Con Zymaris, Cybersource chief executive officer, said that in reality, the platform which is most at risk from drowning in patent litigation is Microsoft's own, adding that even Microsoft's US$50 billion "cash hoard" may not be enough to save it.
"At present, Linux is not the target of any software idea patent attacks," he said. "Microsoft however, is facing between 30 and 35 such court actions. To name but a few, Microsoft has been ordered to pay US$521 million to Eolas for an infringement in Internet Explorer and another US$440 million settlement to InterTrust Technologies Corp. for infringement of digital restrictions management patents and US$1.6 billion to settle a patent and anti-trust suit bought against it by Sun Microsystems. That's over US$2 billion for just three suits, well over US$500 million per patent case. Furthermore, the number of court cases against Microsoft is increasing," Zymaris said.
Zymaris added that Ballmer's "scaremongering" is a response to the Singaporean government's recent decision to migrate 20,000 PCs to open source desktop productivity applications.
"Ballmer is trying to use FUD about software idea patents as a weapon to stem more government and corporate defections to Linux. In his haste, however, he forgets to mention that if software idea patents are a threat to Linux and open source, they are far more of a threat to Microsoft itself," he said.
"If we believe Ballmer, the Linux kernel may possibly infringe on 228 software idea patents. If that's the case, then it seems reasonable to expect Microsoft's Windows, which has a code-base ten times larger, infringes on over 2000. And that's just the operating system. Once we include Microsoft Exchange, Visual Studio, SQL Server and dozens of other products, Microsoft could be infringing on thousands more. On current track record, losing even 100 patent cases might be enough to deplete Microsoft current cash reserves. Suddenly that gargantuan mountain of money that Microsoft sucked dry from its customers doesn't quite seem large enough," Zymaris said.
"In watching Microsoft's recent movements in this space, we come to the conclusion that Microsoft have given up trying to compete with Linux and open source on value, quality and security. We had hoped that Microsoft would respond with better, more secure and much cheaper software, rather than resort to shabby veiled legal FUD. But if that's the message it wants to send the world, then so be it," concluded Zymaris.
Your article's description of Ballmer's comments as:
"Zymaris added that Ballmer's "scaremongering" "
is not only acccurate, but also a reflection of the fraud being perpetrated by Microsoft with respect to patents, which is in turn a part of its larger game plan of distorting the truth and practicing revisionist history.
Recently there have been several interesting news stories in which Eolas has also been mentioned. In one, which can be found here:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6479958/site/newsweek/
the following is written about (Bill Gates's buddy) Nathan Myhvold's company:
"Last year, for example, Microsoft was ordered to pay $520 million for violating the patent of one employee firm, Eolas, which claimed to own the way users could get videos or songs inside a Web browser (Microsoft is appealing).
This is where Intellectual Ventures steps in. It is buying patents from all corners of the high-tech world, including those that could pose legal threats to its powerful investors.
By buying all these patents, Intellectual Ventures ensures they cannot be used against its investors by gadflies like Eolas."
What was conveniently not mentioned was a piece of information circulating at universities and among journalists, that has only now begun to reach the public (in fragments). And that is, that there exists relevant prior art in the Eolas case which Bill Gates knew of, which Nathan Myhrvold was informed about in the summer of 2003, and which many others who are ostensibly impacted by the eventual outcome of that case, also know. Why they remained silent will probably come out in court at some point, and when it does some of us suspect the world will see a more accurate picture of Microsoft, especially regarding its ability to generate new technologies without resorting to "borrowing". Truly, truly pathetic.
Again, Nathan's company,
"By buying all these patents, Intellectual Ventures ensures they cannot be used against its investors by gadflies like Eolas."
Inquiring minds must wonder why Nathan is avoiding and silent about prior art that can perhaps accomplish the aforementioned objective best. Oh, but then many of us already know. Don't we?
"Scaremongering"? Apparently it works against "buddies" as well as against Linux. And if the reference is cited rather than suppressed, it would also become known where certain people go to get...you finish the sentence yourself, Bill.
Do a Google news search on eolas, Bill, for updated revelations about your nefarious schemes, and what journalism students are doing to expose you.
Happy Thanskgiving.