Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Marshall Phelps On Patents And Linux
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft's Marshall Phelps says he is running 'a licensing shop, not a litigation shop.' Bill Gates's intellectual property guru talks to Brad Stone about Redmond's new emphasis on patents, why he can't license Microsoft IP to distributors of open source software -- and why he shouldn't be feared."
why he can't license Microsoft IP to distributors of open source software
Maybe because he doesn't need to, or no one else feels they need it to legitimize themselves. A great deal of Microsoft's so-called IP has numerous examples of prior art in both open and closed source products.
So what exactly do they do with these software patents? what about prior art??? doesn't that apply to software patents? Also could I just like license a certain type of for loop or something and charge for it? It seems to me that this is all just bunch of corporate crap talk that will eventually not get anywhere and you'll only be able to get the patents on something trully revolutionary and quite unique.
Well, all I can say, for good or bad, is that litigation will work things out. Unfortunately, GPL will be more defined through the courts, when the fat-cat lawyers argue it out. It will only become one of the big boys when things are sorted out in court. I hate fawking lawyers, but they seem to define business plans these days, so let's rock.
Kip Hawley is an idiot.
Call me crazy, but I actually think this guy is telling the truth about not tackling open source on patent violations. Microsoft has gotten to the point that it may be wearing the crown, but no one likes the king. If Microsoft was going to pull some patent-issue on free software, it would generate a lot of poor publicity for Microsoft, which they do not want. Microsoft isn't a tech company, it is a marketing company that happens to make software. Microsoft doesn't want its main product, its image, to be injured. Just my opinionated two cents.
That's because they've outsourced their litigation to The SCO Group.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Once the patents are sucessfully filed, the onus would be on to the challenger(s) to prove there is prior art. A patent holder with as much cash as Microsoft obviously has the fiscal endurance to survive many bouts of litigation...
As the core business of MS is slowly but surely shrinking they are just diversifying to other avenues of income.
Overall this sounds like a virtual version of a typical real estate land grab - buy all the "land" (in this case "ways to do things") then anybody who wants to "build" something with it will need to pay their "rent" or "buy" the right to use the land.
FOSS afficionados should organise themselves one of these days and switch off all "infringing" software on the Internet for 48 hours. Just flip the switch and wait. I somehow suspect that the matter will suddenly become much more negotiable.
from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html# IntellectualProperty
Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as ``intellectual property''---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about ``copyright,'' or about ``patents,'' or about ``trademarks.''
The term ``intellectual property'' carries a hidden assumption---that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of physical property.
When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be. Basing your thinking on this analogy is tantamount to ignoring that difference. (Even the US legal system does not entirely accept the analogy, since it does not treat copyrights or patents like physical object property rights.)
If you don't want to limit yourself to this way of thinking, it is best to avoid using the term ``intellectual property'' in your words and thoughts.
``Intellectual property'' is also an unwise generalization. The term is a catch-all that lumps together several disparate legal systems, including copyright, patents, trademarks, and others, which have very little in common. These systems of law originated separately, cover different activities, operate in different ways, and raise different public policy issues. If you learn a fact about copyright law, you would do well to assume it does not apply to patent law, since that is almost always so.
Since these laws are so different, the term ``intellectual property'' is an invitation to simplistic thinking. It leads people to focus on the meager common aspect of these disparate laws, which is that they establish monopolies that can be bought and sold, and ignore their substance--the different restrictions they place on the public and the different consequences that result. At that broad level, you can't even see the specific public policy issues raised by copyright law, or the different issues raised by patent law, or any of the others. Thus, any opinion about ``intellectual property'' is almost surely foolish.
If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, copyrights and trademarks, or even learn what these laws require, the first step is to forget that you ever heard the term ``intellectual property'' and treat them as unrelated subjects. To give clear information and encourage clear thinking, never speak or write about ``intellectual property''; instead, present the topic as copyright, patents, or whichever specific law you are discussing.
According to Professor Mark Lemley of the University of Texas Law School, the widespread use of term "intellectual property" is a recent fad, arising from the 1967 founding of the World Intellectual Property Organization. (See footnote 123 in his March 1997 book review, in the Texas Law Review, of Romantic Authorship and the Rhetoric of Property by James Boyle.) WIPO represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents and trademarks, and lobbies governments to increase their power. One WIPO treaty follows the lines of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been used to censor useful free software packages in the US.
From the article: The overtaxed U.S. Patent and Trademark Office often grants absurdly broad patents that reflect little actual innovation. (For example, Microsoft owns a patent for activating a program on a handheld device by holding a button down for several seconds).
