Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Software Patents Linux

No Office For Linux, MS Patents Rejected 422

Posted by Zonk from the no-shockers-here dept.
Bays Fil wrote to mention a ZDNet piece discussing the U.S. Patent Office's rejection of two Microsoft patents on the FAT file system. "There has been concern that if the FAT patents are upheld, Microsoft may claim that Linux infringes on Microsoft technology and will seek a royalty. Any monetary compensation could threaten the operating system, which under General Public License (GPL) terms may not be distributed if it contains patented technology that requires royalty payments." Relatedly, Dayrl writes "Microsoft reiterates its firm decision not to offer its Office Suite on Linux anytime soon. From the article: 'Microsoft is 100 percent focused on Windows: We have invested billions of dollars in it. We have created Office for the Mac but--and I thought I had been clear on this already when I said 'No'--we have no plans at this time to build Office on Linux,' Nick McGrath, Microsoft's head of platform strategy said.'
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

No Office For Linux, MS Patents Rejected More

No Office For Linux, MS Patents Rejected

Comments Filter:

  • In other news (Score:4, Funny)

    by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:12PM (#13731188) Homepage
    The sky is still blue.

    • Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nmb3000 ( 741169 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:27PM (#13731410) Journal
      In other news...The sky is still blue.

      Exactly. I can't see how this could be much of a surprise to anyone. However if Microsoft said they were going to build Office for Linux, then that would warrant some surprise and an article on /.

      Why on Earth would Microsoft develop their main cash cow for an operating system they'd just assume quietly go away? Not only would they lose money one it, but they'd be showing support for Linux in a way that they're not ready to do (yet).

      It's kind of too bad that they won't release Office for Linux because it would probably bolster the business and consumer desktop market shares. Honestly (aside from any closed-document arguments), MS Office is the best office suite available right now. It's incredibly powerful (think Excel if nothing else), and very intuitive. Open Office is nice, but still not in the same park as Office. Give it some time though; as Linux grows in popularity, Microsoft will be forced to start paying it this sort of attention.

      • Re:In other news (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Pudusplat ( 574705 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:34PM (#13731515)
        Ding Ding Ding!

        MS Office + IE are the desktop to many people in Corporate America. If you could run those on Linux, there would be almost no reason to run windows. Windows just acts as a carrier horse for that suite and "the internet"

        Of course, maybe Microsoft will suddenly stop wanting to sell Windows, because, y'know, its too much work.

      • Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bokmann ( 323771 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @02:09PM (#13732592) Homepage
        If Microsoft were smart, they WOULD write office for linux, but not for the reasons most people here would think...

        Given Microsoft's normal tactics, I would expect they would do it to:

        1) Kill OpenOffice, which if left to thrive over on linux will eventually also eat into their windows market (they are obviously worried about this - see earlier articles involving the state of Massachusettes).

        2) Control the user's typical experience with linux. They could make Office a steaming pile of dog crap on linux, but people would still buy it. Microsoft could basically control your average manager's impression of linux by making Office for Linux a dog. Those managers who had the misfortune of being stuck with this at the advice of some linux-zealot in their IT department would never listen to that zealot again.

        I'm GLAD they haven't realized this and decided to make office for linux. Of course, they might be secretly working on it already, because this is not the kind of thing Microsoft would want to pre-announce. They only pre-annouce vaporware when they need to chill the market for their competitors who are ahead of them.

        This has been your daily dose of conspiracy. Now back to your regular microsoft-bashing.
        • This would surely backfire on them, as in the process of adding 'cruft' to the product to make it crappy, they would unintentionally create something stable.

        • Re:In other news (Score:4, Insightful)

          by bcattwoo ( 737354 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @04:11PM (#13733664)
          1) Kill OpenOffice, which if left to thrive over on linux will eventually also eat into their windows market (they are obviously worried about this - see earlier articles involving the state of Massachusettes).

          But for non-geeks the biggest motivator for going to Linux/OpenOffice has got to be cost. On an OEM machine, the cost of the OS is secondary to the cost of getting an Office license. I think in an earlier article about OS-free systems from Dell it was pointed out that the OS-free systems were only $30 less than a comparable system with Windows.

    • Did anyone RTFA? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by kylef ( 196302 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @04:30PM (#13733827)

      From article:

      "None of the prior art submitted by the Public Patent Foundation stood up under examination," Microsoft Director of Business Development David Kaefer said in a statement. "The issues that have come up in these re-examinations have nothing to do with (non-Microsoft) prior art. Instead, the issues involve a question over whom--at Microsoft--should be properly listed as an inventor."

