IP Insurance For Software

isn't my name writes "We all know that OSRM has come out to offer insurance against intellectual property claims for open source software. Recently, we've seen IBM open up 500 patents and SUN up the ante with 1600. But all of these moves are targeted at F/OSS software. There's an article at IPW that looks at the state of patent insurance for non-F/OSS."

Comments

The source

[October_30th]

Heh. "A forward post of the IP wars"?

Fair and balanced reading, I suppose. ;)

Insurances

[brutus_007]

As soon as I sign up for this one, the only type of insurance plan that I will need which I don't already have will be insurance fraud insurance... and insurance fraud insurance insurance - just to be on the safe side.

Re:Insurances

[The Hobo]

Don't forget your volcano insurance!

Peter: I dont need volcano insurance, I never used that rain cloud insurance
Salesman: It never rains in rhode island!
Peter: There's no vocanos either
Salesman: Don't you think we're overdue for one?
Peter: Touché salesman

Re:Insurances

[brutus_007]

Got that, except now we need the money that was in that jar to replace the kid's glasses.

Re:Insurances

[zurab]

Your post gave me a thought that one thing governments could do is require all software makers to have an active patent insurance to be a fully licensed and bonded software distributor. BSA or similar "industry group" could bribe their way into such a bill. That would put those GNU hippies out of business in a nanosecond.

Of course, the next thing after that the governments will require will be a copyright insurance before you are allowed to speak courtesy of honest patriotic "industry groups" such as RIAA and MPAA.

Re:Insurances

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a definite overlap between the "GNU hippies" and the "NRA gun nuts" - despite the propaganda from the corporate welfare brigade of the proprietary software industry, GNU people tend to be ultra-libertarian, not "dirtie commie".

Ouitlawing Free Software development would likely to leave a lot of already socially somewhat marginalised but highly intelligent geeks who know how to build nasty weapons out of ordinary household items with not much to do. And the devil makes work for idle hands...

Basically, what I'm saying is - the ones writing free software are the same people who read up on "construct a thermite pipe bomb" and keep refining the design until it can take punch holes in tanks.

Re:Insurances

[Lord Kano]

But that's Lois's Rainy Day Fund.

LK

News?

[Anonymous Coward]

"We all know that OSRM has come out to offer insurance against intellectual property claims for open source software"

So, why then is this news if this is something "we all know?"

Death to FOSS?

[sirgallihad]

Dosen't anyone suspect that these patent releases could be somehow used against FOSS, in some way? I mean, even though IBM and Sun seem to like it now, who knows what dastardly plans lie just out of sight?

Not even all open source software

[vladd_rom]

Sun released the patents only under their Creative OSI-approved license. The rest of the open source software, including GNU-based or MPL-based, is still in the air.

This creates the precedent to have open source GNU-based programs that violate the patents and Creative-based programs that are perfectly legal.

It certainly seems like a smart thing to do from Sun's point of view (trying to attract open source developers to their license scheme by giving access to software patents).

FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

If people start to feel like IP insurance is something [i]necessary[/i] to participate in open source, Microsoft has already won

Re:FUD

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

If, as OSRM implies, that various types of insurance, such as its latest offering, are prudent for Open Source projects, than I think that OSS loses a lot of its advantages. I've grown to suspect OSRM's motivations and think perhaps they might just be a little biased. Insurance companies tend to have hidden agendas.

How much longer

[Anonymous Coward]

will it be until we all stand together and collectively tell the whole IP industry to FUCK OFF!? This kind of thing should be necessary as gambler's insurance. WE have the power to MAKE IT STOP! Use it, Dammit!

So being sued is like a flood hitting now?

[Polarism]

I suppose that lawyers are some kind of new predator on the food chain that's just a part of life now?

"Hey Johnny, don't think about anything without your IP insurance, never know when you might get jumped by a pack of lawyers."

Granted, I realize that insurance has always worked like this on the legal side, especially with Auto and Property insurance, but this is going a little too far don't you think?