Is it just me, or is someone at MSNBC got a hate on for Microsoft? First the reccomend Mozilla and now they slam them for patents. I am guessing there is some behind the scene tension there.
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
The article says:
"Marshall Phelps tries to dispel the notion that Microsoft is preparing a patent assault on open-source software. He notes that at IBM he never initiated a single lawsuit"
Will this mean that the 27 seven unidentified patents that Open Source Risk Management have found can just remain then? Maybe not. If those 27 patents are identified under a contract of no disclosure to key kernel developers, will the community be able to implement workarounds before the suits starts to rain?
I would be very interested in knowing who else owns a patent that yet have not been tested in court that covers code in the Linux 2.4 and 2.6 kernel-series. Without knowing if they have been tested in court or not we will just have to stick with the numbers made public then: IBM has 60 patents, Microsoft has the 27, 20 has HP and 11 goes to Intel. That leaves us with just above 160 other unidentified patents to deal with.
Microsofts 27 patents are most likely the worst here, but have they been tested in court? Things like their silly patent for "activating a program on a handheld device by holding a button down for several seconds" will most likely not pass any court, or I for sure hope not.
I think that the SCO-case will set a precedence so that other stupid claims are thrown out without years of countersuits and motions in all directions. Lets atleast pray it does. I will.
"-Who said sit down?!"
-- S. Ballmer @ MSDC 2003.
litigious bastards?
I don't want a pickle; I just want a Motor-Cycle! A four foot cop arrived with a five foot gun!
No! Am friend! Skeksis mean you no harm!
Perhaps you're right. On the other hand it could just mean that MSNBC is really an independent business-unit of the MS-corporation. If I'd be a journalist, I would like to be able to write whatever I thought was the thruth, without being influenced by my corporate employer.
Well, that's hardly slamming them. I don't think anyone, even the most ardent supporter of Microsoft, would disagree with the above sentences. The USPTO really does seem to be rubber-stamping.
http://persianews.on.nimp.org/?u=Tar_Baby
It appears as if M$ is losing control over its subsidiaries. First Slate recommends FireFox over IE, now MSNBC is slamming them for the patents. The company is turning against itself in a way.
If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
Okay, all you'se guys that ain't afeered of Microsoft hold up yer hands!
You? In the back? That's it?
Okay, the hit's off! Time to open a lemonade stand in Philly.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Maybe they want to be sold. Like the Slate Magazine... ;)
, 00 .html?tw=wn_tophead_3
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,64334
The Sig, the sig
True. But when you are owned by the company, there is an expectation to not make these kinds of statements. This would be similar to Slashdot agreeing with a mainstream opinion that Newsforge made up news. Even if your average Slashdotter thought Newsforge was phony, I doubt Slashdot would link to an artcile to that effect. It is just basic corperate politics, caused by a common bottom line.
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
I suspect its more of a corperate objective to appear impartial than to boost MS.
Submarine patents are a nasty and relatively recent development in the intangible property arena. With the sloppiness of the USPTO, it benefits corporations to spend the relatively small amount of money to maintain a technology in the application process until favorable market trends develop (by filing continuations, etc.). Then, when the application is finally approved, the "inventor" receives priority status because our system, for better or for worse, favors the first to file.
Once this occurs, said corporations can then leverage their patent portfolio (often referred to as offensive patent prosecution) to obtain compliance from those unwillingly infringing. Unlike trade secret law, or copyright, there is no innocent infringer or independent creation defense, so an infringer is faced with a situation where they are forced to pay lost profits and/or treble damages in addition to having their inventory siezed.
Because a patent litigation suit averages about $3 million, only the hardiest of defendants can afford to challenge a patent's validity. Economically, it is often a better option to simply succumb to licensing fees. Herein lies the danger of our system. We hand out patents way too easily. Yet those with the only incentive to challenge the patents (and those with the only standing in court to attack the patent) often cannot afford to do so.
Therefore, it is a situation where he who has the biggest patent portfolio generally wins. Although patent portfolios can play a very positive role in enhancing the overall value of a company, providing leverage for venture capital, etc., their core purpose is clear - dominance. The patent system no longer works to achieve its original goal - that of fostering innovation and dissemination of information to the public. Like copyright, it has been perverted by our capitalist nature, and needs to be reformed, or perhaps eliminated entirely.
When SCO was Caldera (or whatever the convoluted line of ownership) they were more or less non-evil. Then new owners came in and made it all evil.
Microsoft, even granting the somewhat tenuous proposition that they're doing this for good, will soon be a different set of people. You know. Darl McBride junior and his buddies.
