Slashdot Mirror

Try here, and here or any of the other fine links here.

Try here, and here or any of the other fine links here.

yea, they do it by proxy to cover their legal ass.

Among others:
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/12/1239205

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071011205044141

That $3mil is pocket change for the $66.95 billion market cap McD's Corp.

The trouble is that McDonald's would also be purchasing all the countersuits. That opens them to some very large liabilities. For example I'm sure IBM would like to be paid in full for all the time their lawyers have put in.

Rich.

They MAY be the scum of the earth ...

Except Ray Beckerman.

And Pamela Jones, who is not a lawyer but a paralegal.

Hey, Ray and Pamela! Both of you are quite compatible, and have similar ideals. Are both of you single? If so, can we matchmake you?

If at this late date PJ wants to do the right thing, she can "un shadow" all comments, re-insert all deletions; and provide either a .pdf or downloadable file with all the information.

I too doubt that this will ever happen.

This is why I screen-scrape and/or copy almost every article, news report, link, etc.. that I reference for informational purposes. Later If I blog about it, or link to it from any site and someone (in their infinite wisdom , decides to delete the post; well I will just post the "cached" copy that I screen scraped giving all credit to the site, just like the search engines do.

It would be interesting to see all the comments both pro and con to all the issues posted there. You really get a good insight to a particular persons and company's PR methods when you start pouring through these links. Many containing Highly Confidential and damning memos to/from company s like Microsoft. You do NOT have to take my word for it, here is a link to one such document, when going through the comments and posts (if this link does not come through, you sill see this line at the top of the first link To read comments to this article, go here and all you have to do is click on the word here in that line to see the comments and posts).

I was amazed at how obvious their anti-FOSS strategy was. Even funnier knowing how many people still defend this FUD. Not funny how well it works, at least until they are exposed for the shills that they are, backed up with links, documentation and facts of course.

I like how you can expose the relationships between people, companies and websites (news, PR and otherwise) by pouring through these documents.

While I personally believe in following the tenets of the robot.txt file, I am glad that many sites do NOT as now, PERHAPS, allot of this information will NOT be lost forever.

It is obvious to see which company has the MOST to gain from Groklaw being disabled and removed. Very obvious.

If at this late date PJ wants to do the right thing, she can "un shadow" all comments, re-insert all deletions; and provide either a .pdf or downloadable file with all the information.

I too doubt that this will ever happen.

This is why I screen-scrape and/or copy almost every article, news report, link, etc.. that I reference for informational purposes. Later If I blog about it, or link to it from any site and someone (in their infinite wisdom , decides to delete the post; well I will just post the "cached" copy that I screen scraped giving all credit to the site, just like the search engines do.

It would be interesting to see all the comments both pro and con to all the issues posted there. You really get a good insight to a particular persons and company's PR methods when you start pouring through these links. Many containing Highly Confidential and damning memos to/from company s like Microsoft. You do NOT have to take my word for it, here is a link to one such document, when going through the comments and posts (if this link does not come through, you sill see this line at the top of the first link To read comments to this article, go here and all you have to do is click on the word here in that line to see the comments and posts).

I was amazed at how obvious their anti-FOSS strategy was. Even funnier knowing how many people still defend this FUD. Not funny how well it works, at least until they are exposed for the shills that they are, backed up with links, documentation and facts of course.

I like how you can expose the relationships between people, companies and websites (news, PR and otherwise) by pouring through these documents.

While I personally believe in following the tenets of the robot.txt file, I am glad that many sites do NOT as now, PERHAPS, allot of this information will NOT be lost forever.

It is obvious to see which company has the MOST to gain from Groklaw being disabled and removed. Very obvious.

I wonder when 'Le Doan Hop' the Minister of Information and Communications, is going to be relieved of his job and trashed in the press.

"I'm sure you'd like to hear from Peter Quinn, formerly CIO of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts"

Just read that 'article', what a douche bag this guy is. He attacks people, calls them idiots and such, gets back what he deserves, then he is forced to admit he was a douche bag, but you know, he is too hurt by all those 'criminals'. Why are they criminals, because of their death threats?