      This doesn't sound like a out-and-out rejection of the patent, which the headline led me to believe. It looks like Microsoft will be able to keep this patent with a little more work...

  • too bad (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:12PM (#13731195) Homepage Journal

    'No'--we have no plans at this time to build Office on Linux

    Too bad, I was looking for something other than DVD::RIP and distributed.net which would hammer both cores of my Athlon64 X2.

  • why feed the competition? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tominva1045 ( 587712 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:14PM (#13731221)

    Why should Microsoft build applications for an operating system directly competing with their own?
    Heck, I wouldn't even build notepad for Linux if I thought it would cause people to leave my main product.

    • Re:why feed the competition? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tomstdenis ( 446163 ) <tomstdenis@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:18PM (#13731284) Homepage
      Because they could be omnipresent?

      I imagine they wouldn't give away office for Linux so you could target both sides of the camp... that is if they weren't in the business of monopolizing their shit OS.

      Keep in mind that Microsoft was once a SOFTWARE business ... :-(

      Tom
    • I think the real question is, why would they want to build an office suite application that nobody would buy? They're not stupid. I think if there were enough corporations using Linux on the desktop, Microsoft would do more to accomodate those customers.
      • The only reason we are on windows workstations here at the moment is because we don't have linux support for most of stuff we use. We will be moving them to linux early next year because our main application runs alot smoother on linux, at which time we will use open office rather than MS office. Microsoft could have retained us as a MS office customer, but they choose not to support Linux. Oh well. :)

    • Re:why feed the competition? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by JPamplin ( 804322 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:26PM (#13731404) Homepage
      Um, they already make Microsoft Office for Mac OS X, arguably a competing operating system with more users than Linux.

      Unless your definition of "competing operating system" is somehow different from mine.

      So, that's why.

      • Re:why feed the competition? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Catbeller ( 118204 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:44PM (#13731654) Homepage
        I've a longer memory than most here.

        Microsoft extended its contract with Apple to keep Office current on Macs NOT for the unit sales, but because, at the time, they were litigating the monolopy case in court. They needed Apple to stay alive to keep up the pretense that they were engaging an open market without recourse to any monopoly (which was nonsense - they lost). Bill also invested a bunch of cash in Apple at the same time for the same reason: Bill needed Apple alive, not crushed, so that Microsoft could make a case against a finding of monopoly.

        Now that Linus is around, Office's days on the Mac may be numbered. They aren't needed any more. But, I think Bill prefers the devil he knows to the devil which is free and open sourced. He'll keep Apple alive as long as he can, even though he lost the monopoly ruling, because the alternative is all Linux and OpenOffice.

        • Re:why feed the competition? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Reverberant ( 303566 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @01:19PM (#13732046) Homepage
          They needed Apple to stay alive to keep up the pretense that they were engaging an open market without recourse to any monopoly (which was nonsense - they lost). Bill also invested a bunch of cash in Apple at the same time for the same reason

          That may be part of it, but the other part was because Apple caught Microsoft with their hand in the cookie jar [theregister.co.uk] (the settlement was on top of the stock investment).

          Now that Linus is around, Office's days on the Mac may be numbered.

          Keep in mind, Mac Office makes money [macobserver.com] for MS - to drop it just to spite Apple might make a shareholder or two upset.

          He'll keep Apple alive as long as he can, even though he lost the monopoly ruling, because the alternative is all Linux and OpenOffice.

          If I were Mr. Jobs, I would have had this conversation with Mr. Gates or Mr. Baller at some point:

          "Look guys, it's in your interest to keep Mac Office around. You see, because of the dominance of MS Office, the lack of Office for the Mac might result in a drop in Mac sales. If Mac sales drop off enough, Apple could be in serious trouble, and perhaps go out of business. If Apple were to go out of business, my last act as CEO would be to release all (non-3rd-party-licensed) Mac OS X kernel and GUI code under the GPL. I'm betting you really don't want that to happen."

          :)

        • > Now that Linus is around, Office's days on the Mac may be numbered.

