Editing Criticism of Microsoft (section)

== Copyright enforcement ==
When Microsoft discovered that its first product, [[Altair BASIC]], was subject to widespread [[Copyright infringement of software|unauthorized copying]], Microsoft founder [[Bill Gates]] wrote an [[Open Letter to Hobbyists]] that openly accused many hobbyists of stealing software. Gates' letter provoked many responses, with some hobbyists objecting to the broad accusation, and others supporting the principle of compensation.<ref>{{cite journal|first=Bill |last=Gates |date=April 1976 |title=A Second and Final Letter |journal=Computer Notes |url=http://startup.nmnaturalhistory.org/gallery/computernotes.php |access-date=March 23, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120323162008/http://startup.nmnaturalhistory.org/gallery/computernotes.php |archive-date=March 23, 2012 }}</ref>
This disagreement over whether software should be proprietary continues into the present day under the banner of the [[free software]] movement, with Microsoft characterizing free software released under the terms of the GPL as being "potentially viral"<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/25/open_source_terror_stalks_microsofts/|title=Open source terror stalks Microsoft's lawyers|website=[[The Register]]|access-date=August 10, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121003115133/http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/25/open_source_terror_stalks_microsofts/|archive-date=October 3, 2012|url-status=live}}</ref> and the [[GNU General Public License]] itself as a "[[viral license]]" which "infects" proprietary software and forces its developer to have to release proprietary source to the public.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.linuxinsider.com/story/34292.html|title=The EULA, the GPL and the Wisdom of Fortune Cookies|last=Albert|first=Phil|date=June 8, 2004|website=LinuxInsider|access-date=May 17, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190517062926/https://www.linuxinsider.com/story/34292.html|archive-date=May 17, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref>

The [[Halloween documents]], internal Microsoft memos which were leaked to the open source community beginning in 1998, indicate that some Microsoft employees perceive [[free software|"open source" software]] — in particular, [[Linux]] — as a growing long-term threat to Microsoft's position in the software industry. The Halloween documents acknowledged that parts of Linux are superior to the versions of Microsoft Windows available at the time, and outlined a strategy of "de-commoditize[ing] protocols & applications."<ref name="ZDExecExtinguish"/><ref name="GroklawAlepin"/><ref name="DobbsExtinguish"/><ref name="IWKerberos"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/|title=Halloween Document 8|last=Raymond|first=Eric S.|website=catb.org|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171006165712/http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/|archive-date=October 6, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref>
Microsoft stated in its 2006 Annual Report that it was a defendant in at least 35 patent infringement lawsuits.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.microsoft.com/msft/reports/ar06/staticversion/10k_fr_not_16.html|title=MSFT Annual Report 2006|website=[[Microsoft]]|access-date=January 30, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090214100642/http://www.microsoft.com/msft/reports/ar06/staticversion/10k_fr_not_16.html|archive-date=February 14, 2009|url-status=dead}}</ref> The company's litigation expenses for April 2004 through March 2007 exceed $4.3&nbsp;billion: over $4 billion in payouts, plus $300 million in legal fees.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/patent-tax.html|title=Windows vs. Linux: The Patent Tax|date=April 16, 2007|access-date=May 17, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190715173101/http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/patent-tax.html|archive-date=July 15, 2019|url-status=live}}</ref>

Another concern of critics is that Microsoft may be using the distribution of [[shared source|shared source software]] to harvest names of developers who have been exposed to Microsoft code, as some believe that these developers could someday be the target of lawsuits if they were ever to participate in the development of competing products. This issue is addressed in published papers from several organizations including the [[American Bar Association]] and the [[Open Source Initiative]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/spring2004/course_materials/02_webbink.pdf|title=Open Source Software – A Legal Framework|access-date=June 23, 2009|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090316131744/http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/spring2004/course_materials/02_webbink.pdf|archive-date=March 16, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/shared_source.php|title=Shared Source: A Dangerous Virus|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060924134603/http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/shared_source.php|archive-date=September 24, 2006}}</ref>

Starting in the 1990s, Microsoft was accused of maintaining "hidden" or "secret" APIs: interfaces to its operating system software that it deliberately keeps undocumented to gain a competitive advantage in its application software products.<ref>{{cite journal
 |author=Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union 
 |date=January 25, 2005 |title=Competitive Processes, Anticompetitive Practices and Consumer Harm in the Software Industry 
 |url=http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/CFA_tunney_comments_20020125.pdf 
 |access-date=April 13, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080625000937/http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/CFA_tunney_comments_20020125.pdf 
 |archive-date=June 25, 2008 |url-status=dead 
}} (public comment on ''US v. Microsoft'' under the [[Tunney Act]])</ref>
Microsoft employees have consistently denied this;<ref>{{cite book
 |last         = Henderson
 |first        = Ken
 |year         = 2003
 |title        = The Guru's Guide to SQL Server Architecture and Internals
 |publisher    = Addison-Wesley
 |url          = http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa175393(SQL.80).asp
 |archive-url  = http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20100505194205/http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa175393(SQL.80).asp
 |url-status   = dead
 |archive-date = May 5, 2010
|access-date   = November 21, 2006
|isbn         = 0-201-70047-6
 |quote        = Contrary to what some people believed at the time, SQL Server 6.5 made no use of hidden APIs to reach the scalability levels it achieved.
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|last=Pratley
|first=Chris
|date=April 28, 2004
|title=Word Myths and Feedback
|work=Chris Pratley's OneNote Blog
|url=http://blogs.msdn.com/chris_pratley/archive/2004/04/28/122004.aspx
|access-date=November 21, 2006
|quote=I also detected another old saw about hidden advantages or undocumented APIs that somehow made Word better than competing apps. The reality on this is so counter to the conspiracy it is astounding. The Office team barely talks to the Windows team.
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061217201721/http://blogs.msdn.com/Chris_Pratley/archive/2004/04/28/122004.aspx
|archive-date=December 17, 2006
|url-status=live
}}</ref>
they claim that application developers inside and outside Microsoft routinely reverse-engineered DOS and 16-bit versions of Windows without any inside help, creating legacy support problems that far exceeded any alleged benefit to Microsoft.<ref name="bozoslivehere">{{cite web|first=Raymond|last=Chen|title=What about BOZOSLIVEHERE and TABTHETEXTOUTFORWIMPS?|work=The Old New Thing|url=https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20031015-00/?p=42163|access-date=September 18, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100316193530/http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2003/10/15/55296.aspx|archive-date=March 16, 2010|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|first=Joel|last=Spolsky|title=How Microsoft Lost the API War|date=June 13, 2004|url=http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html|access-date=June 1, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090426050037/http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html|archive-date=April 26, 2009|url-status=live}}</ref>
In response to court orders, Microsoft has published interfaces between components of its operating system software, including components like [[Internet Explorer]], [[Active Directory]], and [[Windows Media]] that sell as part of Windows but compete with application software.

On October 10, 2018, Microsoft joined the [[Open Invention Network]] community despite holding more than 60,000 patents.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/10/microsoft_open_invention_network/|title=Microsoft has signed up to the Open Invention Network. We repeat. Microsoft has signed up to the OIN|last=Speed|first=Richard|date=October 10, 2018|website=[[The Register]]|access-date=May 17, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181011123124/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/10/microsoft_open_invention_network/|archive-date=October 11, 2018|url-status=live}}</ref>