On Monday, Microsoft released a statement (or a press release? Or something?) claiming that Linux -- the Unix-derived open-source operating system developed by Linus Torvalds and countless others around the world -- infringes on 235 patents held by Microsoft. The IT world, which consists largely of Linux devotees, scoffed at Microsoft's claims. Torvalds, in an interview with Information Week, said that Microsoft's assertions don't hold water. Why? Because Microsoft chose the Court of Public Opinion as the location for this battle, not a court of law. It's because, says Torvalds, "They'd have to name the patents then, and they're probably happier with the FUD than with any lawsuit." FUD stands for "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" and is a marketing technique designed to make a consumer doubt the competition's product. Here, Microsoft's claims of patent infringement are designed to scare away potential Linux users, who might have considered using Linux as a viable, production operating system but will now be so scared by the prospect of patent infringement lawsuits that they'll turn tail and run, ostensibly to Microsoft.

Patent infringement suits are about three things: (1) taking down the competition, (2) setting an example for other companies, and (3) maybe making some scratch in the process. SCO, the patent-holding company that currently owns the rights to Unix (which was actually invented by AT&T/Bell Labs in 1970), tried this tactic with Linux, insisting that Linux contained code drawn from Unix. SCO wanted royalties. This was how they financed themselves: selling "licenses" to software they owned and suing companies that refused to buy these licenses. SCO had been successful in getting smaller companies to settle out-of-court, but then it took on more that it could handle: IBM. IBM used Linux extensively and even developed its own proprietary Linux distributions. Rather than settle out-of-court, IBM was willing to go all the way with SCO. SCO was unable to actually prove that Linux contained Unix code and thus was forced to drop the suit.

Microsoft's tactic is different. Rather than make money from Linux, it would like to destroy Linux. In a May 2007 survey, Netcraft reported that 56% of web servers ran Apache, a web server program that runs on Linux. (It also runs on Windows, but a lot less well.) Apache's next-biggest competitor was Microsoft, whose IIS program commanded only 31.49% of the web server market. Why does Microsoft lose market share to Linux? A couple of reasons:

1. Price. Linux distributions -- even enterprise-level ones that cost money -- don't cost as much as Windows Server. Not factoring in crazy volume discounts, Windows Server 2003 R2 costs $1,000 in its "standard" version. Red Hat Linux, by contrast, costs $349. Several countries -- that's countries are moving to adopt Linux as the government standard because it's cheaper.
2. Customization. Linux is infinitely customizable because users have access to make crazy modifications if they want. Microsoft is completely closed off. No one is allowed access to the source code. Microsoft has said that Windows Vista Server's code will be a "black box" that no one will ever have access to. Ostensibly, this makes it less hackable. Except that it doesn't.
3. IT people don't need colors. Part of the reason Microsoft proliferates in the desktop environment is its ease of use. Linux is a little harder to use, but IT folks don't care; they can adapt to anything, and if it's cheaper, all the better.
4. Open standards. Linux uses open-source standards, whereas all of Microsoft's stuff is closed-source. This means that one day, Microsoft can decide to withhold your information from you until you cough up some more money, because only Microsoft has the keys to what it's locked you out of.

Torvalds is right: this claim is all about FUD. To successfully win a patent case, Microsoft would have to go up against at least IBM. SCO would probably cave immediately, and Novell caved last year. Also, when you demand licensing fees, who do you demand them from? Linux isn't just one operating system; it's multiple versions written by thousands of people around the world. To paraphrase Henry Kissinger, who do you call when you want to call Linux?