Personally, I vote for the US patent system as more popular. Microsoft is a competitive and innovative company, but it is small compared to the overall technology sector. In contrast, the patent system reaches to every corner of the technology industries, benefitting new market entrants, small and specialized firms, as well as large enterprises. The patent system is more important than any single company.

Apparently, Matthew Szulik, the head of Red Hat, agrees with me that the patent system is more popular than Microsoft- or at least Szulik hopes to make friends with those who do. An article on CNet reports on Szulik's recent comments.

[Szulik] stopped short of calling for their [software patents] abolition, as have some of his colleagues in the free and open-source software movement. Instead, he urged reform of the patent process.

Szulik took pains in his speech to argue that open-source programmers aren't running roughshod over others' patents. "I've had discussions with most luminaries of the open-source industry. They have always been respectful of intellectual property, of originality and invention," Szulik said.

Is Szulik indecisive about patents? Of course not- but he knows who likes patents more than they like Microsoft: FOSS' corporate backers, patent holding firms like IBM. These firms would like the fact that Red Hat is not taking broad aim at the patent system in its public tussle with Microsoft. IBM and other major Microsoft rivals that boast proprietary and FOSS business models may appreciate Red Hat's softer approach to patents so much that they'll become less worried on how Microsoft fares in its current patent licensing initiative. Heck, they might even chip-in to fight against Microsoft knowing that its about the company and not the patent system.

To many firms in the technolog industries, injury to Microsoft would not hurt them nor their innovation efforts, but injury to the patent system would.