Slashdot Mirror

Not an accord.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091007105147454#comments

Ah, some actual points one can respond to. That uncommented link to the top of a giant chatlog... sorry tl, dr.

I suspect being able to run Windows in Bootcamp and Fusion was a major factor in Apple's switching to Intel, yes? Now only Apple computers can legally run both operating systems. And you've found some people chatting about that in IRC... OK...?

And someone griping in IRC that Miguel's article got posted while groklaw's extensive treatment on the same issue was passed over... Actually that was rather informative. Hardly makes them a loon, no?

Well, keep the links coming. Right now you two look like the loons, but I am still prepared to be enlightened. I don't see anything loony at all in what I actually cited, and apparently neither do you, or I'm sure you would have pointed it out. But with your ad hominem attacks, the beauty is that you don't have to - you just have to find something, anything vaguely embarrassing said by anyone associated with the site, and you've "scored" your "point." Carry on, gentlemen (and/or ladies).

Just from your snippets, a couple of phrases stand out as being dangerously subject to interpretation: to the extent it conforms to one of the Covered Specifications, and is compliant and required elements that are described in detail. Seems to me this means any portions of software which accompany the required elements are subject to claims, at Microsoft's whim. Where does your project stray too far from the covered details into one of Microsoft's patents which is related to but not in the Covered Specs? Better open your wallet and ask your attorney.

Well crap, PJ has already covered this in 2 escape hatches, and said it much better than I.

If Icaza has more "credibility" , please explain his support & enthusiasm for OOXML versus ODF ?
( Note, OOXML was railroaded through the standards organizations via bribery, extortion, and political pressure from many separate countries branch of Microsoft "Supporters" )
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20051216153153504

Honestly, this is just about positioning in the marketplace, reputation, marketing and PR.

Take my own beliefs out of it. Microsoft's behavior towards free software has been flagrantly execrable for a number of years. This is a marketplace, not a therapy session. You may have a powerful and inexplicable optimism and capacity for forgiveness, but you are in a very tiny minority. Most of us simply want nothing to do with this company or its products, and we are going with their competitors, both free and commercial. They should be concerned over their reputation and competing for their dinner like everyone else. That would be the market working.

It is as if your sister was advocating public transit and fuel efficiency policies, and Ford's CEO was trying to have her framed, and prosecuted, for stealing his SUV. This is exactly where every user of free software finds him or herself. Would you then be talking about how great Ford's latest car is for driving to the train station and "trying to change minds from within the system?" Or you will you be looking for the courts for redress and, when you must needs drive, buying Hondas? What do you really expect us to do?

If you would like more background on MS and Miguel's behavior, groklaw has a long, detailed summary.

Fanboys come for free.

I can't claim to know exactly how Novell and Microsoft have structured their arrangement, but something tells me you should have been there to tell MS this from the beginning; it probably would have saved them some dollars.

Let me suggest an article from Groklaw if you would like some more background on MS's PR campaign and Miguel's role in it.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090927151401988

Here is an article that goes in-depth about the entire situation

"...a poorly crafted governance structure that concentrates authority at the top and leaves little power to others who might join the foundation."

Doesn't look like it captures the OSS development spirit, to me...

The article is well-thought and well written. Though Andy uses longer, politer phrases to beat around the bush, M$ Code Pox, is a scam and misrepresentation. Even though we're not surprised by that behavior from M$ and its minions, we shouldn't put up with it. After all, ten years ago tech people laughed at M$, M$ products, M$ users and M$ boosters. however, they did nothing to stop the spread and now look at the big cleanup job before us.

There are just too many barriers to it ever becoming credible. Look at any of the required changes Andy mentions. This one in particular stands out:

"Provide that no company and its affiliates (including Microsoft) can have more than one representative on the Board of Directors or Board of Advisors."

No way that one can be overcome. M$ has long been using it's tactic of panel stacking to carry out its jihad.

M$ representatives include those by proxy, such as those from sock-puppets and political action groups like Black Dork Software, Novell and others.

Then you have all the activists M$ has placed inside other companies. Juniper Networks, NComputing, Yahoo (especially via the board), Xensource are now saddled with M$ moles.
That is just a sample, and each of those companies turned and started to toe the M$ party line after taking on one or more moles.