Re:So being sued is like a flood hitting now?

[Phil246]

rather then predator, lawyers are more like parasites. They feed off the life blood of others.

Re:So being sued is like a flood hitting now?

[sosegumu]

I suppose that lawyers are some kind of new predator on the food chain that's just a part of life now?

I think that you're right--without some serious reform, lawyers and lawsuits are going wreck democracy. But it will never change because lawyers/law firms are the largest contributors to political campaigns. I hate to be so cynical, but I think that the whole process has been compromised.

Re:So being sued is like a flood hitting now?

[Peter La Casse]

It's worse than that. They're like a tsunami!

Re:So being sued is like a flood hitting now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tasteless joke :/ Someone mod appropriately pls

I'd be careful with any IP-specific policies.

[bigtallmofo]

I can understand how an umbrella or general liability policy could protect you from this. Such policies have been around a long time and are heavily regulated by various state agencies.

I don't think you have any such assurance (no pun intended) with IP specific policies. I'd wait until the market matures a bit before considering such a policy or you might witness your insurance company disappearing once it comes time to file a claim.

IP liability

[Doc Ruby]

What about just plain liability insurance for SW? Running SW is becoming a lot like driving a car. While mandatory insurance is probably some time away, it's not too early to consider carrying insurance against SW damage, especially while malware producers are unaccountable. We might see a day where your OS, or app server, will run only objects signed by an insurer acceptable to your insurer. The technology is already available, and the damage is being done. Economically, we're ready. Culturally, the mainstream society is ready. As usual, it's just we geeks behind the curve on the social engineering in a world of distrust and connivance.

WorldWide ?

[AwaxSlashdot]

The real prob is to find a system where you don't need to go to european countries with funny names to avoid jail or fine (if you can). AWx

Patent infringement coverage

[freralqqvba]

It is truely a sad day when, "Patent infringement coverage is needed by anyone involved in the software business, whether it is proprietary or open source." The courrupt payoff from a courrupt system. Patents were never intended to be used in this manner. If something was worthy to be pantented it should have been innovative enough such that no one else would, for the duration of the patent, indenpendently develop the same product. The only time "patent infringement coverage" would be needed then, is when either a member of the team gets lazy and copies some source, or the idea is indenpendently developed, exposing that the patent being infringed upon was insufficent to be patented in the first place - patents such as 'mouse clicking' and 'a method of interacting with electronic devices' come to mind. Hopefully those in power will some day stop shelling out to corporate interests and actually move the system back into doing what it was intended to do. Unill then, at least there's Poland.

Re:Patent infringement coverage

[AwaxSlashdot]

You managed to say exactly what I wanted to say. Poland saved us so far. AWx

The IP system is broken ...

[AwaxSlashdot]

when you need to deploy such an insurance. With European Patent refactored, I hope we'll end with a system not requiring such an insurance. AWx

SUN is declaring war on the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't really care about open source.

If you listen to their PR people they claim that "the whole Linux thing" "wouldn't have happened" if they'd open soured Solaris ten years ago; they try to pretend that the Solaris open source thing is just something they should have done a long time ago, and Solaris will soon get all the benefits of open source community Linux has. As if open source is some kind of magical pixie dust that you sprinkle on software and bam! It's successful!

In reality what is happening is that the GNU operating environment and the Linux operating system beat Sun in the marketplace fair and square-- not because of some "open source" magical pixie dust, but because it's a better product-- and Sun knows this.

The reason Microsoft can never beat Linux is because they believe they're competing with RedHat when in truth they are competing with the GPL. You can't compete with the body of GPLed software the way you compete with a company; it isn't a single organization, it's millions of autonomous people working in concert. Knock out Redhat, something indistinguishable will rise up to take its place.

Sun has finally figured out how to compete with this. Instead of targeting a company, they've declared war on the GPL itself. For awhile they did quite a lot of laying groundwork by running around telling people that GPL is full of IP flaws and in the future you'll need patents to operate in the software industry. Now they're trying to push out a huge body of work under an open source license which has no particular distinguishing features except that it's incompatible with the GPL, and offered as candy all these patents to "open source projects" while conspicuously not offering any sort of protection to the GPL. Sun recognizes that the threat to them at this point isn't Linux the software program, it's the community; and that as long as the community remains solid, directed and internally compatible, they can't defeat it. So they're trying to splinter the community. And this may work.

Re:SUN is declaring war on the GPL

[iamacat]

If you listen to their PR people they claim that "the whole Linux thing" "wouldn't have happened" if they'd open soured Solaris ten years ago

Well, if they open sourced x86 Solaris before Linux was written and it was usable on Linus'es x86 box, he sure wouldn't have written another kernel. His original motivation was that Minix sucked and Andy Tanenbaum didn't want to do anything about that. If his OS didn't suck, he would just work on some other projects. Did you see him re-write compiler, editor or a UNIX shell when there were usable existing GNU tools?

Re:SUN is declaring war on the GPL

[faragon]

Amen, brother. I will continue giving for free my spare time for the Linux comunity via GPL. The GPL itself it is strong enough to make inviable porting GPLed applications then some patented code from Sun has to be added for any reason.

Still Solaris it is quite cool (still I prefer gcc than CC), may be it is too late for a Solaris, at least for my spare time: I feel better running Linux, still not a perfect OS -as Solaris isn't-, it is enough for bringing lot of joy to my lonely but savage heart :-)

Re:SUN is declaring war on the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that's the thing. RMS's whole thing about "GNU is the OS, Linux is just the kernel" is mostly bullshit but there is a kernel of truth in it. Linus Tourvalds did some great things but he isn't wholly responsible; to an extent there was a demand there for a GPL operating system, a void waiting to be filled, and Linus filled it.

I mean there's a reason why Linux became popular, not BSD or OS/2, and I don't think it's just timing and the BSD lawsuit. It's just that the GPL's development model is a very powerful one; it allows companies to approach and make use of Linux for greedy purposes while, thanks to the use of the GPL rather than BSD license Linux still gets something out of it in the deal. Sun might have made source available in 1985 or made Solaris available to hobbyists but they probably wouldn't have selected that particular license-- they'd have probably selected a license which serves Sun, which would have meant either people would get the opportunity to get greedy and keep their modifications, or Sun would have gotten greedy and restricted the extent to which you could use and sell solaris for whatever hardware and situation you like. The GPL, meanwhile, serves GPLed software, and we're all just along for the ride. Between that and the fact that GNU's toolchain is good enough it would have become the most standard one for UNIX by now no matter the kernel, the position Linux now holds could have been taken by any number of things. Linus was just the one who stepped forward.

Basically if Linux had not existed it would have been necessary for us to invent it.

Re:SUN is declaring war on the GPL

[angedinoir]

The reason Microsoft can never beat Linux...

Wait, isn't Microsoft spanking Linux by a large margin?

Unless you're talking about the, "I can run linux on my girlfriend's vibrator" crowd.

Wrong solution - need better laws

[iamacat]

Legitimate patent licensing for non-free software doesn't cripple the product unless it's trying to just rip off other people's work without adding extra value. Office supplies companies don't buy patent insurance - they just pay 3 cents a piece for items they ship. If royalties are too steep, there is an option to ask government for compulsory licensing. That is rarely used, but patent owners know it's there and generally negotiate based on value of their invention.

Instead of wasting money on insurance, concerned companies should pool funds for lobbying to reform patent and civil litigation laws.

GPL patent protections

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL explicitly states that you may not distribute GPLed software if there are patent encumbrances on it. If IBM were to start pursuing patent collections against open source products they'd have to stop distributing open source products themselves. This is bad because they make quite a lot of money from Linux. So no, as long as IBM still sells Linux, they can't turn on us from a patent perspective.