Notice that in that entire 'article' there was nothing mentioned about SCO acting criminally. Aren't SCO criminals? Well, I guess SCO didn't issue any empty death threats to anyone.... Oh, wait!.

Yes, there are assholes on either side, death threats are stupid, but this does not change a fact: Rob Enderle is a douche and a useless brainless whiner.

Link

Pamela Jones @ groklaw.net

As a rule of thumb, when a judge answers you with a single paragraph of "go away," you were stupid to even bring the case and pushing it is likely to lead only to heartbreak (and paying attorneys' fees) for you and your client.

I heartily recommend a diet of Groklaw, to teach you as a technologist WTF the lawyers mean.

if you don't accept the GPL contract and redistribute the work

The GPL is a license, not a contract. Except for that wording, you basically have the right idea on the GPL.

The judge dismissed the charges with a summary judgement.

This is still costing Autozone money, almost five years later. It doesn't matter the merit of the case, you can punish an adversary just the same.

I am stating that GNOME application like Banshee do not use Microsoft libraries at all. ... Using the Microsoft libraries would just be stupid. It doesn't make any sense. Why would they use something like Windows.Forms when they have GTK#? Banshee and other Mono application use GNOME specific libraries. Do you not understand that?

Yeah, I've got that, it's C#, CLI, and GTK# (I'm assuming they don't use ADO.NET). But the point is to use them you have to install mono which includes ADO.NET, ASP.NET, System.Windows.Forms, etc. If the mono project would just provide a version that was ECMA and their original development, its critics would all go away. But, from their FAQ:

Will you offer an ECMA-compliant set of class libraries?
Eventually we will. Our current focus is on inter-operating with the Microsoft SDK, but we will also offer an ECMA compliant subset of the libraries.

Why this is hard to do is something I don't understand. Because it's apparently hard one would have to assume some intrinsic linkage. It would be nice if someone explored this and published the results; it's too high a hurdle for me to do to just use a music player.

Mono was never specifically mentioned but the Linux kernel and OpenOffice were yet you aren't boycotting them.

I seem to not have conveyed my point about the prosecution value of a reimplementation vs. independent work with likely prior art. Hrm, I don't know how to say it better. Mono is specifically mentioned in the Novell/MS license deal of '07, though. I think the SFLC called that "worse than useless". Jeremy Allison resigned from Novell over it; I assume he's better informed that I am on the matter (whoops, I almost veered back on topic).

You see this is why I called you clueless. Mono was independently developed also. Mono is not just a reimplementation.

Yes, it's not "just" a reimplementation, but it contains a reimplementation.

If Microsoft ever threatened to sue or sued anyone over Mono they could just drop the .NET library compatibility and lose nothing because no application depends on them.

No, it doesn't work like that. If you're on the hook for patent infringement you don't just get to go 'oh, my bad, we'll fix that'. You have to 'fix that' (or pay ongoing license fees) but you also have to pay damages. Yes, the mono project would survive such an assault, I think that's their point. But the assault will have inflicted other casualties. If you're a small enough company you don't pay damages, you declare bankruptcy and dissolve the corporation.

If OSS software developers want to be limited in imagination by Microsoft designs, that's fine (if C# stagnates they can always port). It's when they drag potential liability into unrelated parts of the community that people get concerned.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080904043402537&query=Novel+Microsoft+deal+patent

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070930081040440&query=Novel+Microsoft+deal+patent

And so forth...

Now there was some question as to whether Open SUSE was equally damned as SUSE Enterprise.

I don't want to bet that Microsoft _won't_ sue.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080904043402537&query=Novel+Microsoft+deal+patent

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070930081040440&query=Novel+Microsoft+deal+patent

And so forth...

Now there was some question as to whether Open SUSE was equally damned as SUSE Enterprise.

I don't want to bet that Microsoft _won't_ sue.

Just for the record I am reading http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070302073736822. Absolutely brilliant.

"PJ is a paralegal, not a lawyer."

http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20040923045054130

> Violating a company's EULA is not illegal. Period. Full stop.

