For years, Microsoft has waved around the FUD stick concerning the 200+ patents it claimed to hold that Linux implementations supposedly infringed upon. However, when confronted, the company never seemed willing to name a single such patent. However, it looks like the company is starting to swing that stick with a bit more force. Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft's "patent guy," fresh off a promotion, is suing navigation device maker TomTom over a variety of patents, including a few that relate to TomTom's implementation of Linux. Gutierrez has a somewhat troubling view on patents, where he believes that all tech companies should effectively be paying pretty much everyone else patent licensing fees before they can build any products. Rather than seeing that as a problem -- he thinks it represents a good thing. It's difficult to see what the benefit is in all that wasted money changing hands... other than it's probably what pays his salary. Not surprisingly, Microsoft is using the infamous ITC loophole to get two shots at forcing TomTom to pay up -- meaning that it's both sued the company in court, and gone to the ITC to have it try to block the import of TomTom products.

As for the patents themselves, looking them over, it's almost scary how broad they are. Some of them apply to basic in-car navigation features, while others focus on the file system TomTom is using (which is an implementation of Linux). If you'd like to look them over, here they are:

• Vehicle computer system with open platform architecture
• Method and system for generating driving directions (check out the claims on this one...)
• Methods and Arrangements for Interacting with Controllable Objects within a Graphical User Interface Environment Using Various Input Mechanisms
• Portable computing device-integrated appliance
• Vehicle computer system with wireless internet connectivity (would be great if some IP lawyers could explain how this one passes the KSR test for combining existing products)
• Common name space for long and short filenames (ditto concerning whether or not this passes the Bilski test concerning pure "software" patents)
• Common name space for long and short filenames (same name, slightly different patent -- same questions raised, however)
• Method and System for File System Management Using a Flash-Erasable, Programmable, Read-only Memory

It's those last three that apply to TomTom's implementation of Linux. While Gutierrez insists this is not Microsoft beginning its patent assault on Linux, anyone wondering about those mythical 200+ patents might want to start checking on those three patents first. Unfortunately, chances are that TomTom will just settle. No matter how strong a case it might have, it's going to be cheaper to settle, and that's exactly what Microsoft is counting on.

It looks like Fidel Castro's plan to build a Cuban software industry has paid off, somewhat: the country has announced that it's launched its own variant of Linux. The goal is to replace the Microsoft operating systems that runs most of Cuba's computers, because the government sees Windows as a security threat. Insert your own punchline there, but for Cuba, it's because it believes US authorities have access to Microsoft code, and can therefore spy on Cuba through it. That's debatable, but so is the claim from the dean of the School of Free Software at Cuba's University of Information Sciences, who says the "black holes and malicious codes" in proprietary software "doesn't happen with free software." While open-source projects often offer better security than proprietary platforms, open-source or "free" software isn't inherently more secure. But somehow it seems ideology is probably more important than facts here.

Slashdot points us to the latest in the never-ending saga of SCO trying to claim infringement in Linux. Despite massive setbacks that should have just ended the quixotic campaign, it appears that SCO is looking to sell off its actual businesses in order to keep the lawsuit campaign going. It's amazing that after losing pretty much every aspect of this campaign from the very beginning, that folks at SCO still think it's worth pursuing.

Rich Kulawiec writes in to point to the rather amusing story of a teacher in Austin, Texas who supposed sent a threatening letter to the HeliOS Project, which builds and provides Linux computers to disadvantaged or "exceptionally promising" students. The letter complains that in distributing free software, the teacher believes it's likely that something illegal is happening, and everyone should be using Windows. To be honest, the letter is so over-the-top that it almost makes me wonder if it's real. It feels a bit like a put on of the drug wars (especially the whole "I along with many others tried Linux during college..."). However, if it's real...

