Linux vs. Microsoft, the Patent Slander Suit?
Submitted
by
Hoplite3
Hoplite3 writes "Recently, Microsoft bigwigs Balmer and Gates engaged in some patent
sabre rattling directed at the Gnu/Linux operating system, claiming it
violated 235 patents. Torvalds, Moglen, Shuttleworth,
and others in the Linux community made some responses, but these didn't get
the big airtime that the Microsoft claims did. All of these responses were
reassurances that Microsoft didn't have a case, wouldn't take action, or
wasn't the real threat. But what about a tougher, legal, response? What
about a slander suit?
Here's the deal: would you be willing to donate money to a slander suit against Microsoft? Their comments reduced the value of Linux, value that keeps big corporations donating money and the time of their employees. It shouldn't be hard to establish this as the intention of the remarks. Microsoft can always use the standard slander defense of showing their statements are true. Of course, that would force them to state specifically which patents were violated, exactly what they'd like to avoid. If the suit was successful, the money could be stocked away to pay for future patent battles for Free Software. If it fails because Microsoft discloses the specific violations, these can actually be dealt with. This is a win-win situation for Linux, and a put-up or shut-up situation for Microsoft.
There are some wrinkles. Microsoft just has to show that they believe the statements they made to be true. The Free Software plaintiff would have to establish the damage done. This muddies the waters, but isn't it worth a try? The possibility of forcing disclosure is too tempting to pass up.
For me, and for many of you too, Linux is an essential daily tool that makes my life easier. These threats to its existence are odious and upsetting because they raise the possibility of the death of Linux. We need to fight zealously to maintain our favorite OS.
It would also set a precedent that Linux will fight patents head-on, rather than in some licensing deal. It would be the equivalent of ballistic missile defenses in the mutually assured destruction world of patents. It could also be a good landmark case in patent defense. Establishing a legal precedent of slander suits to force patent disclosure could up the ante for baseless patent threats in the marketplace."
Here's the deal: would you be willing to donate money to a slander suit against Microsoft? Their comments reduced the value of Linux, value that keeps big corporations donating money and the time of their employees. It shouldn't be hard to establish this as the intention of the remarks. Microsoft can always use the standard slander defense of showing their statements are true. Of course, that would force them to state specifically which patents were violated, exactly what they'd like to avoid. If the suit was successful, the money could be stocked away to pay for future patent battles for Free Software. If it fails because Microsoft discloses the specific violations, these can actually be dealt with. This is a win-win situation for Linux, and a put-up or shut-up situation for Microsoft.
There are some wrinkles. Microsoft just has to show that they believe the statements they made to be true. The Free Software plaintiff would have to establish the damage done. This muddies the waters, but isn't it worth a try? The possibility of forcing disclosure is too tempting to pass up.
For me, and for many of you too, Linux is an essential daily tool that makes my life easier. These threats to its existence are odious and upsetting because they raise the possibility of the death of Linux. We need to fight zealously to maintain our favorite OS.
It would also set a precedent that Linux will fight patents head-on, rather than in some licensing deal. It would be the equivalent of ballistic missile defenses in the mutually assured destruction world of patents. It could also be a good landmark case in patent defense. Establishing a legal precedent of slander suits to force patent disclosure could up the ante for baseless patent threats in the marketplace."