Slashdot Mirror
SQL Server Developers Face Huge Royalties
superpat writes "The Register reports that Microsoft licensed SQL Server technology from Timeline. Trouble is, they didn't license the tech for use by MS customers... After 3 1/2 years in the courts, the final judgement rules that MS SQL Server customers must pay Timeline patent royalties. The argument that Microsoft said it was OK is no defence, apparently." News.com.com.com has another story.
Time for Microsoft to step up to the plate. Why would you think that you had to read a EULA if they can get away with this kind of $hit?
heh oh to payments now not there'll be a CENT out of me?. Whats this I hear microsoft baying?. or PAYING maybe. heh said "no licenses for uses"
say up yours!
Microsoft should be responisble... THEY infringined on the patent by selling it outside of the agreed scope!
www.superdorf.com
"Microsoft should be responisble... THEY infringined on the patent by selling it outside of the agreed scope! Only for the SQL code they wrote. If you wrote any SQL code using the product, you are the one who "infringined".
Judging by the number of lawyers working for them, they might as well be.
Money for nothing, pix for free
Now I have yet ANOTHER good reason to push MySQL over MSSQL Server.
Time to start forgetting all the VB I had to learn.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Someone needs to start a list of companies Microsoft has screwed over. It needs to be the first site that comes up when someone googles for "Microsoft Business Partner"
Let's see:
Citrix ("Yes, we're building virtual desktops into Windows now...")
Sendo ("Hey, nice phone tech, we'll just be taking it, then. Enjoy your chapter 11.")
Timeline, Inc. (New, from article)
VMWare ("Oh, and virtual system imaging is going in, too. Thanks Connectix!")
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Hence, Microsoft seems to have willingly and knowingly mislead its customers. I sense that if individual customers do end up getting sued by Timeline, those customers could turn right around and sue Microsoft for misleading them. IANAL(ThankGod).
Emphasis mine. This just seems vindictive, here. These are customers of a customer to Timeline... why go after the end-user so viciously?
-"I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle." - Arthur Dent
If these companies can sue Microsoft for distributing code which is burdened by patents; and if they win what does this do about OSS licenses? Does it matter if the developer knows a given peice of software violates a patent? We'd all stop making OSS software if we were liable for retroatively paying patent licensing fees for users to operate the software we contribute to.
In particular, the BSD license doesn't say anything about patents, should it have a clause like:
THIS SOFTWARE MAY BE COVERED BY PATENTS
AND THUS MAY NOT BE USEABLE WITHOUT
APPROPRIATE LICENSING BY THE OWNERS OF
THOSE PATENTS; THIS LICENSE IS NOT A
GRANT OF PATENT AND THE DEVELOPER
EXPLICITLY DENIES ANY RESPONSIBILITY
FOR PATENT LICENSING REQUIRED TO USE
THIS SOFTWARE.
Just wondering? How do other licenses handle it? Is there a clause in the GPL for this?
How hard would it be for those companies using MS SQL to switch to a different SQL distro? That should eliminate the infringement, but how difficult is switch between one SQL distro and another?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
It scares me that alot of critical business data is not only accessible at Microsoft's mercy. This is the whole point of Microsoft solutions. They tie you in and to maximize efficiancy they work better with other Microsoft products. Before you know it you become an all or mostly Microsoft shop. Then they raise the price for licensing and are discussing renting the software and putting palladium as a hardware means to enforce it.
After this it's too late to turn back. This is why I think c# will and
http://saveie6.com/
This article just demonstrates the tip of the iceberg for the problems that are going to be cause by software patents. Its about time patent offices woke up and refused to patent *any* software or software techniques otherwise the only winners will be lawyers and the only losers will be consumers due to restricted choice.
This is what happens when the patent office changes its mind and starts allowing something new. Since no one had been sending in software patents over the last 50 years, they don't have a ready supply of prior art in the form of thousands (or millions) of declined patents.
Once the business rules patents get into full swing, no small business will be allowed to operate at all without some risk of being sued out of existance. Once that happens, then the patent office will get fixed but I figure thats a few decades away.
Suddenly SQL injection is no longer the worst problem you face when you use Sequelserver...
W00t! W00t!
After reading the article it seems clear that Microsoft's worst mistake lay in taking the legal route (attacking Timeline) instead of resolving the issue with new licensing when it had the chance.
So, basically the problem is Microsoft hubris; first they signed a crap contract, then they refused to negotiate a better one. But Timeline seems to have ego (and truthfullness) problems of its own; spreading FUD among MS customers in a kind of 'good for the goose, good for the gander' approach. So this looks like a situation where there are no heros and Timeline may be the only winner.
I wonder what long term effect this will have on MS SQL Server sales? The funny part is, this only directly affects a small number of developers modifying SQL Server in very specific ways. But the marketplace often operates on emotion rather than rational principles and this tarnish on the MS crown may have significant ripple effects.
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
The patent seems to govern the collecting of data from multiple sources and storing in staged areas for manipulation and/or writing back to the original database(s) or deploying to a new target (the example given is OLAP cubes).
I worked for Broadbase (when they were still Broadbase) and that seems to describe there ETL (analytics) pretty well. Mind you it also covers a whole raft of other ETL tools that are out there
--My sig is bigger than your sig--
Microsoft should be responsible...
I hope not. Beacuse if they are responsible for patent violations of their software by users then open source developers are going to be in for a world of hurt.
THEY infringed on the patent by selling it ouside of the agreed scope!
I'm sorry, but distributing code which violates a patent should definately not be infringing behavior; but IANAL. If it is, that is the nail in the OSS coffin. Now, if Microsoft explicltily claims that they will indemnify their users for patent violations... this is a different issue; but I very much doubt that Microsoft made any representations to this.
God help OSS developers if Microsoft is responsible. The PTO is who is responsible... for most likely (given their track record) allowing a bull-shit patent to go through.
And this is from a *confirmed* ANTI-MICROSOFT junkie, not one of your astro-turfers...
phew, good that I have a illegal copy of sql server running here, so i am not a microsoft customer and i am not affected
This is from a memo summarizning what there patent covers
Free cell phone tracking
They said people who 'added code' to the SQL server. Does this mean altering the source, or just using it from inside a program (ie, not SQL Explorer or whatever)?
The article says:
Who is to decide this? Another court ruling? MS? Timeline?
I don't even understand this enough for IANAL. I need a new acronym: IHNFCATL. (I have NFC about the law)
/syle
This should not affect any MS SQL user even if they developed customized code to run with it. This will affect companies that sell third party add-on/customization software for MS SQL. I suppose Timeline could press the user community for royalties and damage one of the best alternatives to Oracle but I doubt they will try. This is really about developers skirting royalties to Timeline by trying to piggy back onto Microsoft's developers lisence purchased from Timeline. The bad guys here are the unscrupulous or Imbicile third party developers.
The truth suffers more from convictions than from lies.
How long until individuals are held liable for breaking the law when their boss tells them to.
Instead of the company paying for using this software illegally, the programmers paying for it, because THEY should have known it was illegal and informed the company (providing a slippery slope between choosing your job and what is legal).
