[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Three Minutes with Microsoft's Open-Source Manager here

[AlanBell]

Licensing rather than litigating means that Microsoft are assuming their patents are valid and actually being infringed and they are expecting licensees to believe the same. "you can't have a generalized patent" - very true. Microsoft have just announced they have 235 generalized patents, and they are wondering why the world isn't impressed! Everyone who is not averse to freedom doesn't want licensing or litigating, but they also don't want to infringe on any valid patents. I don't think Microsoft are very confident in the validity and applicability of their patents if they won't even say what they are. This is a FUD and extortion campaign, nothing more.

[devhen]

I'm sorry but Mr. Hilf's explanation of this is no more reasonable (not at all) or acceptable than the Fortune article or any of Steve Ballmer's rants.First off, telling me that I don't have to worry because Microsoft's strategy is to charge me for using Linux, not sue me, is NOT good news (or news at all). I would rather go to court than pay Microsoft for the free software I use... Secondly, Mr. Hilf completely contradicts himself here. He is yet another example of Microsoft's misdirection on this issue. First he claims that no one needs to worry because Microsoft plans to license its IP instead of litigating. Then he says:"At the end of the day, the person who decides if it's an invention of one company or another is a judge."Exactly, Mr. Hilf. Exactly. A judge will decide whether you can charge me for your supposed intellectual property. Until then, leave us alone. We owe you nothing.

[lhcj]

Never trust Microsoft. They will play any angle to win... destroy any competition. The monopoly must continue to grow. Want some free candy code little boy ??? see we are a very nice company... GOTCHA.....

[justaman]

[quote:5c340a5ac2]My first thought was, he lied in every word,That hoary cripple with malicious eye.Robert Browning.[/quote:5c340a5ac2]Enough said.

[TheNameless]

"In the Novell deal, we said we had to figure out a way to solve these IP issues and we needed to figure out a way for better interoperability with open-source products. The Fortune article makes it look like we are going out on this litigation path."Sorry Hilf:http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/it-business/supplier-relations/news/index.cfm?newsid=3029Hilf is an open-source manager? Why is he misquoting Novell?

[AllenC]

In all of their discussions, Microsoft has refused to acknowledge that there is a third alternative to licensing or litigation, and that is allowing open source developers to remove any code that infringes on legitimate patents. The Linux developers have been very upfront for years (at least since SCO started accusing them of copyright infringement) that they have no desire to infringe on any valid copyrights or patents. Offers have been extended on several occasions that they will remove any code that can be proven to infringe. But like SCO, Microsoft has refused to allow this alternative.Until Microsoft decides to be totally transparent by actually specifying the patents in question, the proper reaction is to assume that they are making another attempt at SCO's playbook and that there really is no infringement or the patents will not stand up to a challenge. Any statements by Microsoft to any other effect can only be interpreted as more FUD as usual from a dying dinosaur.