Slashdot Mirror
Author of Linux Patent Study Contradicts Ballmer
An anonymous reader sends us this EWeek story, following-up on the recent Linux patent scare. The author of the patent study is contacted, and says, "Open source faces no more, if not less, legal risk than proprietary software. The market needs to understand that the study Microsoft is citing actually proves the opposite of what they claim it does."
And that my PIST IS FRISTY? This one going out to the Sunday Night homies. And Ballmer.
Ballmer was reported to have said, "Nuh uh, I'm rubber and you're glue and whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you."
Another new study? We don't need no stinkin' new study! Ballmer's breath must stink horribly from all the shit he's constantly spewing from his gob.
In fact, when he spouts off with some bogus statistic (as he regularly does), his audience should put him back on his jet and tell him to get fucked.
I wish he and Bill would simply go away -- or die.
Shut up you unpatriotic piece of shit.
Even if Bush lied (at least clinton was caught in public lying about his filthy infidelity!), he now has such a peoples mandate that you've better be careful about what you say about him. He cannot be touched.
"There is no reason to believe that GNU/Linux has any greater risk of infringing patents than Windows,"
Oh really? Right... faces no greater risk than Windows? An open enter-as-you-will environment faces no more patent violation risk than does Windows? Are you kidding me?
Okay, let's give Boeing's superliner plans to Airbus and vice versa. Please, let's open up the entire market. Let's share intellectual property all over the place and just "hope" no one never gets pissed and decides to go apeshit on the rest of the community. And while we're at it, we'll do it under a license that has never been tested or sanctioned by a court of law. And, while we're at that, let us also continue to use technologies developed by independent research labs funded by the United States government!
Right, that doesn't increase risk of patent violation at all.
"But Ravicher said Ballmer misinterpreted his study's findings. "He misconstrues the point of the OSRM study, which found that Linux potentially, not definitely, infringes 283 untested patents, while not infringing a single court-validated patent."
Ballmer's original quote:
"Linux may infringe upon almost 300 patents according to a study that was done not some time ago. While I find it hard to believe the number is even that high, it does show clearly though that the risks of patent violation and the lack of IP indemnifaction is a risk on the Linux side of the equation."
Think he'd put that in his article? Of course not. It would take his FUD argument and throw it right in the toilet.
One more I love...
"It makes no difference whether and how software is distributed,"
Really? Tell that to the people who own patents on software and expect royalties for such distribution. Your argument works one way but not the other. What if Microsoft decided to distribute Windows for free tomorrow?
You don't think NCSA, Fraunhofer, Adaptec, ANSI, Tim Berners Lee, Executive Software, SAP, and other organizations and individuals wouldn't sue the shit out of them for their royalty money?
The coolest voice ever.
I think it is patently ridiculous to assert that Firefox is more secure than IE.
To begin with is a long and unclear argument of what 'security' means. A significant number of 'exploits' on IE are due to users stupidly agreeing to install components that they shouldn't. While there are arguments about how easy it should be for a user to do something stupid -- download, find, and execute vs. click on the wrong button -- I think it is sensible to cast these aside.
What serious exploits are left? Undoubtedly people will feel tempted to bring up past track records, but this doesn't lead to any constructive discussion. Most of the negative attitude here about IE has less to do with the quality of IE, and more to do with a general anti-MS sentiment and some bitterness about the way they stomped on the competition...
I do not think it is difficult to imagine that the next big browser exploit will be for FireFox rather than IE..
Sorry OSRM, I do not buy your reversed role of being the savior of the open source movement.
OSRM has made a number of damaging unsubstaniated claims concerning *possible* Linux IP violations - you have hurt the open source movement for personal profit.
With friends like OSRM, Who needs enemas?
SD
PAST presidents? This one's the worst of the lot!
You make some good points, but fail to look for mine.
Simply put, the only argument that you have put forward that IE is less secure is that the default installation is not locked down properly. This has nothing to do with something so grand as a security model, but is simply an issue of default misconfiguration.
I happily run IE with more secure settings and see no reason in your argument that IE is less secure.
The advisories you pointed to do not suggest that I would be vulnerable.
I deliberately tried to stay away from arguing whether one browser was more secure than the other, I was simply stating how ridiculous it is to claim that FireFox is inherently more secure.