How would you feel if you found out that copy of VC++ isn't licensed, and YOU are responsible for licensing it, not the company and you have no option of using an alternative, like Dev-C++?
SELECT max(money)
FROM ms.customers
WHERE ms.cant_read_EULAs
AND ms.really_wants_to_lose_market
HAVING Slammer;
If you read the memo on the timeline site, the patent only covers "automating the production of data warehouses/marts and the downstream delivery and enhancement of the information so obtained". Only a small amount of Microsoft customers probably use these features.
If MySQL was using patented code, just because it was open source licensed to you doesn't make you a valid user of that patented code. This is a case in point for using software which contains 0 lines of patented code. While in most cases that happens to be free software rather than proprietary, patents can encumber free software projects as well (and have many times).
MORTAR COMBAT!
Slammer worm package is now available bundled with MS SQL Server for a modest fee (credited as "royalty payments").
Get your copy today !
getSexySig();
So software patents are evil, except if they hurt Microsoft ?
So, for most SQL Server users it's not an issue, and since neither Postgres or MySQL have multidimensional capabilities, they're not really an alternative either.
No sig, sorry.
MS will appeal. Every SQL developer and his dog will appeal. Just like every other ruling that negatively affects huge numbers of developers... ...oh wait, you mean the DMCA is still being upheld? Well fuck you then, Microsoft. I hope Adobe uses SQL server :-)
Sybase's Adaptive Server Enterprise. All of the SQL Server, none of the royalties. :)
To come out with a serious windows versions. No seriously now would be the best time to do it.
If one developed any programs that talk to MSDE, is one infringing on Timeline? My understanding, however ignorant, is that patents apply to the copying or use of the patent technology -- even in private. One need not distribute anything to be infringing on a patent and liable for royalties. Is that correct?
Anyway, a large percentage of the millions of SQL Server users will be easy to find because of their open ports.
However, in a situation to where the customers had no way of knowing the goods were stolen (i.e. the difference between buying from some shady character next to a dark alley and Wal-Mart) then I fail to see how there can be a legal precedent to punish (or at least ONLY punish) the buyers. Granted, the argument that folks should pay attention to legal preceedings is valid to a point yet from an engineering perspective it is silly to force any architecture analysis to throw in a full legal and social analysis. Basically, MS should have made it CLEAR to its customers and potential customers. Because they did not do so then it falls to them to pay. IMHO what SHOULD happen is that MS has to pay in full and will have to recoup the costs from their customers through a separate court battle.
Users (and developers) should never have to worry about anything else except what is on the included license. If a company refuses to do its duty and inform customers of known flaws or problems then it is the company not the customer that is responsible. Let all those folks that have been using SQL Server for those years now get full or perhaps pro-rated refund. I would be happy to recommend PostgreSQL (or MySQL depending on what they were actually using SQL Server for)
You forgot Spyglass -- the company setup by UIUC to manage and commercialize the Mosaic source code. When they negotiated with Microsoft, they thought they had done a really good job. They got a fixed percentage of the gross.
And then MS gave it away for free, screwing not only Spyglass, but Spyglass's only other customer -- Netscape.
-Esme
So what've they been doin in the courts so often? I thought they were just the best defense attorneys money could buy.
Never attribute to Hanlon that which can be adequately attributed to Heinlein.
Winners? Victors? I don't see any, I'm afraid.
Though this WAS worth a hell of a laugh.
Just my 1/250 of $5.00.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Is nice to use the TCO argument against Microsoft.
"MS SQL Server initially cost less than Oracle, Informix, etc, but if you use some features you could face aditional costs".
Anyway, I don't think that this is the first time that Microsoft sold something that they don't really own.
Take a look at Timeline's site.
d00d M$ hAx3r3d Th3M!!!!
I wonder how many CTOs hand an "Oh crap!" experience this morning, and not the usual kind.
You could've hired me.
Remember folks. Every time you turn on a computer and use it or you write a piece of code, you're violating SOMEBODY'S software patent, so you shouldn't support this. The only reason they haven't come after you is that you're not worth it.
Which is why the people bleating about how software patents should be valid don't bother me.
Besides the fact that they're patenting unpatentable expressions of abstract thought like books or movies or pictures or music or any other creative output that that can be recorded in physical form as a string of bits in some kind of EM storage device, these complainers don't respect software patents. Here's why:
They obviously use computers, since I'm reading their opinion online.
If they support patents, they know something about software patents so they should realize the scope and number of software patents out there.
Therefore they must know that they violate software patents every time they turn on their computers. If not, perhaps they need to perform some due diligence to be sure that they're not infringing on someone else's IP.
So, since they willfully engage in activities that they know are going to cause them to violate software patents, they don't respect software patents.
Since they don't respect software patents, they can't possibly enforce their own software patents in court. And besides that, only a complete hypocrite would blatantly ignore everyone else's "rights" in a certain area while asserting their own "rights" in that area vigorously.
Since they can't possibly enforce any software patents in court, they can not gain any advantage from actually having software patents.
Therefore, software patents are useless to them.
So, to put it quite simply, if you people to believe that you respect software patents, then you can't use computers of any kind in any way in your life. If you give up using computers completely to be able to get software patents, then I think I might respect your position. If you give up using computers completely, then drop me an email to tell me how it's going.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Remember it is the US, the trick to win a court battle is to have more money than your opponents. Bury them with paper and appeal. Delay all the payment.
Besides, even if MS is liable for the lies, Timeline has no right to sue it. MS'es customers should sue it for mis-representation of its products and licensing term. But they need to provide enough evidents that MS lieing on purpose, but not mis-understanding or ignorant about the original license term.
Even if your running Windows, MySQL is a good alternative to MS SQL Server, especially in light of these recent events.
I chose MySQL for an internal project, couldn't be happier with it, and the price was perfect ($0).
Invalid procedure call or argument [WebClass::WebClass_Start] AnalystWebReporting
Netcraft says: www.tmln.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
W00t!
... that this "incident" can start a wave of anti software-patent movement.
W00t! Larry! W00t! Larry! W00t!
The big losers here are going to be the vendors of large systems running on MS SQL and their customers. A good example would be some of the major ERP/CRM vendors who run on top of MS SQL. Those companies also are going to be targets of lawsuits. It most likely will not be the small shops who purchased MS SQL that will be hunted.
I'm glad my systems don't run on MS SQL.
Of course we torture people, we need the information --Gen. Pinochet
I wonder if this news will slashdot mysql.com and postgresql.com with people looking to switch...
Liberty uber alles.
It is called slashdotting. An above average web server can handle 200 concurrent users trying to read the same article, and anytime a web link hits the front page of this web site it sends 2500 people trying to read the article every minute, overloading the bandwidth, the server, etc...
In cyberspace nobody can hear your server scream - but they can watch it crawl.
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
Trumpet ("We're making our own TCP/IP stack.")
Novell ("We're making our own file sharing.")
Adobe ("We're putting in our own type manager.")
Exact same deal as the Citrix or VMWare examples you gave.
Microsoft: Hey Sega! You should build a console with PC hardware and DirectX! Call it "Dreamcast".