          Most PC users who use Office get it with the PC. The PC venders license
          Office for a fraction of the cost. All Mac users who use Office paid full price for it. Even though the numbers are small, the profit is high for Mac Office. Linux users on the other hand are very unlikely to dish out $350-$450 for a copy of Office for Linux.

          jfs
      • Comparing OS X to Linux with respect to MS developing software for them isn't really fair though. OS X is increasing in popularity yes, but in this case it helps MS because, Mac OS users are used to paying for software. Also, Office for Mac is still profitable for them. Despite it's growing popularity however, you don't see many businesses moving to the Mac because it requires investing in completely new, proprietary, and expensive hardware. Linux however is free, and will run happily on just about any

    • Things could have been different (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Clueless Moron ( 548336 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:33PM (#13731492)
      Imagine if Judge Jackson's original ruling had stood. It said that MS had to be split into two wholly independent companies: one for the OS, and another for all applications.

      We would quite possibly have MSOffice (and all sorts of other apps) for Linux today, because the apps division would only care about selling their apps as widely as possible.

      Sigh.

    • Re:why feed the competition? (Score:4, Funny)

      by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:34PM (#13731510) Homepage Journal
      Heck, I wouldn't even build notepad for Linux if I thought it would cause people to leave my main product.

      Maybe not, but apparently they have their own version of vi [tri-bit.com].

    • No need (Score:5, Funny)

      by jdgreen7 ( 524066 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:38PM (#13731555) Homepage
      9 times out of 10, Notepad.exe will run on Wine [sun.com]. :-)

    • Re:why feed the competition? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:43PM (#13731639) Homepage Journal
      Why should Microsoft build applications for an operating system directly competing with their own?

      Because "Office for Linux" probably would have prevented "OpenOffice for Linux" from happening, or at least staved it off for another few years. Honestly, do you think Sun would've put much effort into StarOffice way back when if "Office for Solaris" had existed and been compatible with the Windows version?

      But no, they got short-term greedy and catalyzed the development of what I think is their single biggest threat. Now that OpenOffice has gotten good enough to allow Unix folk to interact with their Windows-using counterparts, those same Windows users are starting to show interest.

      If you migrate 95% of your company from IE/Office to Firefox/OpenOffice, how much incentive is their to stick with Windows? I hope Microsoft is satisfied with the money they've already made, because it seems to me like they're doing everything they can to ruin their future.

  • what a bummer... (Score:5, Funny)

    by xao gypsie ( 641755 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:14PM (#13731225)
    ...I guess I will just have to fork over the cash for OpenOffice

    ...wait a second..

    • Re:what a bummer... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by aristotle-dude ( 626586 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @02:00PM (#13732493)
      Yeah and those developers work for free and don't need or want any donations to keep development going.

      ...wait a second. Maybe you should think about either supporting the project directly or purchasing Star Office to encourage Sun into pouring more money and development time into the Open Office project.

      Open Office is not really "free" even though you are not "forced" to pay anything for it. Supporting those involved would be a way of showing your gratitude for their efforts.

      • Imagine ten people putting in 1 hour each every day on the project. They put in one hour of work, but because they share the end results they get nine hours of "other peoples work" for free. It sounds unfair: get nine hours of work for doing one hour. But it obviously is not.

        That's the payoff. It's always been the payoff, that and whatever can be made from packaged distribution. Donations are a nice icing to the cake, but anyone who uses Linux or Firefox or OpenOffice or Apache in their day to day life
  • You know, now I'm half-tempted to try using WINE (or a windows emulator, which I know WINE is not) to run Office on my Fedora box, just to piss off Bill. That, and I always wanted to know it it would work ^_^
    • Been using crossover for years now. Works great, just a couple of little funky keyboard issues. I actually ssh -X my fedora wine session onto my Sun Workstation. Best of all three worlds.
    • People who don't or can't run Linux for whatever reason could consider ReactOS [reactos.org], which is a Windows clone. Right there on the main page... screenshots of it running OpenOffice.org. ReactOS could end up being a better choice for people who want a "windows" system, running windows software, but don't want to support Microsoft.

      (Disclaimer: I've never tried ReactOS myself. WinXP at work, SuSE 9.1 at home. No windows at home.)
      • I have used reactos, and I can tell you it's still quite a long ways from being ready to use as a power user's day-to-day desktop; forget someone who is migrating from windows.

        They've made some great strides, no doubt about it; but it's still alpha software. My advice is to wait a couple of years.
    • As a response to all my 'fan mail' on this, I am aware of problem with, and alternatives to WINE. I use OO.o on both Linux and Windows, this was only meant as a joke because I'm sure Bill Gates has some sick sort of spidey sense that tells him whenever someone is using a microsoft application on Linux. On top of that, it's like receiving Ghost Rider's penance stare, which burns into his soul each time it happens.