Now, you may ask, how is all this getting financed and who is underwriting it? The answer: each and every bastard who in any way is helping build or maintain M$ marketshare, that's who.

Not that I'm disagreeing with you or anything, but the sock-puppet argument could be easily made for Google and 'sort of' Apple.

"Then you have all the activists Open Source has placed inside other companies. Google, Apple, yadda yadda are now saddled with Open Source moles. That is just a sample, and each of the those companes turned and started to toe the Open Source party line after taking on one or more moles."

Your next argument could just has easily have been:
"Now, you may ask, how is all this getting finaced and who is underwriting it? The answer: each and every bastard who buys a Microsoft product, or a product that runs on a Microsoft platform, that's who."

The reason people buy MS products has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory. MS makes good products. You have to admit that Office is a pretty amazing application, and I know first hand that SharePoint has been a godsend to many organizations.

"...a poorly crafted governance structure that concentrates authority at the top and leaves little power to others who might join the foundation." Doesn't look like it captures the OSS development spirit, to me...

The article is well-thought and well written. Though Andy uses longer, politer phrases to beat around the bush, M$ Code Pox, is a scam and misrepresentation. Even though we're not surprised by that behavior from M$ and its minions, we shouldn't put up with it. After all, ten years ago tech people laughed at M$, M$ products, M$ users and M$ boosters. however, they did nothing to stop the spread and now look at the big cleanup job before us.

There are just too many barriers to it ever becoming credible. Look at any of the required changes Andy mentions. This one in particular stands out:

"Provide that no company and its affiliates (including Microsoft) can have more than one representative on the Board of Directors or Board of Advisors."

No way that one can be overcome. M$ has long been using it's tactic of panel stacking to carry out its jihad. M$ representatives include those by proxy, such as those from sock-puppets and political action groups like Black Dork Software, Novell and others.

Then you have all the activists M$ has placed inside other companies. Juniper Networks, NComputing, Yahoo (especially via the board), Xensource are now saddled with M$ moles. That is just a sample, and each of those companies turned and started to toe the M$ party line after taking on one or more moles.

Now, you may ask, how is all this getting financed and who is underwriting it? The answer: each and every bastard who in any way is helping build or maintain M$ marketshare, that's who.

A site address has to be highlighted, copied and pasted into an address bar in order for the site to be navigated to. A hyperlinked need only be clicked. Once.

It's obvious to anyone that legally, the hyperlink is no more than text and citation rolled into one entity. But socially and ergonomically, the hyperlink is an invention on par with putting spaces between words and the decimal system. Sure, you could emulate it with older techniques, but you could never replace it.

The people who bring these cases don't care about legalities. They care about just how easy these links, and the internet in general, make it for other people to access material that they don't want anybody seeing, or doing anything they don't want them to do. The issue for the legal beligerants here is not the legality, but the social and cultural effect of me being able to write the church of Scientology believes in an ancient intergalactic emperor called Xenu.

Me writing those words is one thing. Giving a like to a website is another. But merging the together, offing a statement and a place where more can be read is what they detest. It breaks completely the old model they preferred, where media was one way, from distributors to people, and that most information was hard to find and harder to get to. The hyperlink and the internet have the ability to make information equally accessible, anywhere any-time, in a piece of text. What the people bring these case want is to take awy the power of the hyperlink, to try and make it conform to the old rules of distributors liability and one way media. They want to put the genies back in the bottle.

The media and the legal profession hates the hyperlink. The irreverence and convenience with which it provides and uncovers information is in their eyes a blasphemy towards the intricate, esoteric bureaucracy from which they derive their power. When people like Pamela Jones can discuss in a popular way complex laws, suits and legalities using hyperlinked blog posts, this raises questions of why we should defer so much to distributors and legal customs.

These cases are not so much legal battles, as they are social ones.

UDF[...]Windows is the problem.
That was the conclusion Richard Rasker came to.