Sega: OK....But, you're not looking to get into the console market, are you?
Microsoft: "No....are you kidding? We just make software!"
Sega: "What's that box over there in the corner...the one with the big X on it?"
Microsoft: "Huh? Eh..Oh nothing, nothing...don't uh......Hey! Look! Money! Lookie Here! Isn't it Pretty! Money!"
And we all know how that story ended
What else do you call a company that has more lawyers than engineers? ... Rambus
Oh yeah
If you want to compare databases, check out this comparison chart.
o mparison%20chart.tml
http://developer.mimer.com/validator/comparison/c
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
Now would be the perfect opportunity for you to look at what features you are missing against MS-SQL and start implementing them. Nothing like a market waiting to be tapped.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
The vast amount of people who use pirated versions MS SQL must be having a good laugh. This is like a company charging me for extra miles on rental car that I stole.
2) Develop something useful
3) Sell it to MS with a restrictive license
4) Threaten MS customers
5) Watch MS buying your small company
6) Profit!
For MS employees watching Slashdot: is there anyone at MS interested in including in the next Windows version my penis enlargement technology, so that I can finally stop spamming people? Naturally your customers cannot use this technology to develop anything else than their penis size without infringing my license. You can call the next revision of your OS 'Windows XL'.
Signatures are for stupids.
And I thought Slammer was going to be the way MS's SQL swerver was going to cost this company the most money this month....
Bull. Microsoft's legal division is probably larger than most law firms. And since when do you have to be a law firm to break a promise.
IANAL, YANAL. If Microsoft retains one or one thousand lawyers, they are still responsible for notifying customers that certain value-additions to the server, sold or licensed by those customers (thus sub-licensing, what Microsoft has stated they are free to do 'unencumbered') those customers are liable. Apparently from evidence, Microsoft consulted on this statement before issuing it. That's what we call a smoking gun. I expect customers, if pursued will place the burden of treble damages, plus their own expenses and damages costs on Microsoft.
This of course all depends upon Timeline pursuing a list of all customers and investigating their products for infringement. They could bankroll the process with a settlement from Microsoft, however, I suspect to protect their underhandedly won and significant market, Microsoft will attempt to settle with Timeline, paying some hefty fee and renegotiating the terms of licensing. Since Microsoft has attempted to cut Timelines own legs off (buying their main distributor) expect Timeline to request a pound of flesh.
Lacking a settlement, here's yet one more argument in favor of buying software and services from Anybody-But-Microsoft. One would think they were coached on this whole preposterous strategy by the same team that coached them initially in the antitrust trial. i.e. some truly stupid, arrogant and overconfident lot.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Serious people who do hardcore data warehousing, use complex normalized models and handle terabytes of data don't use SQL server. those who try to cheese ball it with SQL Server got what they deserve. Yeah, it's a flame, but SQL Server is good for small/medium databases, not realtime stuff like NYSE with terabytes of data every day.
Let's see if that still holds after this, eh?
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
Sure thing, chicken little. That would be why most free developers avoid patented garbage. You are familiar, I'm sure with some of the efforts such as Portable Net Graphics format? While it's disgusting that there would be patents on something so obvious as a file format that uses well know compresion routines, free developers obey the law even when it's stupid.
The irony is that you can trust the major distributions of free software more than you can trust M$. M$ knew that their developers would be in violation of Timeline's patents and licenses, yet told them they were OK. That's right, the people taking your money LIED to you, while the free software people with nothing but their reputation at stake, have not. Well, what do you expect from closed source crap? It's a lie from start to finish.
The sooner people give up trying to make money off silly patents and closed source binaries, the better off everyone will be. The result of this kind of business model has been massive waste, from overpriced code that everyone has to use to keeping people from using reasonable techniques to the cost of the litigation to tell the difference. And all of that is before you count the costs of the Microsoft upgrade train and the massive intentional waste of changed document formats. Barf!
And this is from a *confirmed* ANTI-MICROSOFT junkie, not one of your astro-turfers...
You post looks like pure FUD to me.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I think MS SQL Server is great. I just wish it ran on big UNIX or for that matter even Linux.
Invalid procedure call or argument [WebClass::WebClass_Start] AnalystWebReporting
real nice that their product breaks their slashdotted website.
Ahh, but you forget how few countries accept the idea that code can be patented.
Ahh, but you forget how much of the global gross domestic product is tied up in countries that allow patents on algorithms running on generic computers. For instance, Fraunhofer holds patents on MP3 in Germany, most of the rest of Western Europe, Canada, the USA, Korea, and Japan.
Will I retire or break 10K?
This is the most insightful comment I've seen on the subject of software patents. Thinking back to my introduction to patents, for something to be patentable (in the UK at least) it must be:
1. Novel
2. Inventive
3. Capable of physical embodiment.
And over many decades (centuries even) patent practice has developed and matured. The same case can be made of trademark and copyright law - there is a long trail of established case law. This body of case law will help not only in dealing with disputes but also in guiding the patent offices when awarding patents. And not only case law, but maturity in the process of examining and granting patents.
The advent of software patents (in the US, still don't have them over here) is a step change, and introduces the patent process to an arena where there is no case law, and no established maturity in the process of examining and granting patents.
Now, the US patent office could tackle this in two ways:
a) they could set the bar for the granting of software patents very high, and themselves get involved in wrangling with big corporations about patents which they have declined, or
b) they could just grant any application which comes in, in which case they will not be involved in any disputes between patent holders and alleged infringers.
Whatever the merits of the two cases, it is now too late: there is a large body of software patents which, instead of being use to protect an inventor from having his ideas copied, is used by large corporations to selectively bully other corporations (large and small) in a game of bluffing poker played with legal fees.
The only silver lining is that all patents expire, and being able to cite an expired patent which covers what you're doing is a cast iron defence (assuming you waited until it expired before distributing your version).
And the dark cloud on the horizon? The possibility of patent terms being extended, in the same way as copyright terms, by similarly Mickey Mouse organisations.
Dunstan
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
If so, Microsoft definitely dropped the ball by (a) agreeing to license it rather than fighting it immediately (b) telling customers not to worry about it.
Remember the BSA (Business Software Alliance), they're a group of jack-booted nazis who barge into businesses suspected of using one copy too many of Microsoft Office, cut network cables to prevent users from remotely cleaning harddrives, and generally behave like some third world secret police, to the very people Microsoft tries so hard to bring under their influence.
Do you suppose the BSA would now act on behalf of Timeline? That would be irony, and damn funny.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Anyone else notice that the document on the Timeline website that is linked to is titled "Elegent Memo". Kinda funny, they wrote it in Word XP (aka Word XP) using one of the built-in letter templates and exported to HTML. Didn't bother to change the title of the document. Just makes them look a little silly if you ask me.