      By now, I hope you all understand that I'm only kidding ^_^

  • More media inaccuracies (Score:5, Informative)

    by operagost ( 62405 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:16PM (#13731254) Homepage Journal
    It would be nice if a mass-media publication would just ONCE publish a 100% accurate article.
    Though developed for Windows, the FAT format has become a common means of storing files on all manner of computers
    FAT was developed for DOS 2.0. I suppose you could say it even existed in 1.0, but I know that filesystem lacked a hierarchy so it may not apply.

  • Royalties (Score:5, Insightful)

    by overshoot ( 39700 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:16PM (#13731258)
    And ZD is still clueless.

    SAMBA doesn't have anything to do with FAT, for one.

    In addition, the US (the only place these patents could apply) doesn't have statutory licensing fees for patents. At most Microsoft could enjoin US users from using the vfat modules, so Red Hat and Novell would stop building them into their kernels.

    Wow.

    IANAL, all that.

    • doesn't have statutory licensing fees for patents

      No statutory license fees but they do have...

      35 U.S.C. 271 defines infringement as "whoever without authority makes, uses, or sells any patented invention, within the United States during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."

      Which allows them to go after them for damages.

    • The FAT patents are big, and not going away (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NatteringNabob ( 829042 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @01:46PM (#13732336)
      Judge Jackson was incredibly perceptive in his judgement in USDOJ vs Microsoft and it is unfortunate that the appeals court chose to ignore him. The problem with FAT is that every single flash card manufacturer implemented FAT as the file system for their cards. They didn't chose it on techincal merit, FAT doesn't have any technical merit. The only reason it was chosen war that FAT is the only file system that is guaranteed to be present in every Microsoft OS. If these patents are allowed to stand, you can forget about taking pictures with your spiffy new 8Mpixel camera and mounting the pictures in your Linux box and you can forget about mounting it as a USB drive too. Unless your camera vendor provides ext2 or some Linux software to read it (fat chance), you are going to have to own a Windows box to get your pictures transfered. The card manufacturers could have come up with their own file system optimized for flash, or use one that was unencumbered like the Berkeley Fast File system, but unless Microsoft bundled support for it, it would be totally pointless, and Microsoft would be just as willing to do that as they are to implement OpenDocument. This is exactly the kind of innovation that never occurred simply because it wasn't in Microsoft's best interest to allow it to occur, and they are going to continue to fight tooth and nail to make sure it doesn't now.

  • The new math.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:17PM (#13731261)
    From the story - "Microsoft is 100 percent focused on Windows: We have invested billions of dollars in it. We have created Office for the Mac"

    Ummmm...how can you be 100 percent focused on Windows and still develop Office for the Mac?

    Maybe he meant "Microsoft is 99 percent focused on Windows". Or, more likely, he meant to say "Microsoft is focused 100 percent against developing Office for Linux."

    • Re:The new math.... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by foolinator ( 611098 )
      You're right.. I was about to post the same comment...

      Yet MS helped develop the Handicap features on linux (indirectly), and they also helped develop mono for linux. They're also the largest supplier of mac software (because of office).

      Yet developing a mainstream application for Linux would mean giving linux credit.. which MS cannot do (yet).

      Give it time, once Linux hits the corporate offices for desktops, and the corporate offices get sick of using crossover office, MS will see a billion bucks and begin d
    • If you didn't know, the Office for Mac is actually in the Entertainment/Or whatever department. It has to compete with the Xbox team to get funding, which we know the Xbox will get most of it going to the Entertainment department. So, its the red headed step child of MS. So their main programmers are 100 percent for Windows and Office for Windows.
    • I believe that was meant figuratively, like saying, "We are totally focused on Windows!" or "We are completely focused on Windows!" The idea is that they are commited to their product, even though they may be working on others too.
    • Maybe he's saying they created an Office for the Mac, but now they're focused 100% on Windows. I think they're really focused 100% on profit and securing (locking in) future revenue.
  • I thought that the headline pertained to the fact that MS files use FAT as their internal organisatin methed, therefore making .doc readers/writers breach the same patent.
  • Linux is their sworn enemy. Mac is their insurance policy when it comes to accusations of being a monopoly. They know that Mac will never take over more than the desktop share they have now... but Linux has a good chance of doing so because Linux is free (as in Freedom) and there are many thousands of developers giving freely of their time to it every day. Mac is still a closed, for-profit outfit (obviously), and hence will never take more market share... unless they drastically reduce their prices and/o
    • Open source is not automatically better than closed source. If Apple released a free version of OS X for intel, do you really think people would care if it is open or not? Sure, there is a good few people who try to use open source wherever possible, but most of the public (and companies) dont really care about open or closed, they care about price and if it does the job. The latter is why MS wont release office for Linux, because currently full compatability with office is one of the last few things stoppi
  • As MSFT's .doc format was their creation and as they have modified it frequently over the years, how is it that OO supports it for opening and saving? Locking down that format would give MSFT good leverage on the word processing market obviously, but how is this legal, was it kosher from the start for others to use the format or did MS "donate" this? Legal loophole? Whatever the answer is, is this also the case for all other proprietary formats?

