
Permalink for comment 332736
RE: Spreading FUD
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Oct 2008 02:26 UTC in reply to "Spreading FUD"
Member since:

A number of people have said exactly the same thing: "I won't use Mono because Microsoft could have patents that conflict with the project." Nobody has an example of such a patent, until someone finds one, you're blowing a lot of hot air. Also, by patent I mean one that would be indisputable in court, we all know how companies love to file for patents for things that have examples of prior art.

There is plenty of prior art for all of Microsoft's stuff. Java, for example, can be considered prior art (in terms of the basic idea anyway) for the .NET framework.

What is important is the perception. Microsoft can generate plausible-sounding patent threats via .NET technologies, whereas it doesn't have a hope in the area of, say, Office suites (given that its MS Office product displaced existing incumbents from an existing market).

I'd say myself that Microsoft doesn't have a leg to stand on anywhere with respect to patents.

But what I think isn't important. It is what the general, average, non-expert customer for software thinks that is important here.

Microsoft won't actually sue ... it is too dangerous for Microsoft. But they will continue to make threatening noises about patents and the alleged need for Linux users to license some of Microsoft's technology ... as long as there is any perception at all of a remotely feasible chance that something in FOSS software actually does infringe.

Mono provides a perfect opportunity for Microsoft to generate just such a perception.

Reply Parent Score: 1