I would have agreed with you until this happened. Wired even interviewed the jurors and found that they didn't question whether breaking a EULA should be illegal, only what "tortuous" meant. Here's the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act if you want to read it.

Here's one quote from the Groklaw story (which itself is a quote from Orin Kerr, one of Drew's attorneys)

The jury agreed that it is a federal crime to intentionally violate the Terms of Service on a website, and that Drew directly or indirectly did so, but it acquitted Drew of having violated Terms of Service in furtherance of the tortious act. That is, the jury ruled that Drew is guilty of relatively lower-level crimes for violating MySpacs Terms of Service (for being involved in the setting up of a fake MySpace account). It acquitted Drew for any role in inflicting distress on Meier or for anything related to Meier's suicide. The maximum allowed penalty for the misdemeanor violations are one year in prison for each violation, although the majority of federal misdemeanors result in a sentence of probation.

(emphasis added)

Yes, this is a bad precedent. Terrible, in fact. But someone has, in fact, been convicted merely for breaking a ToS. Worse, when MySpace reserves in that ToS the sole right to determine whether or not someone is violating it!

Ok, Mr. AC, apparently you don't understand the meaning of the words "overly simplified". It was an analogy. Get a clue. Nor was I saying that every new use for an existing machine could not be patented.

But what is certain: If the process is not intrinsically tied to a specific machine, and if the process does not perform some sort of transformation of one thing into something else, it cannot be patented.

Trivialize it if you wish. Patent lawyers are freaking out. They at least don't think it's trivial.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081103134949355
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081105132651542
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081109185020183
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081112034806294
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081102011538422

Ok, Mr. AC, apparently you don't understand the meaning of the words "overly simplified". It was an analogy. Get a clue. Nor was I saying that every new use for an existing machine could not be patented.

But what is certain: If the process is not intrinsically tied to a specific machine, and if the process does not perform some sort of transformation of one thing into something else, it cannot be patented.

Trivialize it if you wish. Patent lawyers are freaking out. They at least don't think it's trivial.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081103134949355
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081105132651542
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081109185020183
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081112034806294
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081102011538422

Ok, Mr. AC, apparently you don't understand the meaning of the words "overly simplified". It was an analogy. Get a clue. Nor was I saying that every new use for an existing machine could not be patented.

But what is certain: If the process is not intrinsically tied to a specific machine, and if the process does not perform some sort of transformation of one thing into something else, it cannot be patented.

Trivialize it if you wish. Patent lawyers are freaking out. They at least don't think it's trivial.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081103134949355
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081105132651542
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081109185020183
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081112034806294
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081102011538422

Ok, Mr. AC, apparently you don't understand the meaning of the words "overly simplified". It was an analogy. Get a clue. Nor was I saying that every new use for an existing machine could not be patented.

But what is certain: If the process is not intrinsically tied to a specific machine, and if the process does not perform some sort of transformation of one thing into something else, it cannot be patented.

Trivialize it if you wish. Patent lawyers are freaking out. They at least don't think it's trivial.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081103134949355
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081105132651542
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081109185020183
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081112034806294
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081102011538422

Ok, Mr. AC, apparently you don't understand the meaning of the words "overly simplified". It was an analogy. Get a clue. Nor was I saying that every new use for an existing machine could not be patented.

But what is certain: If the process is not intrinsically tied to a specific machine, and if the process does not perform some sort of transformation of one thing into something else, it cannot be patented.

Trivialize it if you wish. Patent lawyers are freaking out. They at least don't think it's trivial.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081103134949355
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081105132651542
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081109185020183
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081112034806294
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081102011538422

But there's no "mystery", they're still a brutal, cut throat, win at any cost company that's totally uncaring about the advancement of computing; only making money through domination. For a recent example, look at the "Office Open XML" vs. "Open Office" farce: http://www.groklaw.net/search.php?query=office+open&keyType=phrase&datestart=&dateend=&topic=0&type=all&author=0&mode=search

http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=sco

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group

http://www.groklaw.net/

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=JfK&q=SCO+lawsuit&btnG=Search

As PJ said on Groklaw, 'That's legalese for "are you kidding??"'.