....observed one of my students with a group of other children gathered around his laptop. Upon looking at his computer, I saw he was giving a demonstration of some sort. The student was showing the ability of the laptop and handing out Linux disks. After confiscating the disks I called a confrence with the student and that is how I came to discover you and your organization.

Mr. Starks, I am sure you strongly believe in what you are doing but I cannot either support your efforts or allow them to happen in my classroom. At this point, I am not sure what you are doing is legal. No software is free and spreading that misconception is harmful. These children look up to adults for guidance and discipline. I will research this as time allows and I want to assure you, if you are doing anything illegal, I will pursue charges as the law allows. Mr. Starks, I along with many others tried Linux during college and I assure you, the claims you make are grossly over-stated and hinge on falsehoods. I admire your attempts in getting computers in the hands of disadvantaged people but putting linux on these machines is holding our kids back.

This is a world where Windows runs on virtually every computer and putting on a carnival show for an operating system is not helping these children at all. I am sure if you contacted Microsoft, they would be more than happy to supply you with copies of an older verison of Windows and that way, your computers would actually be of service to those receiving them..."

The guy's response to the letter is equally over-the-top. But, if the letter is true, he's right that supporters of free software still have quite a long ways to go in their education campaign. Perhaps they should start suing. After all, the RIAA and MPAA have been telling us that lawsuits=education campaign for years now...

More than five years after SCO went on its quixotic quest to try to sue Linux out of existence, it's finally had to pay at least some of the price. As you probably know, soon after SCO sued IBM, Novell pointed out that it was pretty sure SCO was wrong in claiming to hold copyrights over Unix code. In fact, Novell was pretty sure that it still owned those copyrights. SCO then took Novell to court over the issue -- making that the main arena for SCO's claims. It took plenty of time, but the judge ruled that, indeed, Novell owned the copyrights, basically derailing SCO's entire basis for its lawsuits. At first it appeared as if SCO was just going to give up. It declared bankruptcy and many hoped it would just go away. Unfortunately, it received a lifeline in the form of a $100 million line of credit, allowing it to keep on suing.

As for the Novell case, a judge has finally come down with the final ruling on a fine, and it's basically a slap on the wrist to SCO. Rather than buying Novell's argument that 95% of SCO's licensing revenue actually belongs to Novell, the judge took a much more limited approach saying SCO only owes $2.5 million. It's not peanuts, but it's a lot less than many had hoped. It certainly will allow SCO to keep going (and potentially appeal this ruling) which is why many are labeling this as a mixed bag sort of ruling. Still, as has been pointed out, SCO is the one that kicked this off, suing IBM and then Novell... and the end result is that SCO is paying out $2.5 million. That's probably not what the company's execs expected when they started down this path.

Nick Carr points out a report from the Linux Foundation that finds that most contributions to the Linux kernel come from people who work at companies. Nick Carr says this is a sign of a "shift from the volunteer to the corporate model," which I think misses the point on a couple of different levels. For starters, most of the people contributing to the kernel are professional programmers, and most professional programmers have jobs in the software industry. So it's totally unsurprising that most kernel contributors work for software companies.

But Carr's observation also misses the point in a deeper way. What makes the open source model unique isn't who (if anyone) signs the contributors' paychecks. Rather, what matters is the way open source projects are organized internally. In a traditional software project, there's a project manager who decides what features the product will have and allocates employees to work on various features. In contrast, there's nobody directing the overall development of the Linux kernel. Yes, Linus Torvalds and his lieutenants decide which patches will ultimately make it into the kernel, but the Red Hat, IBM, and Novell employees who work on the Linux kernel don't take their orders from them. They work on whatever they (and their respective clients) think is most important, and Torvalds's only authority is deciding whether the patches they submit are good enough to make it into the kernel. Carr suggests that the non-volunteer status of Linux contributors proves that the Internet "doesn't necessarily weaken the hand of central management," but that's precisely what the open source development model has done. There is no "central management" for the Linux kernel, and it would probably be a less successful project if there were.