    • Re:the .doc format (Score:2, Informative)

      by ylikone ( 589264 )
      Microsoft has not given the right for OO to use doc format... and they are NOT using doc format. They are using something has been reversed engineered from doc! It is not fully compatible with Office doc format... it is not the same thing.

    • Re:the .doc format (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DickBreath ( 207180 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:34PM (#13731513) Homepage
      how is it that OO supports it for opening and saving?....how is this legal

      How is it illegal? Twenty years ago everyone would have laughed at the very notion that a file format could be patented or that you would need some kind of permission to merely read it (or write it). Especially to read/write your own data!

      Years of conditioning by Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, and others have gotten us into the default mentality that anything that is not expressly permitted must be forbidden. It took court cases to affirm our right to make cassette tapes of our LP's for our cars. If they tell us that we can't/shouldn't do something (reverse engineer, decompile, play your own DVD, etc.) (e.g. the EULA), then it must be so. If it isn't so, then they'll purchase legislation to make it so.
  • also,
    Yes office for MacOS X
    Yes office for Windows
    Yes office for [any OS with a web browser]

    In one of the Slashdot posts/articles someone said how MS is the new IBM with the "Oh, nothing can happen to us, we are the biggest and the best, Google and Linux are just little barking puppies" attitude.
    We'll just have to wait and see (and use OpenOffice until then, of course!).


  • So if they are focused 100% for Office for Win, how much focus does that leave Mac users for a product that Microsoft already sells? I guess if their engineers give the project 110%, we get that last 10% to make Office work with Exchange servers.

  • 100% really? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Henriok ( 6762 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:21PM (#13731319)
    "Microsoft is 100 percent focused on Windows"

    Guess what Buster, ever heard of Xbox and MacBU? Those departments are most certainly not focused on Windows.

  • Office for Linux (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MaestroSartori ( 146297 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:21PM (#13731328) Homepage
    I can see this not happening for three reasons:

    One is the same reason that it looks like Mac Office lags slightly behind the Windows version, and that is the use of Office to try and persuade people to use/stay with Windows. Much as many people on Slashdot seem to dislike Office, it's certainly a widely liked application for many businesses and individuals (I quite like Outlook and Word, although I hate Excel and loathe Powerpoint), so making the Windows version the best of the range is an easy win to get customers on the Windows bandwagon.

    Secondly, any porting of flagship apps like Office to Linux would seem to be a vindication of it as an alternative platform to Windows, and MS can't be seen to acknowledge it as a potential comptetitor... :D

    The third reason, possibly the most relevant given the weight of opinion on this site, is that the Linux market's known antipathy to Windows for ideological reasons, technical reasons, and economic reasons (many free, Free and open alternatives!) would make the cost of porting far outweigh potential revenues.
    • Mac Office lags slightly behind the Windows version

      ??? I thought that one of the "deals" that El Steve eked out of Bill was that Office would be released for the Mac first, with the Windows version following by a couple of months. Is that deal done (this was a few years back, when MS bought some nominal number of shares of Apple)?
    • Mac and Windows versions of Office are developed on parallel but different tracks, so one isn't really "behind" the other, although they'll have different features at different times. I much, much prefer Office X to its Windows counterpart, if only because those gray superwindows that enclose Windows Office documents drive me absolutely freaking nuts. I don't think any conspiracy theory is required to explain why, when pretty much no one else tries to sell desktop software to Linux users, Microsoft doesn't
    • Like or hate it, had Office been available for Linux natively it would have gone a long way towards Linux adoption. That is probably the best reason MS doesn't want to do it. I still say had AOL adopted Linux a long time ago it also would have helped. Now AOL is going south and Linux is on the up-swing. Dumb move by AOL. Not so dumb for MS but in the long run it may prove to be. If Linux takes 50% of the desktop market share, it would behove MS to create Office for it. However, given that Office is becoming

  • Office what? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by include($dysmas) ( 729935 )

    no MS office, really?... well who in the hell cares? afterall we already have OOo etc.