This incident does bring up the question of what we will do when a government, NGO, or criminal group like the Mafia decides that Open Source software belongs to them and that people must pay a fee to them for using it...

Which is precisely what you have here. M$ tried via SCO to scuttle Linux. It turned out that SCO hadn't a leg to stand on. So, enter the Novel-M$ SW Patent deal where de Icaza and other receipt-carrying M$ Boosters inject proprietary technology into otherwise free and open source projects. Novell differs from SCO in that this time around there is a trail of receipts showing that yes you do owe M$money for their products even though they were readily available for download.

People have been good about readying the licenses for the main packages, but de Icaza and co. target the libraries and other components that these packages are built on. Combine that with a marketing team that hangs around Slashdot and goes after sites like Boycott Novell and they have made some headway. To be sure, Mono wastes a lot of space on the Ubuntu installation CD. Space which could have been used by Free Software. So even without the sw patent deal, Mono is technologically unsound.

Then there are Novell's attacks against OpenOffice.org and the OpenDocument Format. But that speaks for itself.

At the beginning it was simply described as a stupid move. Novell/M$ is a problem that is getting worse, mostly due to the noise they make and the interference they cause in free and open source projects. The patent pact put Novell outside the free and open source software community. The actions since then have only proven this to be more so.

This incident does bring up the question of what we will do when a government, NGO, or criminal group like the Mafia decides that Open Source software belongs to them and that people must pay a fee to them for using it...

Which is precisely what you have here. M$ tried via SCO to scuttle Linux. It turned out that SCO hadn't a leg to stand on. So, enter the Novel-M$ SW Patent deal where de Icaza and other receipt-carrying M$ Boosters inject proprietary technology into otherwise free and open source projects. Novell differs from SCO in that this time around there is a trail of receipts showing that yes you do owe M$money for their products even though they were readily available for download.

People have been good about readying the licenses for the main packages, but de Icaza and co. target the libraries and other components that these packages are built on. Combine that with a marketing team that hangs around Slashdot and goes after sites like Boycott Novell and they have made some headway. To be sure, Mono wastes a lot of space on the Ubuntu installation CD. Space which could have been used by Free Software. So even without the sw patent deal, Mono is technologically unsound.

Then there are Novell's attacks against OpenOffice.org and the OpenDocument Format. But that speaks for itself.

At the beginning it was simply described as a stupid move. Novell/M$ is a problem that is getting worse, mostly due to the noise they make and the interference they cause in free and open source projects. The patent pact put Novell outside the free and open source software community. The actions since then have only proven this to be more so.

But what did item (c) refer to? I've just searched through the decision at Groklaw, and I can't find the word "style" anywhere. Were you referring perhaps to the fact that the companion books were themselves references, and the judge found that Vander Ark's incorporation of material from them into another reference was insufficiently transformative? If not, I'm puzzled by the mention of "writing style".

It is the usual course when companies partner and grant rights that they trumpet the fact on both sides - even if the underlying contract is held in confidence for strategy reasons. Certainly SCO and Sun both announced loudly in the press at the time of the 2003 agreement that the agreement granted the right and Solaris would be open sourced. Novell has not endorsed this position yet.

From the ruling:

The 1994 Sun Agreement had a 20-year confidentiality restriction prohibiting Sun from publicly disclosing the licensed source code. These confidentiality restrictions prevented Sun from publicly releasing or "opensourcing" the Solaris source code.

...

After entering into the 2003 Sun Agreement, Sun released an opensource version of its UNIX-based Solaris product, called "OpenSolaris." As its name suggests, OpenSolaris is based on Sun's Solaris operating system, which is in turn based on Novell's SVRX intellectual property. Absent the removal of the 1994 Sun Agreement's confidentiality restrictions, Sun would not have been licensed to publicly release the OpenSolaris source code.

The evidence presented at trial established that the 2003 Sun Agreement conveyed substantial rights to the SVRX intellectual property retained by Novell because of Sun's ability to open source Solaris.

...

The 2003 Sun Agreement specifically states that it "amends and restates" Sun's 1994 SVRX buy-out agreement with Novell. SCO has no authority to enter such an agreement unless it is incidentally involved in the licensing of UnixWare.

