Yesterday I realized a number of famous Microsoft quotes against Free Software were not misinformed or false, they were just misleading or missing enough context to be fully understood.

What they said:

[GNU/]Linux is a cancer -- Steve Ballmer, 2001

What it really meant:

This GNU thing is growing out of control. It's eating us alive, forcing us to spend more and more resources to survive, and the more we do it, the more it grows.

What they said:

The GNU General Public License is viral -- Microsoft Mobile Internet Toolkit license, 2001

What it really meant:

These people are using our own resources (the hobbyist PCs, the Internet) to reproduce and grow. They wouldn't reproduce or survive without these resources. But since there's no medicine to stop them, we have to cross our fingers and hope the virus will complete its cycle and go away, and we're still alive by then.

What they said:

Microsoft won't Sue [GNU/]Linux Users -- Bill Hilf and Horacio Gutierrez, May 2007

What it really meant:

We don't really have any relevant patents to stop Free Software, so we're just going to hope our yearly Be Very Afraid Tour and hope it works. If it comes to the worst, we'll force the whole software industry to a standstill.

What they said:

Microsoft is not a party to the GPLv3 license -- Microsoft, July 2007

What it really meant:

At this time, Novell still hasn't conveyed any [[GPLv3 software under the agreement|http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070705205728953 ]] we signed with them. And then, since we don't have any applicable patents, the patent provisions in the GPLv3 couldn't do more than hurt our FUD campaign.

What they said:

Microsoft remains committed to working with the open source software community to help improve interoperability for customers working in mixed source environments and deliver IP assurance. -- Microsoft, July 2007

What it really meant:

We're going to keep on playing dirty to ?get OOXML approved by ISO|, twisting arms such that governments remain using our own proprietary standards, and trying to convince the audience ODF is a bad standard by hiring third parties to implement poor converters. Because, if customers who use our products can't interoperate with others', that's bad (for us), right? Oh, and we're still open to anyone who'd like to share part of their profits with us because of our patent FUD campaign.

Clever they are. But liars?

So blong...