If you want an OpenSource comparison, you would have to go to PostgreSQL.
so, how do the cost of ownership comparisons look now? ;-)
as DBA w/6+ yrs on Oracle (OCP), 3+ on SQL/Server, 2+ on mySQL & 1+ on DB/2 it has been my experience that Oracle, despite pricetag & sleazy salesforce (topic for another thread), is orders of magnitude more stable than M$. for the last two yrs my prod Oracle instances have fed a ~20M page/day website while doing enough DML to switch a 100M logfile ~15/min with >99.8% uptime (again, over 2yrs!). by contrast, I have a SQL/Server (2K) install for a backend app which has to be rebooted at least twice/wk despite processing considerable less data. just to add insult to injury, we also have mySQL backend for another app which handles as much data as the SQL/Server instance yet has uptime comparable to Oracle. this is not FUD, just simple FACT! show me a SQL/Server install which processes >5G of DML/day w/>200 client connections and stays up >90 days then we'll talk about FUD...
If it was this morning, they are a poot CTO, as Microsoft stock has been down for a few days, and *I* know about this 2 days ago, and I was behind the curve.
Both MuSQL and Postgres have multidimensional capabilities. Don't post when you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
But it seems slapping a EULA on there changes all of that.
I used to read through EULAs. Sometimes I would not buy a piece of sowtware because the EULA didn't allow selling it/giving it to somebody else.
Nowadays, I only give them a cursory glance, since most of the clauses that are not liability related, turn out to be illegal.
What I like is things like the GPL, the AFD-Copyright, and other standard licences. Read it. Understand it. Done.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
This is a good example of what I call peeing in the pool. Timeline claims that because Microsoft is not a law firm, SQL developers who believed Microsoft's statements about SQL licensing were acting irresponsibly. Wow! Score one for the ludicrous vision of each of us having a lawyer accompanying us everywhere like a guide dog.
So SQL Server developers, fearing legal harassment, start lookin into alternatives like MySQL, encouraging the development of new features like triggers and native stored procedures, and making MySQL even more attractive as competition. See how IP encourages innovation? Uh, sort of?
What is the fuss over? Microsoft could just buy out the company.
W0000000000000000000000000t!
Hey, you develop for Microsoft software, you get what you deserve. :-)
Just think about it, if everyone payed all licensing fees and royalties and whatever on all software from the beginning, only the 5 richest people in the world could afford computers, and those computers would still today fill a large room and only have 640k ram. We are where we are today, because not everyone was completely legal in writing and purchasing/using software. We would be in the technological stoneage, I'm completely serious. These companies need to realise that they have to take a hit on royalties or there would be zero, 0, nil, null, ling, zippo market for their software. Do you understand? Someone inform the US government that software patents should be null and void, especially since there is no professional licensing for programmers. America and the whole World cannot afford monetary licensing and restriction on any form of software. If software companies want to charge royalties to everyone who uses their code, they better cough up a buck for each 1 and 0 they've ever used and give it to the estate of Von Neumann and Turing or destroy all of their software and computers and get out of the business.
Microsoft revokes Timeline (tmln.com)'s IIS server license:
"Invalid procedure call or argument [WebClass::WebClass_Start] AnalystWebReporting"
Osenbaugh appears to be threatening legal action against some SQL Server developers
So...will Ballmer and Co. decide to indemnify the DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS when the DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS get SUED SUED SUED?
Maybe, just maybe, this (or the Caldera situation) might spur some reform of the patent process vis-a-vis software and busines processes. I'm not holding my breath, though.
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
It needs a 'GROUP BY' parameter if you want a HAVING ;-)
--
If code was hard to write, it should be hard to read
Anyone know what in the world is with this? I know it's been around for months, but why would someone who owns the great domain "News.Com" redirect it to the obscure and confusing "News.Com.Com"? I've been wondering what the story behind it is, but it's impossible to search for it on the web because search engines try to "help" you correct your "typo".
Josh Woodward
and how many $$ in fines has M$ paid so far? or how many $$ has M$ lost to any court action to date? (Besides greasing the lawyers...) It seems to be ZERO, zero, Zer0. (I would not mind being wrong.) (We seem to be attacking their toenails. They keep growing back.)
No OSS developer worth his salt uses patented or copyrighted code.
How can each individual free software developer become acquainted with the scope of six million U.S. patents?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Patent law on willful infringment has established precedent that once you are aware of a patent then if you are possibly infringing, the only way to avoid willful charges is to obtain a written opinion of non infringement from a patent attorney (End user's can not rely on MS's voice that they are not infringing, they must have a legal opinion).
Timeline is not required by law to provide a notice of infringement through an attorney so their assertions carry no less qeitgh because Timeline is not a law firm.
Parent - Not Insightful - score five Child - AC - score 0
IP law is expensive and time consuming. I doubt you will get any assurance of anything from an IP lawyer for $600.
The next step is probably a consolidated action against Microsoft by developers impacted by this problem. That's a miserable prospect.
Absolutely correct. Mod the above comment up.
Microsoft has stolen plenty of IP from company after company, but they are too powerful for many to go after. Even when one does and wins, M$ will not honor a legal decision but will juet keep fighting it and continue to sell the stolen technology while they do. Take for example Stac Electronics vs. Microsoft; they won their case and got a judgement against Microsoft, but ended up accepting much less than the judgement and giving the company to Microsoft, clearly because Microsoft let them know it would never honor the judgement but just cost them more than they could afford to try to collect it.
What Timeline is doing might not look so great if you are a M$ SQL user, but by taking on the burden of going after all the M$ SQL users, they are putting much more presure on M$ than they could have ever done by going after them directly. I applaud them. It would be wonderful if everyone Microsoft stole from had the resources to do this. The fallout to M$ from lots of upset customers (and likely some state AG offices) suing them will be far greater than from one Company that they know they can kill in legal costs.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Any want to bet that there will be a rush on Postgres/SQL and MYSQL books within hours?
...And then Microsoft would be in the unenviable position of advising its customers to migrate to free Sybase for Linux (11.0.3.3), since it is compatible with SQL Server 6.5.
Why isn't Sybase having this problem? SQL Server and Sybase were at one time the same product (v 4.8).
You are familiar, I'm sure with some of the efforts such as Portable Net Graphics format?
PNG is not suitable for replacing all uses of GIF because Microsoft Internet Explorer, the web browser used by the vast majority of visitors to Google, does not natively read the animated variant of PNG that would be required under a "burn all GIFs" policy for delivering the animated advertisements that pay for the expenses of a web site.
Will I retire or break 10K?
A prime example of why Software Patents are just wrong. These types of works are copyrighted. Software apparently gets to have it both ways. Why is it in the better interests of the public to encourage legal action on a grand scale for work that should be only copyrighted, not also patented? Of course, its copyrighted too, but once a corporation gets that patent on a little piece of the work, it doesn't matter if somebody can reverse engineer it. It's still "theirs". You stole their idea!
from Article I, Section 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Software programming patterns and techniques are a discovery? Does anyone really believe that? Perhaps only legislative action can fix this. I imagine it will cost the economy at large billions of dollars before that happens. I suppose it comes down to whether the big guns in software marketing with lobbying dollars and political influence (Hi Bill!) swing for/against the issue. A court may take issue on whether this qualifies as Invention, but I doubt it they'll see it the right way.