The court concludes that the release of confidentiality requirements in Section 8.1 of the 2003 Sun Agreement is not merely incidental to a UnixWare license. The provision had significant independent value to Sun as it allowed Sun to opensource its Solaris UNIX-based product. While several of the provisions in the Agreement focus on UnixWare and specific device drivers, the amendment with respect to confidentiality relates to the same technology licensed in the 1994 Buy-out Agreement and had significant independent value to Sun apart from a license to the newest versions of UnixWare.

That said, final judgment has not yet been entered. The judge does not propose to "undo" the deal, in recognition that it's not possible to restore the parties to their prior conditions. You really can't unring the bell. Some day we'll have answers to the question and it seems likely that Novell will not try to revoke Sun's deal with respect to Open Solaris.

But that's the future. This is now, and right now the outcome and legality are still in doubt.

I can't do any better than to point you to a site where this is more completely covered. Go to groklaw and review the legal documents if you would become more informed on this issue. If you can't be bothered, well, then I claim superior knowledge of the subject because I did and have followed the conflict since 2003 (and have followed the products since 1980).

You also have no reason to believe other companies are so stupid.

Your job is difficult because your internal IT people are idiots. I have cataloged Vista's problems for them and everyone else, with dozens of links to reputable papers and more than 50 videos of errors from angry customers. If they want Vista at this point it is because they want Windows at any price. Brush up your resume.

I'm sorry that you are in such a place, especially if you are who you say you are. Promoting free software at a big dumb M$ partner company for any reason is fatal. You will be slogged and eventually fired. This has nothing to do with me, ESR, Bruce Perens, Allen Cox, Richard Stallman or anyone else who stood up for your rights. It has to do with step 12 of the slog. Your salary will be given to a more willing tool and the costs will be shifted to customers, until the whole company collapses. My advice is to find another job before they get rid of you or fail.

here.

... Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has claimed that Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents. If he wasn't trying to sow doubt amongst enterprises as to the long term viability of Linux, why would he do such a thing? Lets also not forget Microsoft's aid in arranging funding for SCO. So, while Microsoft hasn't gone after anyone directly for patent issues, they've certainly done so indirectly.

I have read through many of the documents, especially the EU Ct. of 1st Instance: Microsoft Abused its Dominant Position - Updated This link has the not only the conversation after the court decision but links to videos and a recording of the conversation (Sean Daly, Georg Greve of FSFE, Jeremy Allison and Volker Lendecke of Samba, and Carlo Piana, their lawyer of record in the case) so you can here it in their words. Thank you for posting the link!

Microsoft's blue and green bubble defense is laughable and fortunately for all of us, at least the EU courts saw through it. It is telling that Microsoft's lawyer submitted 258 pages only about one hour before the case for review and that per Volker Lendecke, Microsoft deliberately muddied the waters with the term intellectual property in such a way that it was not clear whether they were talking about copyrights or patents or what. Very telling and sadly not surprising.

To think of those companies that actually got scared and agreed to settle with Microsoft, per Georg Greve, to the tune of ($3.6 million for Sun, Novell, REal and CCIA who were all bought out of the case). And how about those companies that actually bought worthless coupons out of fear of being sued, from Novell. Talk about a waste of money and we are not talking thousands or millions, but billions. In the first six months, Novell sold coupons to such marquee clients as Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, AIG Technologies, HSBC, Wal-Mart, Dell and Reed Elsevier have all acquired Novell Linux coupons from Microsoft."

If I were they, I think I would want my money back.

I find it interesting that Thomas Vinje, actually stated that "if you think about any of these markets, who were the innovators? Novell was the innovator. Novell created singlhandedly the workgroup server market. It was taken away from them by the monopoly." Real created streaming media, innovating and creating the streaming media market and they're gone now, at least fewer people use it these days. Netscape and browsers...of course there are many others.

Yes excellent article thanks for posting! It will be interesting to see how many of the companies that have outstanding court cases with Microsoft might try to force them to an earlier resolution now...I for one will not hold my breath.

... Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has claimed that Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents. If he wasn't trying to sow doubt amongst enterprises as to the long term viability of Linux, why would he do such a thing? Lets also not forget Microsoft's aid in arranging funding for SCO. So, while Microsoft hasn't gone after anyone directly for patent issues, they've certainly done so indirectly.

I have read through many of the documents, especially the EU Ct. of 1st Instance: Microsoft Abused its Dominant Position - Updated This link has the not only the conversation after the court decision but links to videos and a recording of the conversation (Sean Daly, Georg Greve of FSFE, Jeremy Allison and Volker Lendecke of Samba, and Carlo Piana, their lawyer of record in the case) so you can here it in their words. Thank you for posting the link!

Microsoft's blue and green bubble defense is laughable and fortunately for all of us, at least the EU courts saw through it. It is telling that Microsoft's lawyer submitted 258 pages only about one hour before the case for review and that per Volker Lendecke, Microsoft deliberately muddied the waters with the term intellectual property in such a way that it was not clear whether they were talking about copyrights or patents or what. Very telling and sadly not surprising.

To think of those companies that actually got scared and agreed to settle with Microsoft, per Georg Greve, to the tune of ($3.6 million for Sun, Novell, REal and CCIA who were all bought out of the case). And how about those companies that actually bought worthless coupons out of fear of being sued, from Novell. Talk about a waste of money and we are not talking thousands or millions, but billions. In the first six months, Novell sold coupons to such marquee clients as Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, AIG Technologies, HSBC, Wal-Mart, Dell and Reed Elsevier have all acquired Novell Linux coupons from Microsoft."

If I were they, I think I would want my money back.

I find it interesting that Thomas Vinje, actually stated that "if you think about any of these markets, who were the innovators? Novell was the innovator. Novell created singlhandedly the workgroup server market. It was taken away from them by the monopoly." Real created streaming media, innovating and creating the streaming media market and they're gone now, at least fewer people use it these days. Netscape and browsers...of course there are many others.

Yes excellent article thanks for posting! It will be interesting to see how many of the companies that have outstanding court cases with Microsoft might try to force them to an earlier resolution now...I for one will not hold my breath.

... Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has claimed that Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents. If he wasn't trying to sow doubt amongst enterprises as to the long term viability of Linux, why would he do such a thing? Lets also not forget Microsoft's aid in arranging funding for SCO. So, while Microsoft hasn't gone after anyone directly for patent issues, they've certainly done so indirectly.

I have read through many of the documents, especially the EU Ct. of 1st Instance: Microsoft Abused its Dominant Position - Updated This link has the not only the conversation after the court decision but links to videos and a recording of the conversation (Sean Daly, Georg Greve of FSFE, Jeremy Allison and Volker Lendecke of Samba, and Carlo Piana, their lawyer of record in the case) so you can here it in their words. Thank you for posting the link!

Microsoft's blue and green bubble defense is laughable and fortunately for all of us, at least the EU courts saw through it. It is telling that Microsoft's lawyer submitted 258 pages only about one hour before the case for review and that per Volker Lendecke, Microsoft deliberately muddied the waters with the term intellectual property in such a way that it was not clear whether they were talking about copyrights or patents or what. Very telling and sadly not surprising.

To think of those companies that actually got scared and agreed to settle with Microsoft, per Georg Greve, to the tune of ($3.6 million for Sun, Novell, REal and CCIA who were all bought out of the case). And how about those companies that actually bought worthless coupons out of fear of being sued, from Novell. Talk about a waste of money and we are not talking thousands or millions, but billions. In the first six months, Novell sold coupons to such marquee clients as Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, AIG Technologies, HSBC, Wal-Mart, Dell and Reed Elsevier have all acquired Novell Linux coupons from Microsoft."

If I were they, I think I would want my money back.

I find it interesting that Thomas Vinje, actually stated that "if you think about any of these markets, who were the innovators? Novell was the innovator. Novell created singlhandedly the workgroup server market. It was taken away from them by the monopoly." Real created streaming media, innovating and creating the streaming media market and they're gone now, at least fewer people use it these days. Netscape and browsers...of course there are many others.

