Microsoft stands four-square behind their customers? In the Software Patent field?

I heard a wedding-day joke about how the happy couple should never buy their bed from such-and-such a supplier, because they always stood behind their products ... ;^) um, yeah?

Seriousness aside, I'm on the receiving end of some of Microsoft's more interesting contributions to software security, stuff that can clog up even a solely Win98 network. I would like to think Microsoft has the integrity needed to stand behind the indemnity claims a non-profit organization such as mine, has against Microsoft for its colander-style Windows security model. Standing behind patent claims, etc, has no merit, because that doesn't affect us, and besides, as Free/Libre Open Source Software users to the extent we can persuade others, we don't believe in Software Patents anyway - they're a set of bureaucraticisation of software and criminalization of independent creativity, and violate completely and utterly, all conceivable anti-trust/anticompetitive behaviour laws.

And thus, Microsoft is aiming to get a Manhattan for a few copper coins and blankets again.

Ballmer's statements lack commitment to anything real, Ballmer's comments are empty of any serious importance.

Anyone ever read the dvorak column where he alleges Steve Ballmer has a secret blog. "A slew of insiders at Microsoft are now blogging. Steve Ballmer is supposed to have a secret blog someplace" - is it true?

Google beware: Ballmer also said in Boston that Microsoft is "hell bent" on taking search to the next level because "people still have a hard time finding what they want to find on the Internet."

>>Every time Red Hat reports earnings, >>Microsoft seems to take a hit,' says >>Goldman Sachs software analyst Richard Sherlund.

Great quote!

At least MSNBC which is a Microsoft-NBC joint venture reports accurately. On Aug 6 MSNBC's site carried a report from Forbes which said Microsoft "has finally met its match against software that is largely downloadable for free."

Investors discount it into the stock price, the Forbes report said, adding: "In a private meeting with executives in May, Ballmer griped that Microsoft's profits have more than doubled in the past six years, but the stock, at $29, is right where it was then. 'Linux creates a cloud of uncertainty over Microsoft. Every time Red Hat reports earnings, Microsoft seems to take a hit,' says Goldman Sachs software analyst Richard Sherlund."

Linux and open source will never beat Microsoft. Microsoft will crumble from within, and beat itself.

We know Gates has earned around $5.3 million a day for the last two years via sales of MSFT stock...anyone know what the figure for Ballmer is?

Ballmer also said the company is "humbled" by recent security lapses and promised to to fix the problems. Problem is, when Ballmer uses the word "humble," he's not using the word as you and I would use it. Here are some of the people Ballmer considers humble: Mr. T, Muhammad Ali, Liberace, Michael Jackson, and Jackie Gleason.

Patenting software is like patenting the text of a book. Neither are necessary to protect IP

Patents don't mean jack if the patent owner can't forcibly enforce them. The only technological reality is market presence, everything else is pretence to blur the mind. It puts the F and U in FUD. Tell "John Smith" to stop copying patented ideas, he will. Tell "China" to stop copying patented ideas, and a whole different thing occurs.

This is why patent extension and attempted enforcement of patents is so frightening. The US is hiding from the opening up of knowledge on a broad front. Business models must change, or die. Microsoft is no exception.

Linux is probably the very safest Operating System out there from a patent point of view, because undoubtedly Baystar/SCO and friends would have searched for any such patents critical to Linux and tried to acquire them.

I challenge Ballmer to hire someone to go through the Windows source code searcching for IP violations with the same dilligence SCO has used looking for ways to own Linux.

As recently as April of this year here on LinuxWorld you reported that this lack-of-a-center aspect was what spooks MSFT most: "IBM's endorsement of Linux has added credibility and an illusion of support and accountability, although the reality is there is no 'center of gravity,' or central body, investing in the health and growth of noncommercial software or innovating in critical areas like engineering, manageability, compatibility and security." Back then Ballmer's conclusion seemed more respectful: "Linux requires our concentrated focus and attention" he told the troops in Redmond.

Steve "FUD" Ballmer, ah yes - isn't he the one who also said, back in 2001, in an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times: "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches."

Such a level-headed choice of words Mr Ballmer. NOT!!