Confusion won't work.

Users and vendors alike will ultimately reject software that does not offer them the four freedoms. Why would I accept less when I have a choice? Patents? Please, business method patents are being shot down in court now and that's a good thing for everyone. I think this is why Gutierrez would rather not mention any specifics on that front. No one needs a license to make their computer work or to share code. The more Microsoft threatens to sue people, the less they really have to offer. I do not want any of the money I spend on free software making it back to a company that fought free software tooth and nail for more than a decade. Businesses don't want vendors to deal with patents from an abusive monopoly, they want computers that work and freedom from judicial extortion. Just ask IBM, Chrysler, Autozone, Red Hat and others on the other side of this attack.

Pirates

Gutierrez is another corporate thug who is highly skilled at causing maximum damage with the least amount of visible injury.

Everything he says is weasel words for the iron fist in the velvet glove.

If one follows the history of the SCO lawsuit debacles, the same ideas are scarily apparent - indeed 2003 is the time when all that started to take shape.

Monsanto sued farmers whose crop seeds accidentally got licenced GM genetic material in them via random pollination. Microsoft on the other hand is *deliberately* trying to infect linux/unix offerings with their IP so that it's no longer able to be GPL-pure.

They're scum.

Problem with Microsoft patent position

My problem with Microsoft's position on patents is that they are only willing to talk with businesses that are willing to pay a licensing fee. (Although there isn't any evidence that they are even doing that. Novell claims that they've never been provided with a list of infringed patents as part of their licensing agreement, and the last I heard they will still denying that there is any infringement.) My impression is that most developers of Open Source software would gladly try to remove any infringing code from their products, even if it means sacrificing some features, if they could be convinced that they are infringing on a valid patent. Since Microsoft refuses to give those developers that opportunity, I remain convinced that Microsoft knows that most or all of the patents that they claim are being infringed on would not withstand a challenge. So they hope to accomplish through intimidation what they cannot accomplish legally. Until they agree to work with Open Source developers through complete disclosure of which patents they believe are infringed on by which products, their threats should not be taken seriously.

good questions

The above comments said what I wanted about the words of a professional liar.
I just wanted to add that I was impressed by the questions asked by the reporter. I've read most of the recent interviews on this run and the quality of the fluff pieces Ive seen on CNET and other sites is embarassing.
While its hard to get someone so slitthery pinned down without follow ups, I have to say I was very impressed by the quality of the questions. I will definitely come back to check if this was a fluke or not.


I have quite a bit of code in varios components of the Gnu/Linux operating system. All has been done under the GPL so I fail to see who Microsoft believes speaks for 'teh Linux' when they sign those deals.

Horatio is selling 'insurance' in case something were to happen to that beautiful house you built. You know, a fire can happen at 'any time'. You can call it business, some would call it extortion.

Missing question: GPLv3

A key question would have been: what is Microsoft's point of view towards version 3 of the GPL? Given that they only play in the Open Source arena by cheating with patents and that the intent of GPLv3 is to protect users and coders against patent threats, I almost can see Mr. Gutierrez revolving on his chair with this question. Microsoft's attitude towards GPLv3 should make obvious why it is so important to protect the open source world.