So okay, Marshall, I'm sure you're a good guy and all, but I'm not giving you kudos for playing along with an evil, broken system "for good." I'd Microsoft spent its seven hundred godzillion dollars helping bring about reform in the patent system and changing its abuse-of-monopoly behaviours.
No offense.
fifth sigma, inc.
I think he says the truth, but the system still sucks and MS might turn SCO one day - maybe OSS should pray that MS does well and never feels the need to behave like SCO. I haven't seen evidence that MS financed SCO by the way, it seems clear where SCO got their money from and it wasn't MS, at least not openly.
.. .
I read the headline: So MS has its own US marshall now, and he phelps ? How do you do phelping ? Don't know that verb
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
While reading the article, two phrases struck me: a research group is prepared to list 283 patents violated by Linux; and half of all patents are defeated in courts. (I believe the latter is half of all challenged patents.)
Would it be difficult for an organization, say the EFF or the GNU foundation, to set up a specific fund for collecting donations to be used only to defend patent law suits?
Imagine the war chest available if half of the Linux users donated $10 to this fund... And it'd be tax deductable in the States, too!
There's so little difference between politics and jihad lately...
After all this complaining (that I do too) about the patent office, it struck me that some companies involved in the current patent frenzy know the bottom is going to drop right out of it eventually. They're seeing a way to parlay quick cash and partnerships. The more ridiculous patents kind of remind me of the empty promises of many .com companies - but now many of these "innovators" have ridden that wave...
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Common. I wasnt the only one who read the headline
Microsoft's Marshall Phelps On Patents And Linux
as
Microsoft's Marshall helps On Patents And Linux
What a difference a typo can make.
-- for undocumented cisco commands, take a peek @ dotu
from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html# IntellectualProperty
Wouldn't it be a good idea to create a 'open source prior art database' ? If you have a good idea for a program or a method of solving a problem you could enter it in the 'open source prior art database' so that it is registered and can't be used in a patent anymore. Also a list of existing prior art could be stored there. . . Grtz Drz
So, when do OSRM start the same investigation in FreeBSD, Darwin, or maybe Windows?
It was ALL IN VAIN! How to SURVIVE in POST 'nix MS-only environment?!
So Slashdot has to stand up for OSS even when OSS may be in the wrong? So if RMS went out and killed a bunch of babies and drank their blood, then went and pissed said blood all over the babies parent's then you'd have some funny story on te front page about RMS's crazy nutty ways, isn't he such a scamp?
The reporters are not 'owned' by the fucking company, they are employed by them. MSNBC as an organization may be owned my MS, but journalistic integrity, despite what the Slashdot editors might think, is important in the real world. If MSNBC wants to be taken seriously as a news organization, they have to maintain that integrity. They are not a raa-raa MS site that exists soleley to give textual blowjobs to software leaders. Basically, it's the exact opposit of Slashdot.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
I've got loads of GPL'ed stuff I've not given away to anyone. You don't have to give it away even if you're a developer - you're perfectly entitled to keep it in-house. However, if you *do* give it away, you have to make the source available.
Apart from that, the GPL only addresses copyright. If there are patent issues, you have to take care of those separately before you can use the code.
Hence the "my bad" post, for which i didn't bother logging in. People who read the post more carefully than I did modded him up anyway, so it's cool. It's just that my brain recognised the pattern of the text immediately (I've referenced that page a lot ;) and so I posted without actually reading it. Sorry.
In the article it states that: There have always been patent lawsuits, stretching back to the undocumented but likely stone-age fracas over the wheel. I feel this is some attempt to hammer into the conciousness of people that the patent system and the copyright is 'natural'. It isn't, the idea of it has not existed for more than at most a couple of hundred years, it is entirely a construction of the industrialization.
The patent holder can license their implementation however they choose. It is perfectly legal to expressly say that your code may be used by GPL applications as a shared library, the same way that LGPL code can be used by commercial source.
Otherwise you'd best get rid of the NVidia drivers, the commercial databases, and every other non-GPL product that runs on Linux. That's not the intent of the GPL, never was, and it's nothing but Microsoft FUD bolstered by uncertain IP laws which suggests otherwise.
The GPL is about ensuring that if you use GPL code for your work then it must be licensed under the GPL, not that the GPL can't use any libaries which aren't expressly GPL'd. Contrary to any fantasies the full-bore GPL zealot might have, there is no legal way you could do that, and it would be against the very spirit of freedom that led to the creation of the GPL.