    If MS Office did get a linux release, where would that leave the development of OOo etc?

    Accept the 80/20 rule (80% of users only use 20% of functionality), and the difference's between them are neglibile, while encouring people to use linux (sometimes without a LART too), it is a very rare occasion when an average home user can not sit down and user OOo with no problem.

    Personally, they can keep it, and as long as they

  • What is this story about? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:22PM (#13731348)
    The summary covers two completely unrelated topics. One is the USPTOs rejection of Microsoft's attempt to extort the digital camera/USB stick makers (which is really what patenting FAT was about). The other story is about how Microsoft Office will never appear on Linux - so what, we don't want it.
    • The summary covers two completely unrelated topics. One is the USPTOs rejection of Microsoft's attempt to extort the digital camera/USB stick makers (which is really what patenting FAT was about). The other story is about how Microsoft Office will never appear on Linux - so what, we don't want it.

      Yes, and most posters did not understand that the important news in this is the rejection of some patent(s) related to FAT(32 only?). FAT (in it's various forms) is a fileformat that is supported on multiple OS

  • What would be their motivation to do this anyhow? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pudusplat ( 574705 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:22PM (#13731353)
    Seriously - The linux market share on business desktops is still miniscule, and companies who would go out of their way (Yes, it's easier to stick with Windows) to use it would be likely candidates for alternatives such as OpenOffice.org. This means that they would be spending time releasing a product for a competing operating system that would likely gain them little to no profits for what gain? Slightly legitimizing their only real threat (however small it is). Does anyone really think they *should* release their suites to Linux? Does anyone on Linux really want it anyhow? I think any amount of market research shows that its simply not an idea worth implementing, let alone even think about.

  • Obviously not 100% clear (Score:5, Funny)

    by poopie ( 35416 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:23PM (#13731362) Journal
    'I thought I had been clear on this already when I said 'No'--we have no plans at this time to build Office on Linux,'
    considering how many times this has come up over the years and how many stories on slashdot have been focused on this exact topic, this is obviously not 100% clear.
    One must conjecture that there is something preventing this from being summarily dispelled...
    [tinfoil hat]like an internal group that maintains a port of Office to Linux and other unix variants?[/tinfoil hat]
    Let's recap our history:

    There is no OSX on Intel

    There is no iTunes phone

    There is no Palm running Windows

    Amiga is making a comeback

  • No Office For Linux, MS Patents Rejected

    Any hypothetical Office for Linux would markedly hurt Microsoft OS sales (No, it would not cause them to completely collapse but it would definetly dent them). So I think Microsoft is about as likely to create MS Office for Linux as the USA is likely to sell F-16 fighters to Iran. I have, however, always wondered why they bothered to create the MS Office suite for Mac?

    • Re:News? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 )
      > I have, however, always wondered why they bothered to create the MS Office suite for Mac?

      It predates the appearance of Windows itself, back when Microsoft was a small company, and not a small nation. Excel was a direct competitor to Lotus 1-2-3, and Word competed with Word Perfect. At the time, Microsoft was actually smaller and less influential than either of those two companies. I remember when Excel use to come with a "Windows Run-Time", which ran from a DOS command line, and gave you (more or

    • Re:News? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dago ( 25724 )
      "So I think Microsoft is about as likely to create MS Office for Linux as the USA is likely to sell F-16 fighters to Iran."

      Well, it almost happened [iiaf.net], it was just a matter of months. They were the only country to got F14 before that.
  • and I thought I had been clear on this already when I said 'No'--we have no plans at this time to build Office on Linux,' Nick McGrath

    I say we keep asking him. Every chance we get.
  • Office for Linux may have been useful and even handy a few years ago, but the alternatives nowadays are just as good. There's no reason to need Office on Linux anymore.
  • "No Office For You!"

  • Standard business practice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:32PM (#13731473)
    I don't blame Bill for this one. Why develop and market a product that is targeted at users who fundamentaly, and religiously, hate your company. It's like selling bibles in bagdad.

  • Hasn't the time limit expired? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ptbarnett ( 159784 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:32PM (#13731479)
    I'm not a patent lawyer, but my employer's patent lawyer recently submitted a patent application on my behalf.