Anyone seen my low uid? last seen 10 years ago while panning the #@$# out of Taco's 'web based discussion system'
Dear Microsoft SQL Server Customer:
On February 20 2003, Microsoft entered into a settlement agreement with Timeline Inc. regarding certain intellectual properties of Timeline and licensing matters associated with Microsoft's use of Timeline technology in its SQL Server system.
Pursuant to the collective agreement between Microsoft and Timeline, Microsoft recognizes that while it had purchased a right to use the Timeline technologies in its SQL Server system, end-users of the respective technology were not licensed to do so, and would be liable for the purchase of such licensed use directly with Timeline Inc.
In order to provide our customers with a cost-effective alternative to licensing of Timeline Inc technology, Microsoft is pleased to announce that it is making its powerful, internally developed database technology available for immediate download. This product, Microsoft DataBOB, includes:
- a powerful database capable of listing your favorite contacts
- a GUI administration console that can be learned in minutes by your developers and follows a unique interface concept
- helpful wizards and assistants that make use of DataBOB possible by even clerical employees
We're confident you'll find DataBOB not only very useful, but will recognize its value in reducing your information technology costs as even the most novice computer users will find DataBOB simple and straight forward in application.
In order to obtain your license, see an authorized DataBob distributor today.
I still remember days when being a programmer meant legal concerns were far distant from me.
Now, I'm following news like this, and wondering what it means for my job. It means a time where patent law, copyright law, business games, and acts of Congress can vastly affect my job, and lawsuits and patent claims can suddenly pop up and change the playing field.
I wonder at the CIS majors coming out of college are aware of the bizarre amount of issues that they may confront.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
and patents only apply to commercial use anyways so be because I'm only using a $1459.00 program to balance my personal checkbook they can't touch me HAHA!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
And then MS gave [IE] away for free
Only on Mac/PPC, Solaris/SPARC, and HP-UX/PA-RISC platforms. Microsoft Internet Explorer for x86 is licensed under a "supplemental EULA" that requires a copy of Microsoft Windows to be present, even if you're running it in Wine.
Will I retire or break 10K?
IANAL, and this is not legal advice...
Note you can always sue anyone so "can't" almost always never is the case (unless someone indemnifies you against being sued). However, if the person suing has no basis for the suit, it can get thrown out very fast.
There is always the issue with injuctive relief of patent infringment (stop ship/recall) so almost everyone is subject to that. However I think when people think about "sue" most people are worried about the "money" thing (you always have to pay your lawyer which isn't me, but that's another topic).
Techically a patent isn't "violated" until it's actually "practiced". Remember a patent is mostly on a "mechanism" or a "procedure", you can't patent a mathematical algorithm.
Designing something that might violates a patent if it was used in a certain way isn't against the law (for the most part unless that was your intent or computer keyboard manufacturers and monitors would most certainly be out of business). However, building it, distributing it, or selling it to someone who actually uses in the way that "practices" the patent potentially opens you up to some liabilty to economic damage, and patent law is a funky thing on economic damage.
The weird part is that the patent infringer's profit is not recoverable in economic damage (not that this matters much for OSS folks). One measure of economic damage is "reasonable royalty" which is likely to be zero for a OSS project (since the seller wouldn't have reasonably paid anything to licence the patent). Much more troublesome is the other way to compute economic damage is the lost profit of the patent holder (how much they would have made had the product not been made). For computing lost profit there's this thing called the "Panduit" test (after the case that set the precedent) for what must be established...
- what the demand for the product is
- impact of marketable non-infringing substitutes
- the patent holder had the means (marketing and manufacturing capacity) to exploit the demand
- the amount of profit (not revenue) that was lost
So regardless of the amount of money the OSS developer made (which is usually zero), someone can be liable for a bunch of damages if the patent holder chooses to assert lost profits.
There's also the issue of supplemental damages (how much the infringement cost in other areas of the patent holder's business) which is really where the money is.
The 64,000 dollar question is who is liable...
Technically, only the violator of the patent is liable (end user that executes the code that the patent covers), but there is a legal theory of "contributory infringement" that make other people in the chain from developer to user liable for some of it.
There is also weird legal theory that exploits a loophole in certain intellectual property statutes that contributory infringment requires at least some direct infringment. This theory was designed to protect the "middle-men" that unknowingly contribute to infringement but don't really benefit from it. I don't know how this could be applied, but conceivably a good lawyer might make the case that there was no direct infringement except possibly by the end user and the specific OSS developer who wrote the infringing lines of code.
Even though the end user is technically liable for the infringment, if the patent holder has an opportunity to, but fails to, stop the distributor or manufacturer from getting the infringing product to the end user before the end user ends up "infringing", the end user is generally protected from being sued first (the patent holder would have to go against the OSS developer first, before going against the end user). The user doesn't have a case until the patent holder sues the the OSS developer so it's all up to the patent holder's lawyer.
The short story is there's nothing anyone can due to prevent a patent holder suing everyone for injunctive relief, and if the OSS developers have some $$$, you would likely expect a good lawyer to sue for some economic damage as well. On the legal theory of "you can't get blood out of a turnip", the patent holder tries to goes against the person with the most money, the likely hood of being sued for monetary damage (instead of just going for injunctive relief) is pretty small unless you have some money. But it's technically possible to get sued and the OSS developer that wrote the infringing lines of code is probably the only person that they can actually sue first without it getting thrown out of court.
Again, IANAL, consult a real laywer if you want real legal advice!
Can I pay less if I don't want the gaping security holes?
This is like Alexy Pajitnov demanding fifty bucks from me because I own a copy of Tengen Tetris for me NES.
You're quite wrong here. What they are talking about are data cubes, which mysql and pgsql don't support and are something quite different from a multi-domensional array, which both pgsql and mysql do support.
So, I refer you back to your own message for advice.
--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
Oh sod it, I'll go get more drunk and try to forget all the problems that are out there because of MS, eventhough its just for one night.
Software is a written work, protected by copyright law. The strong protection of Patent law was not drafted with such works in mind.
If we held all writing to this standard, one author might patent the "murder mystery" and sue other authors for royalties.
This is a broken law, and all coders are victims. Let's not be happy now just because MS is getting burned.
Those are all things that belong in the system software of any modern operating system.
Microsoft isn't screwing anyone simply because they integrated their features into the operating system. In order to count as screwing, it's gotta be like Spyglass, or like that pen OS guy. That'd be like saying Apple screwed Connectix by incorporating solid virtual memory into Mac OS X.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Sue Microsoft.
When you bought a license to SQL Server, you presumably paid Microsoft a royalty for it.
But now you have to pay these other guys.
Microsoft owes you that money back.
I never understood why you can't resell stuff. I mean, try this:
You buy a car from Ford. It has a new type of experimental engine or something which uses a patent from Toyota. Toyota licensed it to Ford.
You can't then sell your car as used?
I know there are EULAs and such with s/w, but it is just plain wierd.
-- bearclaw
If Microsoft has any intelligence at all, they'll realize that letting Timeline (or anyone else) beat up on their customers is a really bad idea.
150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for slashdot.sig (129323052 bytes).
