Slashdot Mirror
Can Recent MS Patents Affect Mono and DotGNU?
5p1urge asks: "I really love the Mono and DotGNU projects. As someone who's worked in Java for for over 5 years, I welcome C# and it's buddies to the OpenSource world. However, here's question: as far as I can tell, only the C# spec and System.* assemblies were submitted to ECMA and therefore made officially public. What happens when MS decides that, Linux -is- going to steal valuable income-generating business, and therefore it should use it's newly acquired patents to sue? I'd appreciate comments from IT lawyers / solicitors and individuals with experience in this area, as well as from the wider community. I'm asking this question because I want to code in mono / DotGnu but I'm cautious because I wonder if MS can take it away from us?"
Ballmer, Allchin and others have made it clear many times that they are using these patents to pursue the strategy against open source software outlined in the halloween papers. Patents are a not new way for software makers to gain control over other people's intellectual property. And not a common one at all. There are not many software makers which have engaged in an extensive patenting strategy like Microsoft. Most of the extensive patenters are large hardware makers. Microsoft was the only software maker at the 1994 USPTO hearings that advocated software patents.
There is no god
Too bad the people at PARC did't patent the idea of a graphic windowing operating system.
They did. They waited too long to enforce the patents. Xerox totally bungled their chance to become Microsoft.
Come on! Even Bill Gates knows this one:
Microsoft went the ECMA route because it's faster and easier to get an ECMA standard passed than to go the ISO route, and once ECMA has passed the standard it's a heck of a lot easier to get it standardized by ISO. C# and the CLI are both ECMA and ISO standards. See ECMA and ISO/IEC C# and Common Language Infrastructure Standards. C# - ECMA-334, ISO/IEC 23270 CLI - ECMA-335, ISO/IEC 23271 CLI Technical Report - ECMA TR84, ISO/IEC 23272
That's happen before Zope became mature. Now the situation is turned for PHP. For example, the author of two famous PHP books and the original developer of the famous NeoBoard portal rewrote the whole thing from PHP to Zope.
Less is more !
I wont say stupid, but probably biased.
.NET can leverage native OS architecture quite efficiently. It simply blows Java Swing away in this area.
I'm a programmer / project manager ( / DBA, etc. ) for a very small shop. We write in house programs for specific industry requirements.
We've done stuff in Java; as an OOP advocate, I love Java. As project manager, I get blank stares from programmers that want the equivalent of visual basic to work in. We've now standardized on C#.NET. The programmers still look a little lost when I emphasize OO practices, but they're real happy with Visual Studio to hold their hands.
So,
Is it faster? Perhaps.
Remember, in a rich client GUI environment,
Is Development Faster ? YES.
Bash them all the you like. Microsoft's development tools have always been good. The Visual Studio suite is much better than any equivalent product I've seen.
Is it cross platform ? No
Yes, a big no here. However, expect to see the CLR running on platforms other than straight up Windows in the future. In the end, when most commercial clients run Windows this is more of a selling point than a detriment.
Does it do things that other languages cannot? No
Well, this can pretty much be said of any language. As a Java programmer, I really enjoy C#, it's does the same thing as Java, it just does it quite well for Windows.
Is it Encumbered By Patents? Yes
So? For OSS this doesn't fly, for the boss, this isn't really a consideration.
Definitely not true. Microsoft's first products were languages, and until the mid-1990s, it was their cash cow.
Office and consumer OSs are definitely the current cash cow, but I believe that the Dev Tools group is still in the black. It's not easy to figure out exactly how much they pull in from tools because in their financials it's lumped in a bunch of other things. However, in their latest 10k, revenue from "developer tools, training, certification, Microsoft Press and other services" was listed at US$1.016 BILLION. Yes, with a B.
How much of that is actual developer tools isn't clear, but that group as a whole (which includes CALs, licensing, etc.) made US$1.409 billion last year, and they're estimating US$1.848 billion this year.
The Register article is pointing at a patent APPLICATION. Despite their comment, "But an umbrella claim that protects its .NET APIs, granted last week, highlights the extent of its determination to protect its interfaces," I don't see any patent granted last week.
.NET API is even patentable. Certainly claim 1, as written, is not patentable: "1. A software architecture for a distributed computing system comprising: an application configured to handle requests submitted by remote devices over a network; and an application program interface to present functions used by the application to access network and computing resources of the distributed computing system." There are a zillion systems out there that match the terms of this claim precisely. So it is hardly novel.
It remains to be seen whether the
In fact the whole patent application is written so poorly that I can't see it being granted in anything like its present form. Maybe there is a way of patenting an API but this ain't it.
this is incorrect. The .NET runtime version 1.1 comes with Windows Server 2003.
