Two points struck me from this story about Microsoft's recent open letter about open source violations of its patents.

First, there's "...Microsoft's business is very much, maybe all, about legal contracts." I find this a fascinating comment, because I can't imagine what business in a free market isn't about legal contracts. Every legitimate transaction in a free society is based upon the notion of at least an implied contract between the parties. Otherwise, there would be no way to seek redress in the courts when one side is in breach.

Next is, "The contractual approach underlines a fundamental philosophical attitude about ownership: If I create it, it's mine." I struggle to imagine another attitude about ownership. Could it be, "If I don't create it, it's mine"? No, of course not. Or, "If I create it, it's not mine"? Hardly, at least in a rational society. "It doesn't matter whether or not I create it, it's still mine"? Ditto.

The issue of Microsoft's approach to combatting open source software is much more complex, and deserves its own rational treatment. Perhaps such a treatment will show up on this blog. But, the concept of "ownership" is definitely central, and these two statements are fascinating mainly in how they bring into question concepts of business and ownership that I would have imagined were self-evident.

Apparently, I was wrong.