Sun however doesn't have a dependence on Linux and doesn't seem to be under any such obligations.

Re:GPL patent protections

[einhverfr]

Furthermore, Sun's license is incompatible with the GPL and it is unclear yet whether their 1600 patents will be available for GPL'd projects. See a discussion of this at Groklaw.

IP causes inflation

[Anonymous Coward]

IP is one cause of inflation. You're "printing" your own money with these ideas. Then, you expect to sell it for real money. It doesn't take a marketing genius to see that IP affects the world market.

Just goes to show.

[OccidentalSlashy]

Earthlings are stupid. That's why I'm moving to Mars.

Re:Just goes to show.

[Anonymous Coward]

The grass is always greener on the other side.

The culprit = The USPTO

[popo]

The culprit here is the USPTO. The ease of getting a patent approved by the USPTO is shockingly easy. (I'm sure that comment will get me flamed by all the patent-lawyers reading this). But patents should be above all things: extremely rare.

Innovation occurs in parallel. Period.

Its almost time for a class action suit against the USPTO.

Re:The culprit = The USPTO

[Zocalo]

I'm sure that comment will get me flamed by all the patent-lawyers reading this.

Actually, since you singled out the USPTO, probably not as other patent offices look down upon the USPTO as something of a joke. The biggest problem with the USPTO is that its staff get paid a bonus for approving a patent application instead of finding prior art which would render it invalid. Yup, you read that right. Is it any wonder that they seem to approve just about every patent they see, and then leave it to the IP lawyers to resolve any disputes in court?

I don't think that there is anything wrong with the idea of patents in general, provided that they are only granted when there is due cause. The current situation is absurd, as is clearly illusatrated by this report at The Economist in which they conclude that over 30% of patents are duplicates of other works, and thus invalid. They don't see it getting any better as the Chinese, Indians and others become more active in western markets either.

Re:The culprit = The USPTO

[grotgrot]

Actually it is one trait of the US legal system. In *should* be that if you bring suit against someone else and you lose, then you are automatically liable for their legal costs. That way it ensures that people only bring cases where they have a good case, and won't cost defendants who are innocent anything (in the long term). I believe it is substantially like this in the UK.

Sadly I doubt anything like this would happen since it would reduce the volume of lawsuits. And the people who win in every lawsuit (the lawyers) don't want that, and supply many members of the government.

omfg ... sun... patents

[eSavior]

I am seriously tired of everyone comparing IBM's patent release to Sun's. IBM released 500 patents under every OSI licence aproved up to a certain date. Sun indirectly released the patents via releasing their code under the cddl. What exactly I can do with the patents is incredibly confusing, for instance if a piece of sun software does not impliement one of suns patents and I extend it to use that patent... even tho that patent is released under another file under the cddl from what I can tell I could still be hit up for infringement.

(d) Notwithstanding Section 2.1(b) above, no patent license is granted: (1) for code that You delete from the Original Software, or (2) for infringements caused by: (i) the modification of the Original Software, or (ii) the combination of the Original Software with other software or devices.

Atleast thats how I interpret that part (sense the licence is file based). I am definatly not a lawyer just a programming trying to figure out what rights I actually have. But like I said there is a very large difference between IBM's direct release and Sun's circumstantial release. If someone who knows more about these types of things... PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG. I would love to be able to look at their patents without the fear of massive infringement. Other questions I have are about even if I write my code under the cddl does the patent grant only effect code released by sun?

Mod this guy up to 5

[Anonymous Coward]

The OSRM thing basically comes down to "Open Source Insurance Company Claims Open Source Insurance Essential"

I mean seriously how many cases of "COMPANY CLAIMS OWN PRODUCT ESSENTIAL" do you take seriously, so why would you take this one seriously

Sun did not open 1600 patents....

[LnxAddct]

Those 1600 patents can only be used to contribute to OpenSolaris or related projects, all of which must also be licensed under the CDDL. I'd hardly call that open, especially considering that they can't even be used in conjunction with the linux kernel (a.k.a one of the largest open source projects alive)
Regards,
Steve

Re:Sun did not open 1600 patents....