    According to the attorney, a patent application must be submitted within 1 year after the first public disclosure of the invention, which can include:

    • Shipment/release of a product containing the invention.
    • Publication of an article describing the invention.
    • Oral disclosure of the invention (in my case, outside my employer)

    I spent a good portion of my vacation dealing with some of the last minute paperwork, because it happened to coincide with the 1-year deadline.

    So, I don't understand how Microsoft can be attempting to patent FAT now. Unless they started much earlier, or are trying to patent recent modifications to FAT, I don't think there is really anything to fear.

    • Re:Hasn't the time limit expired? (Score:4, Informative)

      by ptbarnett ( 159784 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @01:55PM (#13732445)
      I think it's bad form to follow up to my own posting, but I did a bit more research. The patents in question were already granted, and are now being challenged in response to Microsoft's demand for licenses:

      http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.asp [microsoft.com]

      The patents listed in the above web page:

      5,579,517 [uspto.gov], filed 1995-4-24, granted 1996-11-26.
      5,758,352 [uspto.gov], filed 1996-9-5, granted 1998-5-26.
      6,286,013 [uspto.gov], filed 1997-1-28, granted 2001-9-4.

      All of these patents appear to be related to VFAT, i.e. mapping long filenames and the original 8+3 short filenames into a common name-space. Although the filing dates are different and the title for one is slightly different, the abstract for each appears to be exactly the same.

      I haven't examined the claims in each patent, so I don't know how these patents differ. It might be interesting to determine what is new in the 2nd and 3rd patents, since they were filed as long as 21 months after the 1st one. I wonder what wasn't in the original VFAT implementation? Bug fixes or features?

      But, these patents don't appear to cover the "old" FAT filesystem: they address the later addition of long filenames. Again, IANAL, but I think that someone that confines themselves to the original FAT format (without long filenames) would have no need to license it from Microsoft.

      • I've looked at those in a little detail, and while I'm not an expert I think I'm correct in the following summary:

        1. The first is a patent on the long filename support of Win95 and later versions. It covers the method used for storing the long and short filenames in the same directory and for hiding the long filenames from older versions of DOS. , along with a few simple variations.

        2. The second is a broader patent which just covers the same ideas but breaks them down into a larger number of simpler clai
  • Who the HELL has asked him to create Office for Linux. I thought the whole reason, so many people use Linux is to get away from Microsoft products. So, why is he having to so harshly say no to something no one would want anyway?

  • Nobody expects Microsoft!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by rlp ( 11898 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:35PM (#13731524)
    Nobody expects Microsoft!! Our two weapons are Office and our Windows monopoly. Wait ... three ... our three weapons are Office, our Windows monopoly, and our fanatical devotion to Bill Gates ... no ... amongst our weapons are Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, Office, our Windows monopoly, and our fanatical devotion to Bill Gates. Cardinal Balmer, bring out ... the virtual machine!!

  • You know... (Score:5, Funny)

    by geoff lane ( 93738 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:40PM (#13731597)
    ...what the answer will be but...

    It's fun to make them say the word "Linux" over and over again :-)

  • Focused hocus pocus (Score:4, Funny)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:53PM (#13731759)
    "Microsoft is 100 percent focused on Windows: We have invested billions of dollars in it."
    Okay so you are focused, but your lenses are thick and your field of vision is small. If you have invested billions of dollars in it, why all the spaghetti code in the background after making several document/spreadsheet changes? Why all the security holes? Why does it include clippy the annoying pest?
    For billions in investment, it better be able to do voice recoginition, layout my spreadsheets automatically, and do my laundry.

  • No office for Linux? -- A big blunder for MS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dcavanaugh ( 248349 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:54PM (#13731766) Homepage
    If MS ported Office to Linux, they could take quite a bit of market share away from Open Office -- which would ultimately help them hold down the fort against the OO insurgency in Windows. Instead, they will try to ignore Linux and hope it goes away. It won't. By the time they realize this, OO will become the only serious choice for Linux users. As Linux ramps up on the desktop, people will begin to wonder... "Linux users are getting office software for free. If it works for them, why should I bother paying Microsoft? Oh, they have it for Windows too? I should go try it." Nothing stops people from thinking this way today, but there will be MORE of them doing it in the future.