You have to admit that it seemed like a mismatch from the very beginning: Wal-Mart selling a Linux-based PC? The idea, of course, was that it was crazy cheap: $199. However, the gPC from Everex clearly wasn't in huge demand. While it did eventually sell out, Wal-Mart has chosen not to restock the machines in its stores, though it will continue selling it off the Wal-Mart website. Wal-Mart tends to be pretty thorough about these things, so clearly it recognized that the shelf space dedicated to these machines would be better served by some other product. While the machines were cheap, apparently Wal-Mart customers recognized that price wasn't the only factor driving purchasing decisions for PCs, and convincing people to take a chance on some no-name computer with an alternative operating system didn't set the world of Wal-Mart shoppers on fire.

People have been declaring the Year of Desktop Linux for years. Linus Torvalds himself declared the Year of the Linux Desktop way back in 2004, a prediction that now appears to have been a bit optimistic. Now, Forrester is predicting that 2008 will be the year that Linux becomes a "credible threat" to Windows. Color me skeptical. The suite of Linux desktop software—especially the excellent Open Office—has definitely improved over the years, with Ubuntu getting a lot of buzz over the last couple of years for putting out a polished and user-friendly product. But desktop users, and corporate desktop users in particular, tend to be very conservative. They want software they trust, and that they know will be compatible with other peoples' software. Unless Linux-based products offer compelling features that the Windows alternatives don't, it's just not going to be worth the risk of abandoning trusted software. Moreover, a lot of companies have a suite of specialized business software that was built around Windows that would be very costly to convert to another platform. Eventually, the cost savings may be compelling enough to get a significant number of companies to switch. Windows and Office are expensive, but switching your whole company to software that has unanticipated flaws is a lot more expensive. So the process of evaluating, testing, and transitioning to a new operating system is likely to take a decade, not a year. So I doubt that a significant number of companies will be providing Linux desktops to their (non-geek) employees by the end of 2008.

Jon writes in to let us know that a small patent holding firm, IP Innovation, has sued Red Hat and Novell over patent infringement concerning a ridiculously broad patent. As the Groklaw report outlines, the suing company is actually a subsidiary of Acacia, which is considered to be one of the more egregious firms in using bad patents to squeeze money out of companies. Groklaw also notes that Acacia has recently hired a bunch of execs from Microsoft, leading to the conspiracy theory that Steve Ballmer's recent predictions of patent lawsuits against Red Hat were more than random speculation. I'm not willing to go that far just yet, but as you can see from Ars Technica's breakdown of the patent earlier this year (when the company sued Apple), it describes very broadly the concept of workspaces in a computer user interface. This is yet another example of the worst of our patent system at work. Companies that offer innovative products getting sued using vague, overly broad patents on obvious ideas that never should have been granted in the first place.

Apparently, Microsoft's new strategy against open source is to keep repeating over and over again that open source software violates patents. This is a practice the company started years ago, and repeated earlier this year, with Microsoft execs ominously saying that open source products violate Microsoft patents. Of course, Microsoft has yet to show a single patent where this is true or actually do anything to prove it's true in a court of law. Perhaps that's because it knows the backlash would be a lot stronger than what was seen against SCO (who eventually failed in following a similar strategy). But, that won't stop Steve Ballmer from repeating the threats that Microsoft could sue the likes of Red Hat at any moment for patent infringement. This time, he lobbed in an extra suggestion as well: that open source providers may also face lawsuits from the likes of Eolas, the patent holder that Microsoft recently settled with. Folks from the open source community have asked Microsoft to put up or shut up before -- and it doesn't seem like the company plans to do either thing. Little surprise, really, since apparently the strategy of making people afraid works. The biggest reason companies avoid using open source software is an irrational fear of opening themselves up to patent liability. Still, this is another clear misuse of the patent system to hold back innovation in the market by making companies far and wide afraid of adopting innovation. That's not what the patent system was intended to do at all.