OStatic

This afternoon, Linux Foundation Executive Director Jim Zemlin weighed in with the Foundation's view on the recent patent infringement claims Microsoft has filed against TomTom.

Zemlin says at this point, there's no reason to doubt Microsoft's assurances that this is a dispute solely between TomTom and itself, or that the claims against TomTom are in any manner a direct (or indirect) move against the wider Linux ecosystem.

The Linux Foundation is hopeful, Zemlin says, that the dispute will be resolved as quickly and as peaceably as possible. However, he indicates that if the litigation turns towards the Linux environment in a general sense, the Foundation is prepared to defend the platform.

As some OStatic readers have likely already heard, Microsoft is taking TomTom, a manufacturer of in-car navigation devices, to court for patent infringement. This is especially disturbing to those in the open source world for at least two reasons -- Microsoft's previous claims that Linux violates over two hundred patents it currently holds, and three of the claims against TomTom deal with TomTom's implementation of the Linux kernel in its products.

Techdirt's Mike Masnick presents some good analysis of the story, including links to the patents in question and those with particularly tenuous claims (in terms of infringement and patentability, in a few instances). While this is worrisome to those who use Linux, and certainly causing TomTom executives to lose sleep, I can't help but wonder, really, what this positioning actually means. Why is this coming up now? If hundreds of Microsoft patents are being violated, why go after a company infringing on eight (with three relating directly to Linux)? And why TomTom?

Microsoft Watch's Joe Wilcox, in solemn observance of Friday the 13th, compiled a list of Microsoft's ten most unlucky breaks. The strokes of misfortune chosen were weighted according to heinousness (with #10 being least signficant, and #1 the most).

Checking in at #7 is the development of the Linux kernel. Putting aside Microsoft's whole Schrodinger's cat sort of approach to Linux over the years (Linux is not a threat. Linux is a threat), it is interesting Wilcox (and the analysts who helped him narrow down the list) focused on the kernel as the bad break.

Perhaps it's inevitable -- people react strongly to hyperbole, it gets them talking, it makes them curious, it's a quick way of making a subject hot. For years, every new MP3 player was met with speculation -- would it be an iPod Killer? Perhaps ASUS didn't release new hardware quickly enough before solid competition entered the market, but for a few months last year the term Eee Killer was thrown about. Yet, despite the bounty on their heads, iPods and Eees still exist, as do alternative devices.

As Microsoft allowed people to take an early version of Windows 7 out for a test ride, the -Killer suffix re-emerged. It's not an OS X-Killer. It's a Linux-Killer. I'm sure this is due in large part to the robust netbook market and Apple's absence there. It's interesting that suddenly Linux is seen as competition. It's also intriguing that this is portrayed as the nail in the coffin, and not an opportunity.