Comments on: What’s the Problem? On Microsoft, Mono and Patents

By: James Governor's MonkChips

James Governor's MonkChips — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 13:09:03 +0000

Why Microsoft Office XML could be a boon for MONO

If Microsoft wants to use ECMA standardisation as an argument for openstandardness (like open handedness, geddit), then it may have to cut the chilling effects that have so far held back Mono in production environments. The idea is put forward in…

By: sogrady

sogrady — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 13:17:54 +0000

1. i think what's important to Microsoft is the platform.
2. given that focus, developers are the most critical constituency to the firm.
3. given that many developers don't want to design to Microsoft only, open platforms are important.
4. now we have a conflict b/twn #1 and #3.
5. but what if there existed a cross-platform instantiation of MS technologies that was moderately compatible, but that MS could compete with very effectively? then they'd get 1, 2, and 3

By: Peter da Silva

Peter da Silva — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 13:11:21 +0000

Yeh, but what's the bit that's important to Microsoft? Would donating the patents on the runtime in some irrevocable fashion actually promote the use of the bit they *do* care about… more than just saying "we promise we won't use the patent stick" would?

That's the real question you have to answer, before you can answer this one: "The real question in my mind, the important question, is not how or when Microsoft might sue Mono users, but why?"

By: sogrady

sogrady — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:31:53 +0000

well, i think what you're getting at is that Mono != .NET, which is a point well made and taken. the applications in question typically leverage GTK-Sharp (GTK bindings for C#), which while principally employed on Linux do have cross-platform instantiations (e.g. my use of GAIM on Windows). QT-Sharp is another alternative.

but yes, binding to cross-platform alternatives above the CLR does guarantee better deployability (if that's a word .

the question that's most important to me, however, isn't the upper level bindings, but the language/runtime of choice.

By: Peter da Silva

Peter da Silva — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:04:44 +0000

"some of the more useful Linux desktop applications that i use every day have been built in Mono despite such worries, principally b/c the developers love the productivity."

Not just built in Mono… but built in Mono to Microsoft's APIs? As I understand it, you get a better chance of avoiding the Microsoft "Red Queen's Race" and get a more "native" application by using bindings for native X11 toolkits from Mono. This is one of the points I have seen brought up again and again while researching patents and Mono… it's kind of like the flipside of Microsoft's games with Java, right?

By: sogrady

sogrady — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:47:30 +0000

"Microsoft doesn't just want open source developers using Mono or .NET, they want them writing to Microsoft's APIs using Mono or .NET,"

agreed.

"because they want people writing code that's not just open source, but code that's open source and runs well on Windows."

mostly agreed.

"The developers who are likely to be worried about patents are also going to be worried about Microsoft making Mono chase an ever-evolving API, and so are more likely to write to non-Microsoft APIs."

this has not been born out in my experience; some of the more useful Linux desktop applications that i use every day have been built in Mono despite such worries, principally b/c the developers love the productivity.

"There's no win for Microsoft there, so what do they get from giving up their patent stick?"

they gain a quasi-open source story by doing nothing. say they're dealing with governments abroad that mandate open-source; there's either no play for Microsoft there, or a Mono play which keeps those developers – and applications – Microsoft compatible longer term.

By: Peter da Silva

Peter da Silva — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 09:51:58 +0000

Microsoft doesn't just want open source developers using Mono or .NET, they want them writing to Microsoft's APIs using Mono or .NET, rather than (say) writing to Gtk or Qt using Mono, because they want people writing code that's not just open source, but code that's open source and runs well on Windows.

The developers who are likely to be worried about patents are also going to be worried about Microsoft making Mono chase an ever-evolving API, and so are more likely to write to non-Microsoft APIs. There's no win for Microsoft there, so what do they get from giving up their patent stick?

By: sogrady

sogrady — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:42:16 +0000

well, i'm pretty sure there's little if any bias towards C# from MS, if that's what you're asking. it is, at the core, its answer to Java.

but no, it certainly goes beyond simple IP issues; there are political implications that go up and down MS, and there's the organizational discomfort with open source to factor in as well.

By: Danno

Danno — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:18:22 +0000

Are you sure it's just the Patent worries, sogrady?

I think there's a fair amount of Redmond Bias against C# and .NET just because of where they come. I think it's silly because C# is like my new favorite compiled language and .NET makes Windows programming absolute cake.

But are you sure it's just Intellectual Property issues?