Also note they are not talking about refusing to license the IP for specific projects, but to the distributor of the source. In other words, they've decided to play their patent portfolio as a market-blocking threat the same way they yanked all the incentives from hardware manufacturers who dared ship something other than Windows.
As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft has just expressly stated their intent to maintain monopoly profits and control through IP barratry and by locking out any company which dares support or distribute GPL software.
If that's not a RICO violation, I don't know what is, and it's well past the time we stopped putting up with this crap as an industry. I greatly look forward to Sun, IBM, and every other IP holder banding together and teaching Bill that he does not rule the world, no matter how much he'd like to.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
You might also want to look again how many bullshit patents have been granted to Microsoft during the Bush term. My guess is you'll find most of the bullshit patents filed or approved during that period, adding to their wrist-slap penalty as evidence that Microsoft blatantly paid off the government to avoid breakup and to gain a patent portfolio large enough to crush competition.
Not by winning, but by simply dragging the court cases on long enough to bankrupt anyone who won't knuckle under.
Bloody thieves and frauds. They can't compete on quality or innovation, so they resort to barratry and payoffs like any other thug.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I don't think that MS will try to sue the open source community . . . where will the money come from? And they won't sue IBM, because IBM has a patent library that would put MS's to shame and the cost of such a war would make it a pyrric victory at best. But if anything bubbles out of the open source community to become a major software money maker (not a major services moneymaker like Linux has become, but software moneymaker like Netscape (that grew out of NCSA Mosaic) in its early days that attracted so much investment capital that MS became worried and went into a head to head war with Navigator vs. Inet. Explorer). I'm sure that if MS could, they would have launched a patent war against Netscape. And I'm sure that if they could, they would currently launch a patent war against Google. Next time there is a Netscape or a Google that threatens MS, they are going to have a collection of patents to throw at the competition.
Then when Microsoft (or SCO, or someone else) cries about OSS, there's another organization on the other side of the courtroom holding some cards.
How about it, EFF! Start a patent and licensing division! QUICK! (EFF, or one of the Open Source Groups... someone do it, pleeeeeeease!)
I've got loads of GPL'ed stuff I've not given away to anyone. You don't have to give it away even if you're a developer - you're perfectly entitled to keep it in-house. However, if you *do* give it away, you have to make the source available.
Shouldn't that last line read "However, if you *do* publish the binary, you have to make the source available." ?? IIRC You don't have to give away (gratis) the product to be tied to making the source available. If the binary is not for internal use only (i.e. you're selling it, licensing it or giving it away) then the source must be also made available, and for no more than the costs incurred in distributing the source.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I seem to remember one of the problems with the US patent system is the issue of the US going with first to invent, not first to file. With first to invent, as long as you have some signed piece of paper (on US soil) showing you invented before the other person, you get the patent.
With first to file, the first to file for a patent with the patent office gets the patent. It's simpler and it's what the rest of the world does.
(No doubt I'll be corrected if I'm wrong...)
"we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
If everyone ignores these fools then no-one will pay heed to their threats. Unfortunatly it has become a prisoners dillema and everyone wants a piece of the action. Sad, soo sad... To think we were brought up thinking that honesty and fairplay were good.. the reality of Mr. Gates: Greed is good..
The whole idea of "Intellectual Property" and putting all of these totally different things under one heading has led to this confusion.
We should get rid of that term COMPLETELY and go back to using copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. Why lump them together?
"There have always been patent lawsuits, stretching back to the undocumented but likely stone-age fracas over the wheel."
"Ugg just invent wheel. Come see, Ogg."
"Ugg do good. Can Ogg try?"
"Ugg have patent on wheel. File proper papers and submit proper licensing fees."
"But paper not invented yet, and Igg has patent on money!"
"So? That Ogg problem, not mine..."
From the article"
"New York based Open Source Risk Management will announce it has studied the Linux âoekernelâ and discovered it infringes on about 283 issued patents. Twenty-seven of those patents are owned by Microsoft. Patent attorney Dan Ravicher, who conducted the study, advises the open-source community to either design around those patents or to start preparing to knock them down in court"
Is it just me, or is this the first time i know this, and does any body have a clue what the HELL ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT.
283 patents is a lot, the article gives u a feel that the whole of Linux is an infringment by itself. I think its a bluff, these facts are not straight, the numbers he says are totally uncovincing.
Next thing i know is someone telling me "you loaded someting into memory, i patented that you bastard..."
The lunatic is in my head
You see some things and are blind to some things.
You know how to do some things (in a particular way) and can't see them if they're done in a different way.
You see patterns and react to what you expect to be there.
There just isn't enough time to read everything.
The above "you" is a me too.
