Unfortunately I don't think a website like that will make a scrap of difference

What will do is Microsoft's actions - to either say Linux does or doesn't offend against Microsoft IP. They say it does but then that needs to be backed with a lawsuit and it means nothing without it.

If Microsoft keeps on saying it does and can't/won't prove anything then the allegations will die like SCOs ones. Is anybody scared of SCO now? People possibly are scared of Microsoft now but won't be in a year or two if they don't sue or make a hash of a lawsuit (like SCO).

While I agree with your original premise, I think this is a very different case to the SCO case. First, there are the relative differences in the sizes of the companies. SCO was a failing vendor, who were going through all sorts of attempts to retain their market share. The whole thing was a joke from the start. Conversely, Microsoft is a dominant position in the market, and is doing this to squash opposition, not to fund a golden handshake to the board of directors. SCO's claims only came out with a lawsuit, whereas Microsoft's claims come out all the time, without a lawsuit, and it is the threat of litigation that causes people to buckle. Microsoft hasn't needed to bring a lawsuit against "linux" or it's vendors regarding these threats to date because the fear of this happening is enough to foment resistance to using linux. This is changing, slowly, but it's still the case. Personally, I don't think this website will work because no legal department or advisory on the planet would let Microsoft play its cards. The lack of play doesn't mean the cards doesn't exist either (although I personally think it's all FUD). I also don't think any legal department or advisory on the planet would actually advocate that the lack of play means the evidence doesn't exist. It's just too great a risk. Welcome, FUD.

Can Microsoft sue if they've never said specifically what code is infringing and how?

No, but when they do sue, wouldn't they rather that you didn't already know what code was infringing? You're more likely to license if put on the spot, than if you've planned for months to fix the problem with a new algorithm. Craig

Craig Box wrote:

An interesting idea that came out of the /. thread on this topic was that Microsoft have a finite number of patents, and it would be a doable task, spread out amongst the entire open source ecosystem, to check each patent, and see if there is a chance there is infringing code in "Linux"/OSS. Again, it all comes down to the interpretation of angry lawyers, so even that might not solve anything.

It's an interesting idea, but it doesn't take into account that the patent system is so broken that there are likely to have been patents issued that are so broad as to make re-implementation impossible without completely altering the nature or operation of an application. -- Matt Brown matt(a)mattb.net.nz Mob +64 21 611 544 www.mattb.net.nz

#2 is a bit trickier and I have my reservations on this. Why should a software invention be any different from a hardware invention. It's still a process of human imagination and just because it's stored inside the machine does that make it any less valid than a piece of machinery? Just as the GPL relies on copyright we can still have open source software with patents if we explicitly allow the use of our intellectual property when we contribute.

However in #2 we don't want to be able to patent the too obvious e.g. One click shopping from Amazon - should that really be patentable?

If I were the benevolent dictator (and had infinite resource to make investigation worthwhile), I'd probably grant patents with various different lengths of monopoly, based on time to market and potential useful life. A software patent lasting one to three years sounds workable. I believe the standard life of a patent at the present is 20 years - look at how much software (and life in general) has changed from 20 years ago. With the availability of the information, meaning no-one truly has to "work alone" any more, you should surely be able to "innovate" in a field within three years! The argument that #2 doesn't handle is that software, as in algorithms, is maths; and the standard argument is "maths exists already". You're just finding a way to describe something, you're not really inventing anything. Two people invented calculus simultaneously, so it surely must happen every day with programming - why should the fact that someone else came up with the idea independently, deny you the right to use it? Something that would take another firm 10 years to come up with itself, or a week to reimplement if they read the patent documentation, seems a worthwhile trade-off for society to have public documentation about. With the pace of life these days, there is no excuse for patents (or copyright, for that matter) to last nearly as long as they do. Craig