    When you consider all the companies who resort to offshore outsourcing, it becomes clear that we have an insatiable appetite for IT cost savings and we will try almost ANYTHING to save money. Ditching Microsoft is a new frontier of [relatively] unexplored savings opportunities. If MS doesn't hurry up and carve out a niche in the Linux world, they will unintentionally accellerate the maturity of OO as a viable replacment for MS Office. Of the two "monopoly" products, the Office market is more profitable and more sustainable than the Windows OS.

    • Re:No office for Linux? -- A big blunder for MS (Score:4, Informative)

      by Sigma 7 ( 266129 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @01:41PM (#13732281)
      If MS ported Office to Linux,


      Try "re-written".

      Linux and Windows are completely two different software archetectures - Linux is focused around client-server connections using terminals (some of which are incapable of instantly distinguishing ESC from some other keypress without looking ahead) and has "perfected" that system. On the other hand, Windows is focused on a local user interface and has "perfected" that system - you can do almost anything in Windows just by using the base API.

      Consider trying to write a truly portable C program - the advice given on news:comp.lang.c [comp.lang.c] is to stick with the ANSI standard - which doesn't support any GUIs, mouse interfaces, networking, multi-threading or any other stuff that would make a modern operating system. Because of this, both MS, and POSIX either are or have different extensions to the operating system. Of these two, MS attempts to implement everything in their windowing system (including delay systems, timers, GDI, clipboard, and other stuff.), and POSIX extended networking, logon and file-system features.

      Both systems are not complete at one time - Windows 3.0 didn't have builtin TCP/IP support, and required installation of a special package that interfaced with a modem, and used IPC to allow other applications to use the internet. On the other hand, POSIX was extended by XWindows and other stuff.

      Right now, MS has merged various OS extensions into the main product (e.g. external WinSocks were replaced by an MS implementation.) However, I haven't seen much change in the basic Linux or POSIX API, aside from third party extensions (such as SDL.)
    • If MS ported Office to Linux, they could take quite a bit of market share away from Open Office

      Really? What existing OpenOffice/Linux users do you see that would switch to MS Office? I see close to none. OpenOffice has been getting far more migration than Linux, mostly because it's easier to change an app than the platform and to most it would be a prerequisite for an eventual move to Linux. Those already on Linux on the desktop are mostly deeply invested in OSS or otherwise in direct competition with Micro
    • If MS ported Office to Linux, they could take quite a bit of market share away from Open Office

      If MS ported Office to Linux it would lend credibility to the operating system. THAT would be worse than death for Microsoft.

      The illusion that there is no legitimacy to the Linux operating system must be maintained by them. Office on Linux would torpedo that campaign.

  • Fat(32) is useful in linux (Score:4, Informative)

    by bigtrouble77 ( 715075 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @12:58PM (#13731818)
    There's only one reason I use fat32, and that's to format my 300gb ub2 hd. If I want cross compatibility between windows and linux, fat32 is the only way to do that. If I format to NTFS I cannot write to the drive and all my files are labeled read-only (which is really annoying when you have to copy over many files). If I format to Ext2, Ext3, microsoft will not read those partitions.

    Interesting thing is that micrsoft PURPOSELY BREAKS FAT32 in windows!!! I forget the exact size, but you can only format a fat32 partition up to 30gb in windows. Microsoft really wants you using their proprietary ntfs file system. As a result I have to format fat32 from linux to utilize the whole capacity of the drive.

    This is simply another case of microsoft trying to force proprietary software onto people that want nothing to do with their product.

  • I'm confused (Score:3, Interesting)

    by KingVance ( 815011 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @01:22PM (#13732084)
    Someone help this poor ole country boy understand something.

    Why would anybody in the open source community give two shits about putting Office on linux when theres such a push by the open source community to extend the office apps on windows?

    Granted, I did not RTFA, but who is the person who is asking Ballmer to make Office for linux? Does that just not fly in the face of the entire mindset of the open source movement?

  • What a shame (Score:3)

    by Hosiah ( 849792 ) on Thursday October 06, 2005 @02:57PM (#13733071)
    Too bad MS didn't get their patent for FAT. I was looking forward to stripping all the FAT-supporting code from my kernel. And forever more, instead of Linux developers having to cater to that disease of the hard drive that is a FAT file, we could just say, "Sorry, you're S.O.L. that's what you get for trusting your data to a proprietary system." I'm in shock anyway, that the US patent office turned MS down - what, did Gates' latest campaign contribution check bounce? In any case, MS is better off without it.

    As for the office suite - We have Google on our side in this battle. Go, Google, go!

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close