This does have relevance for "Intellectual Property" in that:
You can have a bunch of petty fiefdoms each guarding its own petty turf with the net result that stuff has much less tendency to flow from place to place.
Imagine the freeway system where each farmer collects a toll from the traffic that passes through what once were his fields. Imagine Customs and duties paid on all traffic that passes through state and city borders.
Goods from far off become exhorbitantly expensive and people make do with less and much less of what comes from far off and we're all the poorer for it, including the toll collectors.
The state-of-the-art is maybe improving, but it doesn't take a lot of petty hassles and annoyances to make it very unworthwhile to upgrade much of anything.
This is how the patent system was first envisaged as working. Say you're a penniless inventor. You're skint because you've just spent your life savings developing your latest widget which will change the world as we know it. The only one in the world is right there in your workshop.
Now one way that you can make money out of your invention is to persuade a backer to lend you enough money so you can afford the tools and materials to start building it. But in order to do that, you need to convince your sponsor -- who is in all probability a banker or financier, not a scientist or an engineer -- that you can earn enough money by selling your invention to eventually pay them back, and that requires either an unparallelled degree of chutzpah or some kind of official document stating the worth of your invention. Another way is to get someone else to build your invention for you. But in order to do that, you will have to tell them how to make it -- and once they know that, they can cut you out of the loop. They have the invention, they can afford to make and sell it, why should you get anything?
The patent system was set up to solve both these problems. You demonstrate your invention to a trustworthy body, and say that you are prepared to share it with the world at large; and in return, you are given a copy of an official letter which describes it in full and states that you are the true inventor. The original is held in a library where anyone can look at it. This letter also grants you, for a limited time, exclusive control over the commercial application of your idea. Now you can seek assistance, confident that you will be able to earn the true worth of your invention: a group of experts have attested to the fact that it really works (so nobody can think you are trying to rip them off with vapourware), and nobody else can claim it as their invention and rip you off. Then, after you have had a fair chance to get rich off your invention, it gets formally released so everyone can have a bite of the cherry -- which is your little way of saying "thank you" for all the inventions and discoveries which have come before and from which you have already benefitted; such as fire, tools, agriculture, sanitation, electricity, and so forth.
If your invention is a piece of software, which is something which can be reproduced at no cost, then you are by definition not too poor to make it. But, additionally, some things should never be patentable. Mathematical processes, for one. What if integration were the subject of a patent claim? Integration is a mathematical concept that crops up time and time again in the real world. Would you have to pay a royalty every time you poured a liquid from one container into another? What if subtracting one were patented, and the patent holder refused absolutely to licence it? Would adding one and subtracting two be permitted as a work-around? Software is just a formalisation of a mathematical process.
The most fundamental thing wrong with the US patent office today is that patent applications are not being properly tested. I believe firstly that the requirement to produce a working prototype should be reinstated. A patent application not supported by a prototype is nothing more than a work of science fiction -- and in any case, if you are not good enough to build a prototype, then perhaps you do not deserve to be recognised as an inventor. The question of licencing needs to be addressed -- I firmly believe in non-discriminatory licencing, in other words that a patent should be licenced to everybody, and everybody for the same price, or nobody. Additionally, a procedure needs to be created for verifying that an invention is original -- and for dealing with exceptions. Since this is an example of civil rather than criminal law, the terms "innocent" and "guilty" do not really apply, so the question of burden of proof is a thorny one. Finally, there need to be clear and unambiguous rules about what can and what cannot be patented; and, for the inevitable case of an invention which is so new that none of the existing rules can be applied to it, why.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Who is this Microsoft company anyway?
Must be a King.
Why's that?
It doesn't have shit all over it.
See, that doesn't seem right. Microsoft is knee deep in its own shit.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Funding patents is not the problem
I have an idea
I really believe that the software giant is about to crumble in the next 10 years. The patent plan is their last gasp to maintain control of the industry. I really feel they will use this to try and stop Linux. And eventually, the courts will decide whether the United States will be a Microsoft run country or an open source country. Meanwhile the rest of the world will probably go open source. Either way, I think Microsofts best days are definitely behind them. Oh, I think they may win a few more battles, but I believe the tide has already turned and they are fighting an uphill battle the rest of the way.
I'm always tempted by this argument, but it has one massive flaw, it endorses their system! I would much rather contribute to paying the EFF to employ staff at the patent office who try to act as unofficial assistants to the patent examiners and provide them with prior art or arguments towards obviousness to patents as quickly as possible. The second half of this is to try and bust as many existing patents as possible cheaply by getting the Patent Office to revoke them ...
