Comments

• Jose_X

  2010-07-23 11:17:29

  Given Microsoft's known efforts to develop patent leverage over FOSS and the threat FOSS posses their high margin software business, I suspect they are writing code that will help fulfill a large part of numerous of their patent claims (but not all of the components of the claims) and which also is difficult to remove later on without having to do a significant redesign. This way, regardless of GPL or any other license, Microsoft will not technically create the infringing code but it will be difficult for others to avoid implementing many Microsoft patent claims afterward as other developers try to advance the applications. To use the minefield analogy, if you are led (safely) deep into a minefield, you have signed your tush goodbye.
  
  A related possibility that may also bypass the GPL and similar license and is less subtle could be for them to add enough code to have the patents be implemented with that code, but since not all of the code was contributed by a single patent owner, they might (perhaps legitimately) claim this bypasses the GPL and similar licenses. As an example, let's say the ladder is patented. One person might build out the connecting steps and a different person might build out the supporting uprights. The result is that the patent owner did not add in the patented technology (as the GPL tried to defend against), but the fact remains that the patented item was created and passed on to many others thanks to efforts from the patent owner (eg, they might be paying the salaries of those that build out the separate finishing components).
  
  I have a very simple rule with regards to Microsoft, avoid them. They aren't happy and living out their goals if any of their monopolies and strengths are being weakened. And their mindset is to do whatever is necessary to change things to their side. Always maximizing profits to them comes before ethics, quality technology, good service, etc.