And Google didn't show up any useful pages either
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070422083715451
Cached/highlighted version: http://tinyurl.com/WindozeSucksAtUDF

gewg_

What is worse, some people can have temper tantrums, promote insance conspiracy theories, call others who disagree with them corrupt, brainwashed cowards, and get modded up. Uncivilized discussion should never be tolerated in a civilized world. When I go crazy, I expect to be modded down. I hope I never write anything as hypocritical as the parent. I also have mode points, almost always, and my karma is high. However, as the faq says, karma is not dick or teat size. Abusing the karma, or treating it as something real, is pretty pathetic. Saying the no one can hurt you because your karma is so high is not dissimilar to a person who goes on a murder spree because they feel they cannot be caught.

To the matter at hand, no one knows why MS is all of the sudden being so nice, but there is evidence it is not completely benign. They probably have violated GPL and similar licenses in the past, and some of the donations may have been settlements for those illegal activities. The courts are pretty convinced that MS destroyed the i4i bussiness, and it is only the massive number of MS lawyers that keep MS Word on the market. MS is not apologetic about this piracy, and claim that since the business is already destroyed, why should there be any damages? Then there is the matter of the patents that MS tried to sell on the idea that the price could be recouped by suing OSS providers. In all, there is no evidence that the MS tactics of sneak attacks and massive budgets for lawyers has changed.

It is easy for the young people to just use the OSS without realizing that it is a right that many had to work for. MS helped in this fight, by giving software away, but then kind of lost the faith by writing whiny letter, not unlike the parent, and randomly asserting copyrights as it needed extra cash. But know the kids have OSS, and are willing to take it for granted. Just like women who can now work, vote, and wear pants. Or non-whites who have equal rights and justice. Or kids who get a minimum wage and have some assurance of actually receiving the money.

Link

Note that MS tried to keep the auction secret, but apparently someone within AST clued OIN in as to what was happening.

Even though AST claims they are not into litigation, there be demons within.

Codeplex will be no different.

Did you hear the news? Buy a copy of Windows7, and get a discount on new designer sheep clothing.

Everything Microsoft does is evil. Everything is an attack on the GPL. Read the "they're out to destroy the GPL!!!! OMG!!!" tin-foil hattery here:

But that's not what it's really about, in my view. What it's about now, stage front and center, is what I told you I suspected the California litigation was really about: it's about first sale. This is, then, I believe, a legal effort to destroy the GPL. This is the second such effort. SCO was the first. Somebody really, really wants to destroy the GPL

Good God. Next you know, PJ's going to be digging into the troof of Obama's birth certificate.

Speculation is that Microsoft only invited non practicing entities (aka "patent trolls") to this auction. It is very possible that the intent was to sell the patents to a company that could wield them against Linux companies without fear of retribution, but AST managed to step in and get the highest bid on them, and then turned around and sold them to the OIN. This is a subversive plan by MS that backfired.

• Windows product key
• PC manufacturer
• Operating System version
• PID/SID
• BIOS information (make, version, date)
• BIOS MD5 Checksum
• User locale (language setting for displaying Windows)
• System locale (language version of the operating system)
• Office product key (if validating Office)
• Hard drive serial number

It may be a tad bit disturbing to have all that information being broadcast, but some of it makes sense. Windows Activation is tied to a computer and its hardware, and what WGA is supposed to do is verify that the activation is legit, they'd (presumably) need to broadcast the same information to the WGA servers to verify that activation (since we all know activation can be faked/bypassed).

Microsoft also needs to create a disincentive for people who pirate their software. WGA, besides nagging the user that they have an illegal copy, also prevents optional and recommended updates from being installed, prevents Office users from downloading templates, and prevents the download of certain products/services that would be free to paying customers.

So why is "phoning home" okay? Why not do it once and be done with it? Every day crackers find ways to get around Windows' copy protection. As a developer, Microsoft needs to stay ahead of that and tailor their systems to counter-act innovation on the crackers' part. The opposite is also true: falsely-flagged copies need to be unflagged, or customers will suffer due to them being marked as a false positive. Either way, Microsoft has not kept this a secret, and even promised to reduce checking to once every two weeks (and that was way back in 2006).

I know a lot (probably most) of you guys on here will disagree with me, but I see this as a necessary evil that Microsoft has to perform, and if I were in their shoes, I'd go about it similarly (perhaps be a bit less intrusive). The fact of the matter is, WGA only negatively affects people who either pirated software, or were the victims of software piracy. The privacy argument, in my opinion, is a strawman. If you buy a PC from Dell, it's most likely they already have all that information (save for BIOS MD5 checksum, probably) linked to your customer account. If you buy a PC from Best Buy with a credit card, that purchase information is already linked with the product serial number, which is probably linked with all the serial numbers of the hardware that went into the thing. I don't see how this can be any different than that, other than the fact that Microsoft has it instead of Dell or Best Buy.

Microsoft could just argue that according to the Bilski ruling a process which is not tied to any particular apparatus is not patentable. But obviously they have their own stakes in software patents. I wonder how many more i4is (eye for an eye?) the economy can take.

I agree with you about that. It seems obvious that Microsoft would rather try to bash their competitors and hold them down until they drown than to compete on the merits. But they can't do it by themselves.

A previous poster described this as collusion. Conspiracy might be a better word, but that might be construed as a "theory" rather than something that was actually documented.

Now if Microsoft is having meetings with their competitors to take down Google, I have to wonder just how cooperative Microsoft really is. Given the level of paranoia exhibited by MS, anyone MS deals with is a potential threat to them. The vast majority of partners and collaborators with Microsoft have wound up either dead or permanently handicapped. I wonder if all of the attendees at those meetings have considered that trend. To see the trend, go here.

It's a clear case of the "badsummary". Just check Groklaw.

As I have understood it, it was only summary judgment which was overturned. IOW, there would be a trial.

(For yuks, anyone who had code in the GNU/Linux kernel or even on the disk SCO shipped back in the Caldera days should have standing to ask about this claim. But that assumes one actually wants to stand up for one's rights.)

Then was Novell at all able to 'settle' the BSD/AT&T lawsuit? Ya can't settle what you don't own. For that matter, if USL was the 'owner', how could said 'owner' not be aware of the BSD/Novell settlement where Novell acted like they WERE the owner?

article about said settlement

(Also, I have a hard time accepting that Bell Labs would have written a 'confusing contract' for a lack of access to money and talent to obtain a clear contract.)

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090824142203182

It's important to note that the Appeals court hasn't said that the copyrights do belong to SCO. They've only found that a decision regarding copyright ownership based on the APA wasn't something that should have been decided in a summary judgment and that the decision should've been made during the jury trial.

> This has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Microsoft will be allowed to continue shipping Word.

The permanent injunction itself explicitly allows Microsoft to continue shipping Word. All they have to do is remove the custom XML feature. It looks like they changed my link to the Slashdot story about it, and I don't blame them, but the original linked to the Groklaw story on the permanent injunction and you can read the terms of it here.

The judge's order spells out how they're allowed to deal with documents containing custom XML in future Word versions. They're *only* forbidden to ship current, infringing versions. They do NOT have to license the patent unless they believe that they need to keep the feature. Even if it was completely impossible to remove for some reason, the absolute worst they could possibly have to do is to revert their source control to the version of Word before they added the feature, then rebuild from there.

The injunction is nowhere near as bad as it appears to be in the press. I thought my original summary made clear exactly what the terms of the injunction were, but they appear to have trimmed that part, too. I remember quoting a fair bit of the judge's order which would have made things a lot clearer.

- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property

> This has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Microsoft will be allowed to continue shipping Word.

The permanent injunction itself explicitly allows Microsoft to continue shipping Word. All they have to do is remove the custom XML feature. It looks like they changed my link to the Slashdot story about it, and I don't blame them, but the original linked to the Groklaw story on the permanent injunction and you can read the terms of it here.

The judge's order spells out how they're allowed to deal with documents containing custom XML in future Word versions. They're *only* forbidden to ship current, infringing versions. They do NOT have to license the patent unless they believe that they need to keep the feature. Even if it was completely impossible to remove for some reason, the absolute worst they could possibly have to do is to revert their source control to the version of Word before they added the feature, then rebuild from there.

The injunction is nowhere near as bad as it appears to be in the press. I thought my original summary made clear exactly what the terms of the injunction were, but they appear to have trimmed that part, too. I remember quoting a fair bit of the judge's order which would have made things a lot clearer.

- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property

i4i uses a very unique approach to the method, and from what you describe it sounds like you've only read the summary. I strongly suggest you read Rob Weir's article (available on Groklaw as well as other sources) and go back and read the patent, particularly the claims section.

There has already been a fair amount of discussion and not everything that uses XML and meta-data violates the patent. For example, ODF uses a very different method than this patent for the same kind of task - and from the various commentaries they do not violate it; namely b/c they saw the method proposed by i4i and MS as the wrong way to do it.

They went after MS exactly b/c MS did their normal predatory behavior and they have a legitimate case against MS.

FYI - this doesn't mean that I support software patents (I don't!); but this case is exactly why MS was charged with using its monopoly in an illegal way, and really shows what they do. So it's nice to see them bitten by it like this.

The relevant passage:

"Custom XML" refers to content within the file that is of a different XML format, with a separate "custom schema" to describe that content. The problem with such content is that there is no way for a standard to describe how such data should be interpreted, as it is by definition in a "custom format" and can be any kind of data. That is why "custom XML" is not allowed in ODF documents, and that is one of the reasons why OOXML is such a miserable standard.

And this

Interesting, no? There's one more headline, but only to debunk, Matt Asay's Microsoft's 'Custom XML' patent suit could put ODF at risk. Actually, it doesn't, so far as I know. Custom XML was one of the reasons ODF folks thought the OOXML "standard" was crudely designed, and that it had no place in a standard. It was a big discussion, and basically, to the extent I understood it, the issue was this: that it was a short cut on Microsoft's part, so it wouldn't have to do things in the usual standard way but could just keep things as they were, dumping a lot of processing stuff into the format, where, ODF folks said, it didn't belong. The very name should tell you why.

Did we forget about their suit against TomTom for the questionable FAT patent already?

This is the core contention behind the justification of software patents. It incorrectly treats all of the specific coding of any algorithm implementation as irrelevant to the patentable subject-matter, because the algorithm could theoretically be made to run on any Turing architecture.

I just hope that the "software shouldn't be patentable because software is math" brigade eventually come to understand this, and don't throw the pro-patent lobby into the briar patch.

There was a long discussion on Groklaw a while back (following a statement by Knuth along these lines) and the argument seems very seductive to some people.

The problem is, this argument is "not even wrong" (try and disprove it and you're arguing math with Knuth and Turing - good luck with that!) However, to use this as an argument as to why software should not be patented, you also need to prove the converse: that everything that should be patentable is not math. I.e. most engines, generators etc. can be represented mathematically as a thermodynamic cycle, which can be used to predict their theoretical limits.

Heck, thermodynamics and information theory are joined at the hip, so a specially trained stunt physicist could probably prove that a Turing machine is equivalent to a Carnot cycle.

Or, speaking of Knuth, if TeX, with all the practical typesetting knowhow it embodies) is "math" then what isn't?

Going down that route just gives the patent industry an incentive to come up with creative ways to patent math or slide a cigarette paper between the "math" and "invention" in software. The copious empirical evidence that software patents just hinder innovation seems a much stronger argument.

Did you happen to know that Pharma spends more for advertising in the US than R&D?

How about we get like almost every other country in the world, and ban prescription drug advertising, that would cut down on their costs dramatically, and make drugs cheaper for everyone.

wasn't there a good groklaw article on the subject just today?

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090809231252693

There's a market for meaningless licenses

Hmmm..... now where have I heard that before?

Not the OP, but this is quite a good one.

Griping about Slahdot will only get you a "so why do you come here then?" answer.

Instead, take the time to point out specifics in a way a non-attorney will understand. In case you think that can't be done, have a look at Groklaw. Heck, maybe contribute there.

Everyone has had to respect the GPL because it has already been held up in court as far back as germany in 2004 and redhat in 2006.

Thank you for those links. The one to Red Hat leads to: http://www.businessreviewonline.com/os/archives/2006/03/gpl_gets_court.html which pointed to http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/WallaceFSFGrantingDismiss.pdf, in which Judge Daniel Tinder affirmed the validity of the GPL against Daniel Wallace's claim that it was anti-competitive.

In doing so, his decision referenced Jason B. Wacha, Taking the Case: Is the GPL Enforceable, an article in SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. [Vol. 21] by the VP and Head Lawyer of MonteVista software. I found that article via Google; it's a step-by-step clear and concise rebuttal of 10 common claims against the GPL's validity. Mr. Wacha references the SCO vs Linux case several times.

By essentially launching a lawsuit against Linux, SCO has mobilized enough of the F/OSS community and legal IT community that enough literature was generated to be acknowledged by a US Federal Judge and to firm up the GPL's defenses and establish its validity. Thanks, SCO! It's nice to see Microsoft dollars make a real contribution to improving our world!

This makes me want to live in Germany. Though it seems amazon.de has a bunch of linux notebooks and netbooks, the same models aren't even on amazon.co.uk. I wonder if amazon.co.uk will even list arm based netbooks when they finally hit full force. The paucity of choice on amazon.co.uk is incredible, mostly older models and mostly out of stock.

When you live in a country in hock to M$* so deeply, maybe it's not surprising.

*The use of M$ in place of Microsoft is and indicator of the many years spent watching Microsoft compete fiercely for their market share, in both a legal and illegal manner.

Like SCO (previously Caldera) vs Autozone.
Oh wait..
2004 to 2010. Well, only one more year to go.

When you put it that way, Google seem to be beating MS at their own game.

It's patented but under an irrevocable Open Specification Promise

Thats only for MS's XAML script language thats in Silverlight/Moonlight, there may be patents MS has on Silverlight that aren't related to XAML. And for Mono, the potential patent issues with Winforms, ADO.NET and ASP.NET still remain (is Moonlight using Winforms, or doing its graphics stuff using GTK via Cairo directly?) In any event, Mono/Winforms is still a minefield.

And this still doesn't deal with the extremely problematic language (which is still there) of MS's 'Covenant to Downstream Recipients of Moonlight'. Going by that obtuse document, the only people safe from MS's lawyers are ones running Moonlight in a browser on Novell Linux, everyone else is fair game.

Wake me up when the Mono guys can clear up the issues discussed in the 'Mono and Microsoft's patents' section of Mono's wikipedia page, and the Moonlight guys can do the same for the 'Controversy' section on their wikipedia page, *and* MS changes the language of their 'Covenant' to include non-Novell users. Until then, Mono/Winforms & Moonlight are still non-starters for any non-Novell Linux distro or user.

it's actually safer to use than theora

Nice try.

As was pointed out in the argument over HTML5 we had a few days ago, using theora is no more dangerous than using H264, which in turn is no more, or less!, dangerous than using any other software that may have patents on it. We have no way of knowing if MPEGLA is the only entity that has patents on H264. This problem is simply inherent in our screwed-up software patent system.

Theora may not be safe. H264 may not be safe. Anyone claiming that one is clearly or definitely safer than the other is either uninformed, or trolling.

And since MPEGLA can change the license requirements at any time, including extending it to the distributors of H264 *content*, not just encoder/decoder implementors, as some believe they will soon do, this is just a rerun of the .GIF fiasco, only more inexcusable, because now we should know better.

'claims reciting the use of general purpose processors or computers do not satisfy the [Bilski] test.'

Sounds familiar to the kind of logic that Donald Knuth employs when discussing software patents. He tried reaching out to the EU Patent Office in an effort to avoid making algorithms patentable--he feels this has been a mistake in America. He recently sent the EU Patent Office Commissioner a 1994 letter he had originally sent to the United States Patent Office about patenting software. His argument is simple: (1) math cannot be patented (2) all algorithms are math (3) all software is one or more algorithms and so follows that software cannot be patentable. The USPTO replied by defining non-mathematical software to be patentable while purely mathematical software is not. Knuth sums himself up nicely: 'Basically I remain convinced that the patent policy most fair and most suitable for the world will regard mathematical ideas (such as algorithms) to be not subject to proprietary patent rights. For example, it would be terrible if somebody were to have a patent on an integer, like say 1009, so that nobody would be able to use that number "with further technical effect" without paying for a license. Although many software patents have unfortunately already been granted in the past, I hope that this practice will not continue in future. If Europe leads the way in this, I expect many Americans would want to emigrate so that they could continue to innovate in peace.'

Maybe the right way to approach this was to claim that general purpose processors are only capable of executing extremely complex mathematical algorithms--which should not be patentable. Therefor the software that runs on general purpose processors should not be patentable.

So what you're saying is that it's a really well disguised trap?

Note that what Microsoft is stopped from doing has no bearing on what they can fund other companies to do on their behalf.

There's no legal basis for any third party to sue .NET implementers, you say? Well, gosh darn, I guess there's no way that Microsoft could fund them to file a bullshit case that drags on for year after year after year, tying up court time, costing the defendants millions in fees, and eating away at the hearts of souls of good men like a cancer. Is there?

An interesting thing I find here so far, though, is that there's so many people decrying the antitrust investigation of Google for being "too successful" but going on about how Microsoft should go under an antitrust investigation for being...too successful.

If that's what you "find", then you're not doing an honest job of looking.

Mono is a cleanroom implementation of the CLR as specified by EMCA and .Net libraries, right? What exactly do you risk by using it?

From what I've learned (on Groklaw ;-) ), cleanroom implementations help you indemnify your software against copyright violation allegiations.
Stallmann is here saying that there is a possibility that Mono violates Microsoft software patents, and that in that case, software *depending on* mono (i.e. written in C#) is at risk if mono ever has to be de-installed because of patent violation allegiations.
In fact, there's a famous other article by Stallmann about copyright, patents and trademarks, where he claims the use of the word "Intellectual Property" should be stopped, which directly addresses your confusion: I really, heartily, strongly recommend you to read it, it's mindblowingly easy to read and I found it very enlightening:
Did You Say âoeIntellectual Propertyâ? It's a Seductive Mirage
IANA(P)L and I don't actually know much about .NET or Microsoft software but his arguments make sense. Also bear in mind that the Microsoft-Novell software patent deal of 2006 (here, here, here), where Microsoft promises not to sue Novell's customers for a limited period of time, expires in 2011 or so. So maybe then Ballmer will divulge what he meant with his "235 software patents Linux infringes" (maybe it should have been 205 software patents ;-) but it's very possible that Ballmer is completely truthful here). Then again 2011 is years away and maybe software patents won't exist anymore in the U.S.A because they wanted to harmonize with the rest of the world, which doesn't have them.

Mono is a cleanroom implementation of the CLR as specified by EMCA and .Net libraries, right? What exactly do you risk by using it?

From what I've learned (on Groklaw ;-) ), cleanroom implementations help you indemnify your software against copyright violation allegiations.
Stallmann is here saying that there is a possibility that Mono violates Microsoft software patents, and that in that case, software *depending on* mono (i.e. written in C#) is at risk if mono ever has to be de-installed because of patent violation allegiations.
In fact, there's a famous other article by Stallmann about copyright, patents and trademarks, where he claims the use of the word "Intellectual Property" should be stopped, which directly addresses your confusion: I really, heartily, strongly recommend you to read it, it's mindblowingly easy to read and I found it very enlightening:
Did You Say âoeIntellectual Propertyâ? It's a Seductive Mirage
IANA(P)L and I don't actually know much about .NET or Microsoft software but his arguments make sense. Also bear in mind that the Microsoft-Novell software patent deal of 2006 (here, here, here), where Microsoft promises not to sue Novell's customers for a limited period of time, expires in 2011 or so. So maybe then Ballmer will divulge what he meant with his "235 software patents Linux infringes" (maybe it should have been 205 software patents ;-) but it's very possible that Ballmer is completely truthful here). Then again 2011 is years away and maybe software patents won't exist anymore in the U.S.A because they wanted to harmonize with the rest of the world, which doesn't have them.

Mono is a cleanroom implementation of the CLR as specified by EMCA and .Net libraries, right? What exactly do you risk by using it?