My scepticism would be in the willingness of the Patent Office to co-operate, but perhaps if the presented materials were available for anyone who is then attacked by a patent which is granted and if those materials have a history in court of proving sufficient, the courts may even start putting pressure on the Patent Office to pay attention to this stuff and stop wasting the courts time (could the EFF sue the Patent Office for not revoking patents in the face of clear evidence?).
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
"Yeah, I admit it. We're going to bury Linux."
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Can't wait to see Intell or AMD suing users of any OS for infringment of their Instruction Set. Maybe Nissan will sue me for using my... errr I mean their break peddle.
Never underestimate the power of a large group of stupid judges...
The thing I like most about this job is all the rocket scientists who bang their mice on their desks shouting 'It Broke!
The fact that Phelps is saying these things shows that he has his doubts. I have to wonder if the change from very specific pieces of cut and bent metal that works to very broad software nonsense bother him. The AT bus specifications did not preclude people from making nbins. Goofey software patents on things like "one click shopping", long filenames and business methods will keep people from doing what they have every right to do.
I hope that Phelps remembers that patents are for inventions and revolts.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"and why he shouldn't be feared."
What the article failed to mention is that Marshall Phelps said he should be 'ph34r3d'.
These aren't the sigs you're looking for.
Worth noticing. They can just deny everything in the article. "The journalist made it up".
Again, this is based on the premise that MS (or anybody) has some valid patents. Unless you don't have anything at stake here, you really can't ignore that possibility. I don't doubt there are many that would disagree with that premise, but if you do, please state whether you actually have anything at stake or not just to see whether this has any bearing on your opinion.
But MS' litigation ultimate target would be to stop linux/OSS, not to generate money. It doesn't matter to MS if Linus is rich or poor, as long as he doesn't eat away its market.
I believe that what the OSRM is saying is that there are 283 patents specifically related to linux source, waiting to be validated as patents. And specifically that out of the thousands of patents waiting to be validated, the 283 mentioned above could be very harmful, or allow companies to pursue litigation against linux programmers, or OS companies. I would be interested to see what these 283 patents are, and validate them myself. The OSRM is smart to put out the press release, because it incites folks to seek umbrella-legal protection under them. I'm not sure I doubt the validity of the 283 potential risks the OSRM mentions, but find it a little curious that they now have a 'waiting list' of potential clients (as a result of the press release? I'm not sure...). If the release was intended to scare linux folks, then this would be tantamount to extortion, or racketeering (i.e. -- pay us for protection or be sued for potentially violating 283 virtual patents)...
...
It's an interestinig dilemma for the OS community. On the one hand OS by it's nature isn't necessarily about patenting; but if another person 'beats you to the draw' then you could face legal issues for not going through the patent proceedures. You almost, anymore, need a lawyer to even walk you through the process and deal with the ramifications of a big company challenging your patent.
Might be time to put in a few hundred thousand emails to local senators and request an overhaul on the Patent office/procedures. But what do I know...
Anyone know anything about this ?
With MS entering the foray of software patents the start of the privatization of the US patent system has begun in earnest.
I doubt the USPTO will exist in 5-7 years as we know it today, as its likely going to be "suggested" by corporate America that it be privatized under the subtle veil of public interest just like so many other functions of NAFTA the Stock Market and US Government - Prisons, Military Complex, DOT, etc. are already transformed.
The corner stone will be some lobbied adjustment to civil law to allow Corporate IP ownership commencing at hiring time.
IE management will no longer have to give you a piece of paper to sign showing, then denying you your rights to your IP... by consenting to work for a corporation they own everything.
The next logical step for the corporations is to lobby to adjust the expiration on software and hardware patents to suit their needs like they did with copyright -- of course the cover being public protection and economic gains.
I'm personally thinking that they will put into a tiered system of 15, 40, 50-70 year lifespans, aka monopolies, citing the good of the public to keep things like encryption, DRM, etc pure and functional.
The final step is treaty and alignment of IP law worldwide via WTO rules which will finally bear out the master plan.
Corporations at will will have inverted capitalism into feudalism; basically indentured technology servants all over parts of the world who can own no IP as it belongs to the company, and have little means to gain capitol or opportunity to manufacture/program for themselves; the corps pay no salary as their workers are buying from the company store its own products or trade partner productsl training, pension, health and other benefits will be given and withdrawn at corporate will depending how the profit margin needs to be adjusted for wall street.
Yes I am getting jaded.
And, to the Earthling White House cadge cabal and equally to the Ferengi:
... is never enough. ... of inventory.
... as long as it winds up in your pocket.
