5 ms·

OK I'll bite and jump to defend Microsoft. Can you name a case where Microsoft has tried to screw some fairly small developer by using a patent lawsuit? (I _hat

OK I'll bite and jump to defend Microsoft. Can you name a case where Microsoft has tried to screw some fairly small developer by using a patent lawsuit? (I _hate_ to be defending Microsoft. But I can't recall Microsoft having done this.) Edit: I did find this: http://androinica.com/2011/03/microsoft-sues-barnes-noble-nook-color/ http://androinica.com/2011/03/microsoft-sues-barnes-noble-no... I don't mind MS going after large targets with obvious infringements, but a lot of the alleged infringements are ridiculous. It seems to me that the complexity of modern hardware and software has made patents very difficult to administer, but then the question remains: would we be better off without patents altogether, or are we grumbling about minor annoyances compared to what we'd be dealing with without patents (e.g. lots of obfuscation)?

Joakal 15y ago
Microsoft like to use FUD, not action. Probably because most small developers are poor. They did it against Linux OS and indirectly, the Linux vendors: http://news.cnet.com/Ballmer-repeats-threats-against-Linux/2100-7344_3-6160604.html http://news.cnet.com/Ballmer-repeats-threats-against-Linux/2... Personal opinion: They did it to squeeze Linux out of the desktop market.
- loup-vaillant 15y ago
  I think OEM are by far their most effective action again GNU/Linux on the desktop. FUD may help, but I think it helps much more to offer a (possibly conditional) discount the hardware vendors simply cannot afford to refuse (especially if they know their competitors will have the same discount).
hn_decay 15y ago
>Can you name a case where Microsoft has tried to screw some fairly small developer by using a patent lawsuit? Why does it have to be a "fairly small developer"? Microsoft has a legacy of a lot of broad patents owing to the fact that they've been rolling in billions for decades (and hence can stomach having a lot of people filing trivial patents). With that they try to either run competitors out of business, FUD users into avoiding alternatives, or outright demand some extortion fees (see every Android maker and Microsoft's current patent shakedown). "Obvious infrginements" is loaded and has little meaning given the incredibly broad patents allowed by the patent system. >would we be better off without patents altogether, or are we grumbling about minor annoyances compared to what we'd be dealing with without patents (e.g. lots of obfuscation)? We would be far better off without software patents. There is absolutely no doubt about that. I neither encourages innovation (it more likely discourages innovation), and it only helps to entrench the most successful.
noonespecial 15y ago
When the funded SCO, they came after all of us.
- podperson 15y ago
  That's certainly a dastardly dead, but SCO was using copyright and trademark law, not patents. Without copyright "open source" has no validity. In my opinion copyright has worse problems than patents right now (because patents at least expire).
nitrogen 15y ago
As other responses have mentioned, Microsoft tends to use FUD and go after bigger players (like Android), which can be seen as a symbolic attack against fairly small developers. They also use proxies, like SCO and Intellectual Ventures, to do their dirty work, so they can claim they use their patents defensively when questioned by anyone unfamiliar with the proxies' behavior.

Joakal 15y ago

Microsoft like to use FUD, not action. Probably because most small developers are poor. They did it against Linux OS and indirectly, the Linux vendors: http://news.cnet.com/Ballmer-repeats-threats-against-Linux/2100-7344_3-6160604.html http://news.cnet.com/Ballmer-repeats-threats-against-Linux/2... Personal opinion: They did it to squeeze Linux out of the desktop market.

loup-vaillant 15y ago
I think OEM are by far their most effective action again GNU/Linux on the desktop. FUD may help, but I think it helps much more to offer a (possibly conditional) discount the hardware vendors simply cannot afford to refuse (especially if they know their competitors will have the same discount).

hn_decay 15y ago

>Can you name a case where Microsoft has tried to screw some fairly small developer by using a patent lawsuit? Why does it have to be a "fairly small developer"? Microsoft has a legacy of a lot of broad patents owing to the fact that they've been rolling in billions for decades (and hence can stomach having a lot of people filing trivial patents). With that they try to either run competitors out of business, FUD users into avoiding alternatives, or outright demand some extortion fees (see every Android maker and Microsoft's current patent shakedown). "Obvious infrginements" is loaded and has little meaning given the incredibly broad patents allowed by the patent system. >would we be better off without patents altogether, or are we grumbling about minor annoyances compared to what we'd be dealing with without patents (e.g. lots of obfuscation)? We would be far better off without software patents. There is absolutely no doubt about that. I neither encourages innovation (it more likely discourages innovation), and it only helps to entrench the most successful.

noonespecial 15y ago

When the funded SCO, they came after all of us.

podperson 15y ago
That's certainly a dastardly dead, but SCO was using copyright and trademark law, not patents. Without copyright "open source" has no validity. In my opinion copyright has worse problems than patents right now (because patents at least expire).

nitrogen 15y ago

As other responses have mentioned, Microsoft tends to use FUD and go after bigger players (like Android), which can be seen as a symbolic attack against fairly small developers. They also use proxies, like SCO and Intellectual Ventures, to do their dirty work, so they can claim they use their patents defensively when questioned by anyone unfamiliar with the proxies' behavior.