Spyglass owned Mosaic, the original NCSA browser, which they licensed to MS. Netscape hired away the primary developers of Mosaic, Marc Andreesen and Eric Bina, who were pissed off at NSCA for not giving them any recognition for Mosaic. Netscape (confusing called Mosaic-Netscape, at the start) redeveloped their browser from scratch.
That didn't stop Spyglass from threatening legal action, which resulted in the company being renamed Netscape from Mosaic Communications. Their original domain name, www.mcom.com still works to this day.
So in short, Netscape was never a Spyglass customer.
Adobe: We're making our own (closed) XDoc format to kill PDF.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
Actually, the AC was quite right. While MySQL and Postgres do not have tools to define and populate OLAP data cubes, but alternatives exist for creating data cubes. So saying that they don't support data cubes is a inaccurate. They simply don't provide convenient tools to creating the data cubes. I refer you to EFEU, since that's what I for postgres datacubes. I can't remember the MySQL solution offhand, but it too supports data cubes.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
Timeline informs you that you are in violation of their patents but you continue to use the product for 2.5 years without checking out the claim yourself.
If you had engaged legal council and were advised by that legal council that you we safe, then Timeline's claim of bad faith has no basis. You are still liable for damages but not treble damages.
However, it is Timeline's position that if you simply took Microsoft's word for it, then you acted in bad faith. Timeline's position is nothing but a scare tactic.
Bad faith is "not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather it implies the conscious doing of a wrong" -- Black's Law Dictionary. I fail to see how maintaining the status quo in the face of a contract dispute when your supplier - an actual party to the case tells you that everything is okay. It may be bad judgment to trust the MS's legal interpretation but I don't think doing so constitutes a conscious doing of a wrong.
However, If I were a big MS SQL Server customer, I'd want to be holding a letter from MS saying that they couldn't provide a copy of the agreement or a letter from my lawyer saying that they'd looked into it and could determine for sure who was right. Both show that you tried.
BTW, IANAL - my spouse is a law student. Taking my legal advice would be roughly equivalent to trusting your doctor's dog's veterinarian to treat your heart condition - probably worse than picking a random stranger.
You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake -- but you could be if you got off your ass.
Timeline has a patent on data whorehouses?
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
My last chance to make money off the last of the dot.bomb's has gone...
Woe is meeeeeeeeee...
In a surprise announcement today, it was revealed that Microsoft, through a chain of holding companies, actually owns Timeline. A Microsoft executive who wished to remain anonym0us cow herd said that Timeline would continue to persue patent infringements against all affected for the 3-1/2 year period during which infringement has occured. This should materially affect Timeline's financial performance, which should also boost Microsoft's sagging sales as fewer customers find a reason to upgrade according to Microsoft's schedule.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
First the worm, and now this! It's a wonder anyone uses MS SQL. You could always use this project to convert the database into a MySQL database and leave MS SQL altogether.
Patents should be treated like trademarks. If you fail to vigorously defend your trademark, you lose it. If patents were treated the same way, this might put an end to patent mills, and it would also prevent someone from patenting an idea, sitting on it while someone else unknowingly develops an infringing product, and then extorts money from them in the form of royalties after the product is proven successul.
But that is hardly the same thing. With the MSSQL server, it is a built in feature, while in Postgresql it's an addon. That's not the same as being supported by postgresql. Go on the hackers list and ask a question about data cubes and they'll tell you postgresql doesn't directly support them, but after market add ons do.
Therefore, postgresql itself stays unencumbered, which is the important point here. If timeline wants to go after folks, it would be the efeu people or the users of efeu.
--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
...there's no such thing as "good faith" anymore. Everything is dictated EXPLICITLY by contract terms and nothing is to be interpreted on faith anymore. Have you been asleep for the past 30 years, Mr. VanWinkle?
Mess with bulls, get horns.
Anyone really believe that Microsoft was unaware that they were selling product features that they had no right to sell? Anyone believe they will compensate the injured clients without a long legal process?
coming to a bankruptcy court near you soon. . .
Veritas (we're making our own Volume Manager and Tape Backup software).
Nuthin like walking on the edge. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I guess you don't think that Stac, Symantec, or WordPerfect got screwed. Well, each to his own, I guess.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I just went to MS's website to see if they had anything on the decision - on their front page was a link to 'Windows Server 2003 & SQL Server 2003 set new TPC-C Record' in the top-right corner.
Using open souce software won't solve the fundemental problem here.
Sure, Microsoft potentially screwed their customers. They'll fix it. Reason? If they don't, then *noone* will buy their software anymore. Stuff like this could kill Microsoft if they don't deal with it. No worries, either way.
I own a small software company. I use microsoft sql-server (and, honestly, don't have much of a choice if I want to *sell* my software, but that's a whole different problem). Without reading the patents, I have no clue if my software infringes on Timeline's patents.
But then again, none of us have any clue if MySQL violates patents. I'm willing to bet that it does. Someone out there has a patent for pretty much everything. Even if the code was written on a planet orbiting Vega, and, assuming for the moment that no-one on Vega's planet ever even heard of the earth, they could still write code on their computers (go with it, they have computers, ok?) that do something substantially similar to something that someone has patented.
It's a fundemental flaw in our patent system... and ignorance is no excuse.
Most software developers just ignore the whole thing, thinking (and in general, rightfully so) that they are safe if they didn't steal an idea from somewhere. And they are safe. No one notices most infringments. Occasionally, if you make it big, someone will notice your infrigement, and will basically want a piece of your action (i.e., a big settlement) and they will get it... even though you didn't steal the idea, you invented it yourself. Hopefully you can find prior art.
Until Microsoft finds a way to adequately compensate Timeline, there is simply no way out of this. Timeline is not about to initiate vast numbers of individual lawsuits -- they don't have to. All they have to do is cherry-pick a few customers here and there and use BSA-style intimidation tactics. The publicity from the lawsuits or payoffs in lieu thereof will trigger a crippling Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt about SQL Server, AND ALL THE OTHER MICROSOFT PRODUCTS THAT MIGHT HAVE LATENT PATENT ISSUES! No reasonable person can have confidence in ANY Microsoft product until this issue is settled and some reassurances are given about how future patent issues are to be handled.
I can't help but think this entire situation would have been quietly settled if the offender was anyone other than Microsoft.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-985359.html
.NET. [....PERFECT! 2PTs!...]
Yeah, it's the same site as was linked to from the web. But if you look, you'll see something like what I'm seeing right now:
Oracle Corp ORCL 12.15 -0.16
Microsoft Corp MSFT 24.46 0.31
See, you've also gotta look at the fact that M$ points out that they *arranged* this deal with TimeLine.
So probably this *is* a good deal for M$. How? Well, #1: they throw their best customers to the dogs. Best customers lose a chunk. [BTW... would this include *google*, which HTMLs all PDFs?]
Since nobody's going to recover from M$ without huge expenditures for legal bills, and a long wait, some of those best customers will be available to be bought out by M$'s
Next, the rest are going to have to get licensed. How? Well, they pay an extra chunk to M$, which has arranged a new deal with Timeline. Timeline gets their cut, M$ gets the cut PLUS their extra. [... next, an easy layup...]