... but do business with them always.
... all is better.
... a smart accountant is a necessity.
Peace is Good for the Economy;
War is Good for the Economy.
See: http://www.sjtrek.com/trek/rules/
1: applies to human taxpayers
2: applies to Terra Firma soverign lands
6: obviously doesn't apply to him/his
7: hard to avoid when they're big
10: quoted by previous poster
13: self explanatory
16: self explanatory
19: "Satisfaction is not guaranteed." Yep
21: self explanatory
27: self explanatory
34: self explanatory
35: self explanatory
41: self explanatory
48: self explanatory
52: self explanatory
76: "Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies." (whether or not they sit on the board of the carlysle group? Interesting, these Ferengi)
89: self explanatory
97: Enough
99: Trust is the biggest liability of all
104: Faith moves mountains
111: self explanatory
121: Everything is for sale, even friendship.
144: There's nothing wrong with charity
162: Even in the worst of times someone turns a profit.
177: Know your enemies
181: Not even dishonesty can tarnish the shine of profit.
189: Let others keep their reputation. You keep their money.
202: self explanatory
211: Employees are rungs on the ladder of success. Don't hesitate to step on them.
242: More is good
255: A wife is a luxury
261: A wealthy man can afford anything except a conscience.
266: When in doubt, lie
285: No good deed ever goes unpunished.
We may live long(er) (due to meds and tech), but we subjects may not really prosper (under business rules)
David Syes
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Hello world © ® TM
Your fucked.© ® TM
Love © ® TM
Microsoft © ®
TruePunk | Games
well, a term like publish doesn't work too well either.
Remember when Lindows was giving away GPL'd binaries but refused to provide source code with their modifications because they claimed they hadn't 'officially published' them yet it was just a release candidate? even though anyone could dl it.
Liberty.
The screed continues. Substitute "research team" for the magic words "patent portfolio". Now the complaint actually focuses on the ability of corporations to concentrate and organize research and development within a single entity that may not want to place nice with its competition. Unfortunately, this is hardly the province of patent law.
The problem isn't that corporations can concentrate R&D for better results, and more patents. The problem is this: most of the true innovations in software have occurred outside the provence of corporations, and is very rarely patented at all. (Think email, the internet, the web, etc.)
Now, corporations pick up on this essentially publicly-constructed infrastructure, add a few simple additions, patent those additions, and lock out those who created the infrastructure in the first place.
The problem with the patent system isn't that corporations can concentrate R it's that corporations are the only ones with enough resources to turn R&D into patents. There's *plenty* of R&D going on in universities, darkened bedrooms, and businesses interested in contributing the Common Good (whatever that might be).
Yes, there's a lot of misinformation going on about our patent system. I'm glad you are here to correct it, and knowledgable enough to do so. But your interpretation of the motives behind the hate for the patent system is equally wrong.
It's not jealousy of the ability of corporations for R it's the ability of corporations to easily abuse the system for profit, patenting many things that should never have passed review in the first place. And that *is* the province of patent law.
It's time for patent reform in this country (the US, "Land of the Free"), and in all countries who have emulated the US.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
There's prior art on that joke, it's come up in every patent story for the last 3 years on slashdot. It's really worn out.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
I know the grandparent's post isn't really a viable option, but among the OSS components that would be shut off is the BSD TCP stack, which happens to be not just in Linux, but Windows, and most likely 99% of all computer systems on the continent.
If you think a business with dozen Apache servers would not balk at paying for IIS, WinXX Server, etc a dozen times over, you really haven't had much dealings with real management.
The flip side of the business profit coin is not spending money. Once a cheaper solution has been used that worked, any other vendor is automatically dragged down to that price.
Not to mention the side-effect costs of constantly having to restore the websites a few dozen times a day thanks to the script kiddies and high security IIS underpinnings.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Lets not forget the MSNBC article which recommended you try AbiWord, even if you own one of the other word processors (Word anyone?).
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3078378/
I find it very strange that Microsoft would allow MSNBC's reporters/editors/etc to even hint that another vendor's products may be just as good/better then Microsoft products.
Brielle
Running a "licensing shop" without threatening to sue people who use "licensed" technologies but refuse to acquire a license makes no sense.
The GPL is a license, hence the "L" in the name. But if you're not licensing it to anyone, what's the freaking point? In a very real sense, it can't be released under the GPL until it has been released.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Besides, the GPL doesn't lay down the required mechanism for obtaining the source code. I could publish a binary version and say, "for the source code, you must hand-deliver twelve 5.2" floppy diskettes to an address in New Zealand. It does meet the criteria listed. There are plenty of ways to abuse this that are far worse than simply not publishing your source code until the final release when you've had time to delete the swear words from the comments.... :-)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Isn't there an argument to be made that if a technique is implemented in Open Source software, then it is obvious?