From what I've learned (on Groklaw ;-) ), cleanroom implementations help you indemnify your software against copyright violation allegiations.
Stallmann is here saying that there is a possibility that Mono violates Microsoft software patents, and that in that case, software *depending on* mono (i.e. written in C#) is at risk if mono ever has to be de-installed because of patent violation allegiations.
In fact, there's a famous other article by Stallmann about copyright, patents and trademarks, where he claims the use of the word "Intellectual Property" should be stopped, which directly addresses your confusion: I really, heartily, strongly recommend you to read it, it's mindblowingly easy to read and I found it very enlightening:
Did You Say âoeIntellectual Propertyâ? It's a Seductive Mirage
IANA(P)L and I don't actually know much about .NET or Microsoft software but his arguments make sense. Also bear in mind that the Microsoft-Novell software patent deal of 2006 (here, here, here), where Microsoft promises not to sue Novell's customers for a limited period of time, expires in 2011 or so. So maybe then Ballmer will divulge what he meant with his "235 software patents Linux infringes" (maybe it should have been 205 software patents ;-) but it's very possible that Ballmer is completely truthful here). Then again 2011 is years away and maybe software patents won't exist anymore in the U.S.A because they wanted to harmonize with the rest of the world, which doesn't have them.

You've got to be thick as a brick to let yourself get locked into anything. If that's what RMS is trying to say, he's got it nailed.

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20090421111327711 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20031121013756776

You've got to be thick as a brick to let yourself get locked into anything. If that's what RMS is trying to say, he's got it nailed.

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20090421111327711 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20031121013756776

Is the "Panasonic camera battery" market considered a market, in terms of antitrust law? If so, are they setting themselves up for antitrust action?

in the same way that Apple-compatible computers is considered a market... (i.e. not at all)?

Here for one: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050225223848129

not to use Linux or Mac.

If they do they'll get their "Air Supply cut off"... their per/unit price will jump significantly, making them uncompetitive with their competitors ...

I could go on but space is limited. Microsoft is full of dirty tricks. Just ask James Plamondon and his "Technical Evangelists (TE):
http://platformevangelism.spaces.live.com/default.aspx
http://platformevangelism.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!37F174267DC274C!155.entry
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf

Or the training materials he used, which taught the "Slog" and the "Stuffed Panel":
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958

And financial dirty tricks:
http://www.billparish.com/msftfraudfacts.html

Here is a summary of a LOT of Microsoft's dirty tricks, and the reasons why so many "independent" corporations behave as wholly owned subsidiaries of Microsoft:
http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/Dirty_Tricks_history

So, ya, it is no surprise when NVIDIA knucles under to Microsoft, otherwise their video chips would suddenly fail to work as well as those from other video chip vendors, just the way DRDOS "failed" to work as well as MSDOS when users tried to install Win3, which was one of the first of an unending examples of how a copy without ethics operates. An people were surprised that Capitalism exhibited a "flaw" in the current economic crisis?

not to use Linux or Mac.

If they do they'll get their "Air Supply cut off"... their per/unit price will jump significantly, making them uncompetitive with their competitors ...

I could go on but space is limited. Microsoft is full of dirty tricks. Just ask James Plamondon and his "Technical Evangelists (TE):
http://platformevangelism.spaces.live.com/default.aspx
http://platformevangelism.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!37F174267DC274C!155.entry
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf

Or the training materials he used, which taught the "Slog" and the "Stuffed Panel":
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958

And financial dirty tricks:
http://www.billparish.com/msftfraudfacts.html

Here is a summary of a LOT of Microsoft's dirty tricks, and the reasons why so many "independent" corporations behave as wholly owned subsidiaries of Microsoft:
http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/Dirty_Tricks_history

So, ya, it is no surprise when NVIDIA knucles under to Microsoft, otherwise their video chips would suddenly fail to work as well as those from other video chip vendors, just the way DRDOS "failed" to work as well as MSDOS when users tried to install Win3, which was one of the first of an unending examples of how a copy without ethics operates. An people were surprised that Capitalism exhibited a "flaw" in the current economic crisis?

<sarcasm>

It (FCMobileLife) costs $29.95 so there should be some value!

</sarcasm>

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071023002351958

The first hit is always free. Once Microsoft has you on their technology, then they start pulling in the reigns. A Linux developer using Microsoft standards is considered a battle won in their "holy war."