Meanwhile, M$ gets publicity, bemoans how their customers don't have much choice, and VPs around the country remember ("well, Nobody Uses Oracle")
[Three point shot at the buzzer! But it's charging... no, the Ref's calling it a Foul! and the first is good; the second is good, and this game is going into overtime!]
Microsoft isn't going to lose. They're too good at the legal game.
Anyhow, either stock buyers are really stupid, or else this is Yet Another Microsoft Dirty Trick. I'm betting with the latter. But not with my money--I don't have money. Bill got it all. You see, it was in this bank account, and the bank uses mSQL...
----
You think this is a sig,
but it isn't. I type this
by hand every time.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
No OSS developer worth his salt uses patented or copyrighted code.
So, an OSS project isn't copyrighted? *EVERYTHING* is copyrighted. Copyright allows you to set the terms of *how* people can copy your 'OSS' code. You want to allow people who agree to the GPL to copy it? Fine. But it's still under copyright. You seem to not have any grasp of the term 'open source'.
creation science book
In fact, Microsoft entered into an agreement with Stac to *purchase* the company (or the technology -- I forget which, exactly). As part of the preliminaries, Bill's thugs demanded that Stac hand over the royal jewels -- i.e., the technology. Stac, evidently unaware of the fact that Bill and Co. wouldn't recognize an ethic if it smacked them in the forehead, handed it over -- that's what the deal was about anyway, right?
Once they got their hands on the tech, Bill and Co. canceled the deal -- and kept the tech.
This led to the Stac lawsuit described in the link you mention - which Stac won; Stac's victory led to the countersuit (over the use of undocumented DOS calls); Stac lost that one.
IIRC ;-)
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Most people are picking MySQL because it's cheap/free, not because of the feature set.
As a matter of fact, I don't even think MySQL comes close to supporting ANSI SQL 92 standards.
Don't get me wrong, it has enough features for most people, but it's completely inadequate for solving complex problems that require features like triggers and stored procedures.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
For what it's worth: this only seems for US citisens, since f.e. in europe we don't have software patents nor are we affected by US only patents.
Futhermore, how can a USER of a piece of software, which the user licensed in full (payed a license fee to MS), still be charged for patent-infrigment while USING the piece of software? This doesn't make sense. IF there is one company who has to pay for this patent infrigment, it's Microsoft: after all, it's not the end-user's problem MS didn't license enough from Timeline so the end-user is licensing software from MS which in fact isn't covering the whole package.
What also seems odd is that the article mentiones SqlServer '7', not SqlServer 2000. '7' had an Add-on OLAP package while SqlServer 2000 has everything integrated. IANAL but this seems only to be about the add-on OLAP package for SqlServer 7, not about the integrated logic in SqlServer 2000.
To the people who don't have a clue about databases and cry about MySql: please... come back when MySql has the features SqlServer provides.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
And just to be clear, are we talking about the CUBE and ROLLUP functions in SQL?
Monopoly nothing, they conducted themselves recklessly (share holders had to be wondering the competency of those in charge), only lucking out on Jackson's off the cuff remarks which saved them on the claim he wasn't impartial. Rigged demos, Bill's uncooperative testimony, executives purjuring themselves... hard to believe these weren't just some local hoods on trial, rather than representitives of one of the most successful corporations in history.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
But Timeline seems to have ego (and truthfullness) problems of its own; spreading FUD among MS customers in a kind of 'good for the goose, good for the gander' approach.
It's pretty ironic that Microsoft accused Timeline of spreading FUD. It's pretty sad that you got modded up to 5 spreading more Microsoft FUD.
It is not FUD to tell someone that you can in fact sue them. Timeline's statements were 100% truthfull and they had every right to make them.
The uncertanty and doubt was caused by the conflict between Microsoft's statements and Timeline's statements. The FUD was Microsoft's false and deceptive statements. Microsoft was spreading FUD about Timeline's case.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I see your point, but it really comes down to what you define as support. I think the point of the AC's troll was that postgres and MySQL are still viable options, and as far as that goes, I agree.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
You just witnessed a comercial software vendor LIE to their customers and those customers getting burnt,and still you trust that vendor? That's really stupid. M$ thought they could buy their way out of things, lied, got caught and are taking down a host of fools who trusted them. Do you want to be next or what?
you appear to be guaranteeing that all free software authors obey patent laws.
No, I said that the distributors do. That in turn works its way back to the authors. Reputable distributors won't carry programs that infinge in any way. It seems obvious that you are less likely to get burnt that way.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It just goes to show, if you want to pay for an RDBMS, buy Oracle.
;)
Or, go the cheap route. Use Postgres.
I'd like to say this'll hurt Microsoft - IE, pointy-haireds would be leery of purchasing other Microsoft software because the same thing that just happened, may happen again.
However, I doubt that'll happen. No one gets fired for buying Microsoft! They just grumble at you and then practice creative accounting.
Sounds like it might be time for a BSA audit of Microsoft...
Caution: Contents under pressure
Thanks for the Microsoft link...
fsck -u
I believe this is the right stock: Symbol: TMLN.OB Market: OTC BB Industry: Software & Programming Change: +0.39 (+33.91%) Coincidence? Course, Microsoft's it up 55 cents (2.28%) as well.
I tried to replace my lawyers with tiny shell scripts, but they kept changing the law.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
But how are customers supposed to know of a patent infringement if they don't have access to the code in order to inspect it?
Are we, the clients, going to have to start investigating the history of such software and reviewing the licenses over every piece of software that came into contact with the prospective product before we can even consider a purchase?
This is not a victory for anybody other than Timeline. This is a step backwards for the consumer. The customer can no longer rely on the developer producing an honest product because the developer is no longer liable.
It wasn't the murder's fault he killed, it was the people who knew him whom he never told he was a murder. They're responsible and they must do the time for him.
This is ludicrous.
Raise you hand if you too think that Slashdot needs a new moderation and commenting system (preferably one based on research into how "informtion percolation systems" can work).. A good start would be to allow commenting on a particular subject point, and to allow comments to follow each otehr, so that any one particular comment would (hopefully) have a trail of bread crumbs behind it giving a coherant line of insight, and have some way to cut out all the redundent information that gets entered into the system. Might be good for a masters' thesis in Information Science or something..
Whee!
Are you suggesting that a downward blip in the share price of Oracle is relevant to this article? Oracle's share price is listed because it's mentioned in the article (as another database vendor that licenses TimeLine's software), but I doubt the two things (the daily movement of the share price and this article) are at all related.
PS If you're actually part of the Slashdot aluminium-foil deflector beanie brigage, I apologise for suggesting your post was intended to be rational.
I define support as that which the original product creators will accept the bug fixes for. With GiST indexes, originally, they were an external feature, but are now incorporated.
If I show up on pgsql-hackers and ask for help with data cubes in efeu, they will refer me to the maintainer of efeu. If the efeu project gets to a point that they wanted the efeu code integrated into postgresql or delivered with it, then the guys on the hackers list would provide the support for that module.
But I agree that this is a great boon for pgsql and mysql in terms of exposure, and it really makes MS look like they don't care about their customers, just their margins.