Yes excellent article thanks for posting! It will be interesting to see how many of the companies that have outstanding court cases with Microsoft might try to force them to an earlier resolution now...I for one will not hold my breath.

This is not a new thing. They have been working with samba for a couple of years at least.

Why is it that the Samba crew does all the work, including taking the case all the way through the courts, and shot down the appeals, and shooting down disinformation, and dealing with the anti-FOSS documentation NDAs, only for "JP" to give the headlines to M$?

The headline should reflect the content of the article and that is about the rapid headway that the Samba team is making. It's not the first time, nor even one of the first times, that the M$ developers have had to rely on the Samba team. Let's give credit where credit is due.

This is not a new thing. They have been working with samba for a couple of years at least.

Why is it that the Samba crew does all the work, including taking the case all the way through the courts, and shot down the appeals, and shooting down disinformation, and dealing with the anti-FOSS documentation NDAs, only for "JP" to give the headlines to M$?

The headline should reflect the content of the article and that is about the rapid headway that the Samba team is making. It's not the first time, nor even one of the first times, that the M$ developers have had to rely on the Samba team. Let's give credit where credit is due.

This is not a new thing. They have been working with samba for a couple of years at least.

Why is it that the Samba crew does all the work, including taking the case all the way through the courts, and shot down the appeals, and shooting down disinformation, and dealing with the anti-FOSS documentation NDAs, only for "JP" to give the headlines to M$?

The headline should reflect the content of the article and that is about the rapid headway that the Samba team is making. It's not the first time, nor even one of the first times, that the M$ developers have had to rely on the Samba team. Let's give credit where credit is due.

This is not a new thing. They have been working with samba for a couple of years at least.

Why is it that the Samba crew does all the work, including taking the case all the way through the courts, and shot down the appeals, and shooting down disinformation, and dealing with the anti-FOSS documentation NDAs, only for "JP" to give the headlines to M$?

The headline should reflect the content of the article and that is about the rapid headway that the Samba team is making. It's not the first time, nor even one of the first times, that the M$ developers have had to rely on the Samba team. Let's give credit where credit is due.

from Microsoft a few days ago: "If every effort to license proves not to be fruitful, ultimately we have a responsibility to customers that have licenses and to our shareholders to ensure our intellectual property is respected" http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081018165715723

This is an evil goal and yours is an evil task. You use free software to entice people to surrender their software freedom. Steve Ballmer put it this way:

I would love to see all Open Source innovation happen on top of Windows. So we've done a lot to encourage, for example, the team building, PHP, the team building, many of the other Open Source components, I'd love to see those sorts of innovations proceed very successfully on top of Windows.

Because our battle is not sort of business model to business model. Our battle is product to product, Windows versus Linux, Office versus OpenOffice.

You might not think of this like calling GNU/Linux a "cancer" and people who like to share "pirates" but the spirit is the same. It is not good to help people like that.

if you're going to resign on principle, at least make sure to take out those who remain, otherwise what have you achieved?

This is what they achieved.

With only corrupt people left behind, they can now help take out ODF entirely.

I think you have nailed this one. Read up on the Slog to learn how M$ themselves express this kind of effort. It's not pretty.

Microsoft seems to want to to take over ODF too.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080825162905645

Apparently they are not happy there is a working specification in the wild. It being a standard must hurt even more.

It already has.

Apple recently submitted a motion in Psystar v Apple on a very similar point--whether a monopoly can exist on a single product where there are competing similar products.

I have to say, reading the groklaw article, I find Apple's argument reasonably persuasive on whether anti-trust law applies when a manufacturer restricts access to one of their products (summary: it doesn't).

At least Apple is toeing a consistent line, but I'm guessing they'll win here, probably on summary judgement.

Your post just confirms that this is the same court decision that groklaw posted back on august 13 at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200808131321242

I think I remember it getting discussed on Slashdot back then too. I did not find such an article with a quick search, and don't feel like digging through the archives for all articles from around that time, so if somebody happens to have a link to that old article if it exists, posting it would be nice.

The issues are a lot more complicated than are described in his article. I assume that means that Bruce doesn't know what he is talking about.

URL: