestion is a good one, but I have a better proposal. The problem here is that Microsoft is free to cherry pick the best innovation that is coming out of the open source community while the reverse not being true. If Linux reinvents some feature already published by Windows, Linux vendors could get sued for patent infringement and have to settle with hefty license fees. Windows, on the other hand can and do copy improvements coming out of Linux community. See for example : containers. For people to use a piece of technology, it should provide something that no other piece of technology provides. Linux community can patent serious improvements and give a world-wide license to anyone who wants to publish an open source version of the technology. Microsoft gets locked out ( totally fair, since the reverse is already true ), and Linux has a killer feature worth switching for. If Microsoft wants to implement the feature, they can license it from Linux foundation. Linux foundation can redistribute this money back to corporations which paid license fee to Microsoft. Or they can put that money into Core Infrastructure Initiative

coldpie 10y ago
I think you've got a difference in philosophy to contend with here. If I were a Linux Foundation developer, I would be extremely offended if someone suggested I patent one of my ideas. Software patents are ludicrous and extremely harmful to the software world. I would immediately quit any job which contributed to the creation of them. I can't speak for any Foundation developers, but I'd be surprised if very many of them felt differently.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  Sure, and it's great to take a moral stand, but those folks shouldn't pretend that moral stand is constructively helping the situation (and they often do!) IE if someone wants to say "I find this abhorrent and refuse to participate", that's 100% okay. But that stance doesn't actually help change the situation to one that is better.
pjc50 10y ago
There are three serious problems with this idea. - Putting a patent application together costs time and money. Microsoft are better able to do this. - Software patents have very little to do with who really first invented a technique. Containerisation wasn't invented by Linux either. They have very little to do with actual software or innovation, mostly being a question of "what can we get away with at the patent office?" See http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/chinese-govt-reveals-microsofts-secret-list-of-android-killer-patents/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/chinese-govt-reve... e.g. https://www.google.com/patents/US6339780 https://www.google.com/patents/US6339780 : a patent on putting a loading animation on top of a browser, rather than as a distinct element. Or https://www.google.com/patents/US8255379 https://www.google.com/patents/US8255379 (location-based search). - Patent-encumbering things is really unpopular in the open source community, because you need to give a patent grant to every user. So as soon as MS download linux, you've given them a patent license. Well done.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
ksk 10y ago
Containers is a poor example since it has nothing to do with "Linux community". Containers, Unikernels, Library OSs or whatever you want to call them, have been a staple of operating system research for decades. Pretty much no feature on any current OS is really all that innovative. Even so, give the extremely large pool of talent at their disposal, there is nothing that Microsoft would not able to implement on their own. Whats typically the case is they often wait for something to become popular and then enter the market with their me-too. Not knocking their strategy, it certainly works because they are good at making incremental improvements (esp in the core OS/kernel space)
- betaby 10y ago
  Neither is FAT was/is innovative. This doesn't nullify patent or first adopter arguments. In context of Linux container is good example of Microsoft trying to piggyback on Linux.
  - ksk 10y ago
    Yeah, the thing with the FAT patent is ugly and is going to leave a black mark on MS for a long time. But is your argument that MS joined the Linux foundation so that nobody would sue them for using containers? I highly doubt that is the case since nobody has expressed any interest in suing over patents. In any case it would probably be IBM or Sun or one of those old-school commercial UNIX companies that have patents on this stuff. Whats more likely the case that MS wants to make sure that people who don't want to use Windows would still use their Azure services. This is mostly a token amount to show that they're serious about supporting Linux based workloads.

coldpie 10y ago

I think you've got a difference in philosophy to contend with here. If I were a Linux Foundation developer, I would be extremely offended if someone suggested I patent one of my ideas. Software patents are ludicrous and extremely harmful to the software world. I would immediately quit any job which contributed to the creation of them. I can't speak for any Foundation developers, but I'd be surprised if very many of them felt differently.

DannyBee 10y ago
Sure, and it's great to take a moral stand, but those folks shouldn't pretend that moral stand is constructively helping the situation (and they often do!) IE if someone wants to say "I find this abhorrent and refuse to participate", that's 100% okay. But that stance doesn't actually help change the situation to one that is better.

pjc50 10y ago

There are three serious problems with this idea. - Putting a patent application together costs time and money. Microsoft are better able to do this. - Software patents have very little to do with who really first invented a technique. Containerisation wasn't invented by Linux either. They have very little to do with actual software or innovation, mostly being a question of "what can we get away with at the patent office?" See http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/chinese-govt-reveals-microsofts-secret-list-of-android-killer-patents/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/chinese-govt-reve... e.g. https://www.google.com/patents/US6339780 https://www.google.com/patents/US6339780 : a patent on putting a loading animation on top of a browser, rather than as a distinct element. Or https://www.google.com/patents/US8255379 https://www.google.com/patents/US8255379 (location-based search). - Patent-encumbering things is really unpopular in the open source community, because you need to give a patent grant to every user. So as soon as MS download linux, you've given them a patent license. Well done.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

ksk 10y ago

Containers is a poor example since it has nothing to do with "Linux community". Containers, Unikernels, Library OSs or whatever you want to call them, have been a staple of operating system research for decades. Pretty much no feature on any current OS is really all that innovative. Even so, give the extremely large pool of talent at their disposal, there is nothing that Microsoft would not able to implement on their own. Whats typically the case is they often wait for something to become popular and then enter the market with their me-too. Not knocking their strategy, it certainly works because they are good at making incremental improvements (esp in the core OS/kernel space)

betaby 10y ago
Neither is FAT was/is innovative. This doesn't nullify patent or first adopter arguments. In context of Linux container is good example of Microsoft trying to piggyback on Linux.
- ksk 10y ago
  Yeah, the thing with the FAT patent is ugly and is going to leave a black mark on MS for a long time. But is your argument that MS joined the Linux foundation so that nobody would sue them for using containers? I highly doubt that is the case since nobody has expressed any interest in suing over patents. In any case it would probably be IBM or Sun or one of those old-school commercial UNIX companies that have patents on this stuff. Whats more likely the case that MS wants to make sure that people who don't want to use Windows would still use their Azure services. This is mostly a token amount to show that they're serious about supporting Linux based workloads.