--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
My understanding was that Timeline was making broader assertions about the applicability of the patents than were true, thus frightening many Microsoft customers who are not affected by the patent infringement case. That would be FUD by my understanding of that TLA.
Do you know of something different, or are you just attacking me in hopes of starting a flame war? I would certainly appreciate any links you have to the actual statements made by Timeline.
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
Ha Ha.
Eat at Joe's.
http://www.ibphoenix.com/
... 1.5 fixes a LOT of stuff. we used it because it was free -and- had the features we wanted. since then we've learned of its quirks (things like column aliases not being used in other parts of the sql statement, say, in the 'group by' clause!) but learned to get around that. 1.5 fixes most of that, to my knowledge. i just wish we'd left ourselves notes in the code saying "this is a hack!" ... best thing about it is that the versioning model is stable, and has been for years. and the original developers are working on firebird for free, not interbase for borland. nothing beats having jim or ann around ...
... ever-growing clients ... hey lookie. i've got a few more wizards to code today. gotta go!)
1.0 is not bad
(note -- we're using firebird 1.0 on a slackware 8 machine for production, but firebird 1.0 under XP for our test system, with borland-builder-based win32 apps as clients
"Sure, it's okay.." I'd imagine quite a few companies are going to sue Microsoft for any losses to the royalties. Good for them.
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
IF microsoft DID in fact mis-represent themselves to their clients about their legal ability to write custom code on top of SQL server and market it themselves, then I believe (IANAL) that that is FRAUD, my friends. Yes our old friend FRAUD. Now my interpretation of how this can play out is this:
1) Developers violating patents must pay. They must pay without protest
2) Said developers should be able to collectively or individually SUE Microsoft for fraud. For specifically the amount of the patent payments.
This seems like an end around Justice, but I believe that the two issues are separate. Simply because Microsoft chose to misinterpret the licencing agreement, does not mean that the developers are free to do whatever they want, but IF they were told that they could do so, the developers have a case to make that MICROSOFT should be responsible for said costs.
Just my $.0002 (adjusted for inflation)
hmmmm?
So, another way of saying this post is... Who in their right minds would pick MS products in the first place even before this snaffu? They are insecure, expensive (and I refer mostly to secondary support and infrastructure costs), buggy, dangerous and all the other things many here know and many more simply parrot.
" I define support as that which the original product creators will accept the bug fixes for."
:)
heh. by that definition, none of M$ products have any support
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
Sendo ("Hey, nice phone tech, we'll just be taking it, then. Enjoy your chapter 11.")
You ever try to do business with Sendo?
Not easy. Didn't pay on time, and went right to the wire, only agreeing to pay when I'd convinced them I was one click away from suing (you can do that online here).
I spent more time chasing payment than doing the work, and I suspect that my experience of doing business with them was not unique.
It is just possible that one of their other suppliers, Microsoft, also found them difficult to do business with.
This is a story about a licensing issue between TimeLine and Microsoft. Microsoft, as always, knowingly refused to honor a contract and misled it's customers. Why is it that some posts associate open source with this mess ? It has nothing to do with it. Read the answers given by Prof Eben Moglen on intellectual property issues, read the BSD license. Maybe then, you'll stop saying that GPL and BSD allow people to infringe on patents and don't respect IP.
is the name of my new band!
I thought you had it about right until it came to the "63 marketing analysts".
Anybody who's ever worked with marketing knows that there are not 63 marketing analysts available in the whole world.
If we on the other hand talk about "Marketing Managers", "Marketing Directors" or "Marketing Presidents", then you could have a million of them. On the dozen.
Do you know of something different, or are you just attacking me in hopes of starting a flame war?
I know what the News.com.com story said, the register story, and I followed some of the links from the register. I did not see a single thing to support your claim that "Timeline was making broader assertions about the applicability of the patents than were true". If such statements exist it would be your resposibility to provide a link to such a false statement. It is obviously impossible for me to show that Timeline did NOT say something.
When I said Timeline's statements were "100% true" I ment the verdict proved true every Timeline statement within the articles. The register says the appeals court has affirmed Timeline's contract interpertation.
frightening many Microsoft customers who are not affected by the patent infringement case.
Quite a bit of irony here. Timeline was the one who claimed it would affect FEWER Microsoft customers:
Timeline management has consistently testified that, while this issue may eventually involve millions of dollars, it will only impact a segment of software developers using SQL Server.
Apparently Micrsoft tried to use terror tactics on the court by arguing that a ruling in Timeline's favor would have an unreasonable and devestating impact on Microsoft customers:
The trial court, ironically, found Microsoft's witnesses more credible than Timeline's on this issue; specifically the potential impact of the patents on users of SQL Server... the Superior Court found that if the proposal, which the License Agreement was intended to memorialize, was as Timeline contended... essentially all of Microsoft's SQL Server customers"
The tactic backfired and the appeals court confired Timeline's contract interpretation PLUS Microsofts sweeping definition of who it would affect.
This is not exactly the first time that Microsoft has tried to avoid court remedies to their illegal acts or contract violations by arguing that the remedy would put an undue burden on the public (aka Microsoft customers). If Microsoft customers are "burdened" by the remedy then it is Microsoft's fault for having violating the law or contract in the first place. I certainly hope it is Microsoft who is forced to pay and not the SQL developers.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
YES! YES! Microsoft is fucking stupid! And their customers/developers got SCREWED!!! Yay! Yay! Yay! This is a day of great rejoicing. I hope all of the aforementioned developers go BANKRUPT because of this stupid thing. That will make a LOT of people angry at Microsoft! Hopefully this means that less people will be using their products in the future. Microsoft is GARBAGE. Oh yeah, and Microsoft themselves should be FINED an OUTRAGEOUS sum of money, effectively taking away all but, oh, 1% of what they have, just for lying to people. Fuck Microsoft. They suck ASS.
(sung to Black Flag)
I was a hippie...
I was a burnout...
I was a dropout...
I was out of my head...
I was sooo wasted....
I coded SQL server....
Now I'm busted...
Tooo bad...
One can't help but note that this was a company that built the foundations for its empire on acquiring rights to the QDOS IP for a song and relicensing them to IBM. Poetic justice.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Access! (a.k.a. Micro$oft Jet Engine)
And there are also other stocks than ORCL and MSFT. Indeed, I've heard that XOM was poised for a rise...
My store is licensed to sell MSFT software to end-users. If I were to follow the Microsoft Example, I can start telling all the people who buy Microsoft software that they're free to modify and resell that software. I can even charge more for a 'Developer Version' that's basically the same software as the original, with a cd of some extra tools thrown in.
And if Microsoft ever comes after me legally, I can just say "I'm not a law firm! Ha Ha Ha! Go screw my end-users instead!"
Right. Anybody wanna buy a copy of "SlushySoft Windoze XP DEVELOPER EDITION"? Only $3999 for the 5-user license!
Mei Bitte
I am getting into abstract painting. Real abstract -- no brush, no canvas,
I just think about it. I just went to an art museum where all of the art
was done by children. All the paintings were hung on refrigerators.
-- Steven Wright
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...