.NET Runtime version 1 comes with certain packagines of Windows XP (tablet PC, perhaps ? Media Center ?)
.net is seeing admirable deployment on the server side. However, unlike java, it is also seeing some real-world apps on the client as well.
I am probably wrong on this, but i think the
the runtime is getting out there. More and more things will start to require it.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Their FIRST products, to my knowledge, were versions of Microsoft Basic licensed to various hardware manufacturers through the 70s and 80s. Really, MS formed around that basis-- a programming language as an OS.
A complete list of Microsoft owned patents that have been the basis for legal action from Microsoft against a third party:
1.
Thankyou for reading.
Tongue in cheek, and I know this needs to be considered as part of risk planning, but as far as I'm aware, there has never been legal action based upon patent infringement from Microsoft - and not from lack of opportunity I suspect. Give some credit where credit is due.
Read reviews of shopping cart software
Nice. For some bizarre reason, someone modded my post as a "Troll."
.NET. A restructuring of the concept of files, getting rid of "drive letters" and such. Everything from the ability to add and remove RAM without rebooting, to XML scripted modular custom installations. Go to WinSuperSite and read the Road To Longhorn Part 2 for a full list of all the features, to many to list.
Incredible features? What, you mean like wiggly windows?
I mean vector-scaled, hardware-accelerated graphics. An abandonment of Win32 for
So far, Longhorn seems to be additional eye candy+a database-like filesystem.
Well, then you clearly haven't even bothered reading up on it.
Now, Longhorn will maybe come out in 2005, maybe 2006. By then we'll have a db filesystem for Linux and Linux desktop will be able to match Windows (and OS X) eye candy...
I doubt it. Not as long as we're stuck on X11 + xlib + window manager + desktop environment + conflicting windowing libraries and inconstent interfaces.
* snip three reactive paragraphs about my sig *
"Sufferin' succotash."
Come on! Even Bill Gates knows this one:
... is patenting as much as we can ... A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose."
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."
Bill Gates
You forgot the most important part of this quote...
"The solution
Therefore, I don't think Bill Gates knows this one, he seems to be all for patents.
Very interesting logic: every open source project must be implemented in PHP.
Zope is a seriously designed application server. The major concept of Zope is to separate aspects. OOP is important concept but it is not the concept theat the programmer is forced to use exclusively. Also, in Zope the stateful and stateless content is managed dynamically. That requires often functions as first class objects. Zope templates include (but not limited in future) DTML and ZPT showing a very high level of flexibility, which on the other side leads to building frameworks on a top of Zope frameworks, like CMF and Silvia.
That's why Zope is implemented on a multi-paradigm generic programming language Python, which paradigm list includes: OOP, functiona programming, dynamic typing and scripting. Inside a framework you can use on paradigm or another, but you are not forced to it.
I doubt the functionality and quality of Zope could be possible to implement on PHP, which is not a generic programming language (it's a template language), which is not designed as a programming language (it's evolved rather than mathematically thought) and it's lacking an integration of paradigms (OOP and FP specifically).
I think that Python was the lowest possible level of programming language to choose for Zope. PHP suffers as a language in general. TCL and Ruby lack in paradigms. Perl is too obfuscated. Java, C++ are compilable (not scriptable) and thus are not flexible (apart from lacking the FP paradigm).
Alternatively it could be one of "more pure" functional (and still with OOP) programming languages, like Lisp, OCaml or Haskell (or even Mozart). But those languages typically lack practical libraries and there are fewer programmers to code on them. So, the choice of Python was the best one, from both theoretical and practical stand point.
Less is more !
Wrong.
Steve Ballmer has explicitly stated that free implementations of Dotnet will not be tolerated and that he will use patents to protect the "millions" invested.
Reference: Interview in May 2002 issue of IX Magazine (in German, excerpt here).
It's not an emerging technology and it won't change computing. There's nothing new in .net which isn't already present in Java, very little that wasn't already present in the UCSD p-system in 1973, and not a lot which wasn't already present in BCPLin 1967
The timeline goes like this:
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
The dirty tricks played by MS against its erstwhile partner should give anyone pause if they were to believe MS has no history of unfair business practices.
Moreover, one need not have followed the antitrust case against MS to wonder about your apparent obliviousness.
Finally, much older and from personal experience: In PC Magazine I read a letter stating that WordPerfect required a license number prior to offering technical support. Later I called WP tech support to get my license number only to be told that by the support person that they have no access to that information. Moreover, I was not asked as asserted what my license number was!