Linus Torvalds, the creator of the Linux kernel, keeps insisting that Microsoft, by failing to compete based on technical merits, resorts to fear, uncertainty and doubt techniques -- sometimes going as far as intimidation. More recently, Torvalds said he was becoming concerned about what he described as "external issues -- especially patents."
This makes a classic case where legacy products are unable to compete, so laws and/or technical policies are being modified using sources of great influence while psychological games are being played. This alters the rules of the competition, creating a "moving goalposts" scenario which seeks to reverse the tipping point.
The discussion we present here takes a look at subversive tactics and shows what makes them possible in the first place. Such tactics can give existing software (notably Microsoft products, in this context) a competitive advantage. Especially in a crowded market where software development, as opposed to support, gets more commoditized.
Proponents of Free software are encouraged to be aware of these factors because ignoring risk does not make it magically go away.
A Field Guide to Free Software Supporters
Linux Distros for Everyone: Community, Desktop, Hardcore Geek...
Open Source Pros Pick their Favorite Projects
100 Open Source Downloads
Patents were introduced under the premise that they would protect the 'small guy', whose invention can be stolen by 'the big boys', who would then commercialize and market it too quickly for anybody else to keep up.
The invention was of course a physical one. It was tangible. At the time, the patent office was somewhat of an 'anti-ripoff' system. Its purpose was not to stifle competition by sheltering monopolization but very much the opposite. The system was also selective and restrictive in terms of scope.
Over the years, under increased pressure and lenience inside what had evolved to become an application-litigation ecosystem, patents became more fuzzy. Their original role was misplaced and they were incorrectly classified alongside intangible pillars such as trademarks and copyrights.
It is hardly surprising that their new 'umbrella' -- typically referred to as "intellectual property" -- comes under a lot of ridicule nowadays. Some even consider this mixed bag a set of "intellectual monopolies," because grossly generalized ideas -- even thought -- can be owned by a company or an individual, who can lawfully charge a fee for sharing these. The ideas refer not to specific work but to general broad ideas, no matter how they are applied or implemented.
More recently, since some time in the '90s and only in few parts of the world, even knowledge pertaining to mathematics (think about software patents and business methods) could be owned by a person. It creates many unknown barriers and stifles development in science and technology. It makes programming, for example, a luxury of the wealthy. It has a chilling effect on opportunities for startups.
Just under a year ago, Microsoft began using vague patent claims as a means of scaring away prospective users of GNU/Linux. It did so more aggressively than ever before. The company's strategy relied on the assumption that revenue can be maintained, restored or increased by imposing a 'tax' on revenue made by competitors. It may also repel customers from levied products. Overall, it seems rather absurd.
Ownership of generic knowledge, rather than specific development work, has been a controversial subject for quite some time, not to mention the passing (or purchasing) of that knowledge by those wishing only to use it litigiously. These operators are commonly referred to as "patent trolls."
One could reach the point of discussing another logical possibility. Might we be seeing the whole patent system implode, primarily due to self-inflicted damage and serious deficiencies? Familiarize yourself with the work of the open invention network for example. It is one possible solution, but it is worth considering ways of working around patents also.
There have been efforts to create algorithms which sidestep patent issues, such as the efforts which produced the Ogg format for encoding media files. Another barrier then merges because making these formats a standard, let alone a de facto standard, can be difficult.
Many parties have vested interests in proprietary formats and patents, as the big controversy which involved Apple, Nokia, Ogg Vorbis and HTML 5 has probably taught us.