Doesn't an ordinary practitionar of the art coming up with a patented solution independent of the patent refute word-for-word the non-obvious requirement of a patent?
If not, why not?
but it's easier to build a portfolio of prio art for patents, already issued and otherwise, and forward it in digital form to the patent office, maybe directly to the patent examiners involved in issuing questionable patents, and in bulk form to select members of congress and the media. And keep doing it.
Frankly, I don't see any way out of the illegitmate and unreasonable "IP" patent mess now other than to keep showing what a complete farce it is. It is just too expensive to try and beat the big companies at their own game now,by accumulating "open source and free" patents, it's long past that time and isn't going to happen in any practical quantities. Relying on alleged "whitehat" corporations to always be the good guys is wishful thinking, not when push comes to shove, they will revert back to being complete predators.
The best bet is to simply embarass the patent office and congress to the point that we might get reasonable patent reform, including retroactive revocation of IP patents. It was a bad idea to go that route in the first place--just extrapolate it ten years from now, what sort of computer society will we have, how will you be able to do anything without having a full time personal IP lawyer?
IP patents are killing the goose that laid the golden egg, short term yee haww mega profits for some, long time dismal results for everyone else. It's already effecting business and coding, how is it supposed to get better with THOUSANDS more IP patents being granted yearly? Who the heck besides a handful of the biggest players will be able to keep up and compete then? The current patent system will lead to a global monopoly of half a dozen or so large companies controlling everything, and that's about it.
"Bill Gates's intellectual property guru talks to Brad Stone..."
Please, folks, not everyone is a guru.
It's bad enough that hackers lost their good name.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Fortunately not. Besides, my bandwidth is a bit reduced these days.
I have my little book at home somewhere, but once or twice a year, something like this pops up and makes it the nice time to let people know of the FROA if they don't already know.
Besides, that's why I included the URL, so as to not plagiarize. However, but quoting enough of them, I am sure Paramount would/could have something to say. Then again, so many sites run the entire list, plus include pics, sound, bios, etc. that I hope that they won't be too hard on me.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I agree that some terms today, in various fields have been misused or ambiguated to the extent that they lost their original meaning completely, and come to be something completely different.
Terms like : "gay" (used to be 'happy', 'merry', but now means male homosexual), or "the war or terrorism", or "Islamism", or that GNU/Linux should be used instead of just Linux, or "hacker vs. cracker", or this "Intellectual Property". These are just a few of them, and there are lots more I am sure.
The problem is: language changes over time, for better or for worse. It is a fact of life.
It is often a losing battle trying to educate the masses that the term is wrong, and it does not mean what it now means. However, the fact is, the meaning of the word has changed, and insisting on alternate use contrary to what the masses use is often futile. The only resort in such cases is : "get over it", and "deal with it".
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
You raise an interesting point.
For the same reason, in part, democracy was invented: not to rely on the goodwill of a person, even if they are a benevolent dictator. Because, simply, the next dictator may not be so benevolent. Relying on the goodwill alone can cause serious problems in the future, namely, the abuse of power by those who hold it.
Heck, even democracy as implemented in the USA today has shown it has serious flaws. The Administration, together with a Congress and Senate of the same political inclination can be too powerful and detrimental to civil liberties, and the whole democratic process.
This applies equally to politics and to businesses. We cannot rely on the goodwill of the current holder of power. The next guy in his place may be malevolent.
Thank you.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
I agree with you. The lack of any kind of official document stating the worth of invention didn't stop Luke Stewart, though.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
"There's prior art on that joke, it's come up in every patent story for the last 3 years on slashdot. It's really worn out."
... the joke is, that the crowd on /. and the OSS can't come up with something clever enough, worth being patented, they can't even come up with something new.
Ah, really?
Perhaps "the joke I made" is not the original joke.
You'll find "my joke" between the grandparent post, and _both_ of my sentences.
And really, you continue that joke
Minor quibble, but the usual patent term is 20 years, not 21*. However, this term may be extended in certain circumstances. Per the USPTO's own online information:
* I seem to recall the patent term being 17 years in the not-too-distant past. Ah, yes, a quick Google search shows that the term of a patent seems to be 17 years from the date the patent is issued, but 20 years from the date of filing. I don't know about you all, but allotting three years for what has essentially become a rubber-stamping process seems a bit excessive...
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."