As reported (and already heavily commented) on Slashdot and Patently-O, Microsoft have started making threatening noises about their patent portfolio, accusing unnamed open source software providers of infringing 235 of their patents.In an article in Fortune magazine Brad Smith (photo right: looks like a nice friendly chap), Microsoft's senior vice president and general counsel, claims that various freely available pieces of software infringe their patents. Although he refuses to disclose the actual patents involved, or any alleged infringers, the targets break down into:
The IPKat is a little suspicious of the fact that no actual patents were mentioned, and wonders whether this announcement from Microsoft is just posturing. He also wonders how many of the patents would stand up to proper scrutiny, which they would inevitably be subjected to by the open source community if given a chance. Furthermore, the problem of who to sue comes to mind, considering that (i) Linux is available for free from many different sources; (ii) there are many different 'flavours' of Linux and Linux GUIs available, with presumably different levels of infringement in each; and (iii) there are many many freely available add-on components for Linux, written by and for the open source community.
Microsoft would presumably have to be careful about sueing over Open Office, which is supported by Sun Microsystems who have a long history of legal disputes with Microsoft over competition and IP rights. IBM and Red Hat, being proponents of both open source and patenting, might also have something to say about Microsoft's patent threats, not to mention the famous pioneer of GNU and the associated GPL, Richard Stallman (photo left: an even friendlier-looking chap).
Microsoft's patent arsenal takes aim
Reviewed by David Pearce
on
Monday, May 14, 2007
Rating:
Reviewed by David Pearce
on
Monday, May 14, 2007
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[GuestPost] G1/24: Tuning in! A take on the state of proceedings before oral proceedings](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZhEivE5bp7QOwZsyZXAXbVNYSmLjUthkB2Q7fm1_dpB97u5lIQeyWT9ZadUTAH3Z-hXn13VpW4vBDRPx9emCnoDV6tbUTkyvfmqPv1nNInL8XMdrAtSZ2hcRQr2LjxKovC9wTk_XyZxQ0CtX1MUrO_Muz3OJ4ld8AftymsdUmKD7xNksYMwk6/s150/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest book review] The Handbook of Fashion Law (with a discount code)](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgB4h2AdqJKwq9O3Ft4Mb7C39tv_NeFpkzrOfvhIsuwAkM_ops2Hgj7fdwzq_TQsjQDvQrQa-yyC9Q9pNiugseXRlUaMdsr_cmYUbh9lH8HDECMCbsTuNboVgpafyEhkgDkVS6ruHkuz8Sx0QVGI_1S8R9kbsHdNIYrRjqhyphenhyphen010_txjJUYvlZOtWA/s150/Fashion%20Law%20Book%20Bicture.jpg)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html