[persaud]

There needs to be a precise legal definition of "open patents" when the term is used in the context of "open source". Just as OSI approves specific licenses as "Open Source", someone (OSI?) needs to approve the use of the term "Open Patent".

Patent grants that are restricted to specific licenses or license groups must be visibly differentiated (branding) from patent grants that have no such restriction.

Re:Sun did not open 1600 patents....

[jonbryce]

or even openoffice.org, the largest open source / free software project alive.

Re:Sun did not open 1600 patents....

[lachlan76]

Well I would have said Gecko/Firefox was the biggest, but I'm judging by userbase, and not bulk/compile time ;)

Forget insurance, get the best legal help

[Anonymous Cowherd X]

IMHO, insurance is futile, you are better off hiring the best legal help you can find. If you are doing something that important you should consult with an IP law specialists about protecting your IP before you even start the project. Contrary to what most people believe the top law firms do a lot of pro bono work and are open to flexible payment arrangements. As someone with quite a bit of experience in the world of IP protection (I mean legal, not just firewalls), I can recommend the following law firms for IP protection pertaining to software, e-commerce and the Internet in general:

• Baker & McKenzie
• White & Case
• McDermott, Will & Emery
• Shearman & Sterling

For further details on those law firms check out the largest 250 law firms in the U.S. Oh and I am in no way affiliated with any of those firms, of course.

Re:Forget insurance, get the best legal help

[Anonymous Coward]

I agreed with you until you gave your list of law firms. I would not consider any of those top IP law firms. I suggest taking a look at the list give at IP Law and Business to see what corporations say what firms they use.
As full disclosure, I am an IP attorney at one of the firms listed (not the top one however). There are lots of law firms out there that claim to do IP work, but that doesn't mean that they are good IP attorneys. You should look and see whom corporations that have a major stake in their IP are hiring.

ORSM insurance?

[ancyent_marinere]

Why is orsm offering insurance services?

No, insurance is a scam

[bigberk]

Insurance like this is basically a scam. Even when the situation arises when you know the insurance should kick in, it doesn't, and you find yourself spending new money on a lawyer making sure the insurance provider upholds their part of the bargain. This is such a classic scam industry, it just feeds lawyers, and makes chumps of us all.

Re:No, insurance is a scam

[CastrTroy]

In Canada, as far as i've heard, it works like this with car insurance. If you hit someone and your cars get damaged, no matter how obvious it is that it was one person's fault, the insurance companies just kind of get along and split the cost of doing the repairs. It's a lot cheaper than going to court, trying to decide who is right, and which insurance company should pay. They just split the cost, and save on lawyer fees. So much easier.

Of course

[Pan T. Hose]

"We all know that OSRM has come out to offer insurance against intellectual property claims for open source software. Recently, we've seen IBM open up 500 patents and SUN up the ante with 1600. But all of these moves are targeted at F/OSS software."

Of course those are targetted at free software, because free software is the main force opposing software patents. Check out who is giving their patents to free software, and then check out who is the main pusher of software patents in EU. What we have to realise is that IBM is not giving us patents just because IBM is nice. IBM wants us to shut up while it is lobbying for software patents in the European Union. Hopefully, we are not fools, and we will see the big picture and understand that it is harmful in the long run. And quite frankly it is harmful for both proprietary and free software developers. It is dangerous for anyone who cannot afford an army of lawyers. IBM will be safe with its proprietary software and with its free software, but your mom and pop's software shop will be always vulnerable. Please people, let's not wet our pants because IBM gave us some miserable patents to keep us quiet. Anyone who remembers WW2 knows that this is hardly a company that does not evil, like Google. Let's wait and see what those patents will give us in the countries that have software patents, and meanwhile lobby against such patents in the countries that don't, as hard as we possibly can. It's also a good idea to sign the Thank you, Poland letter to show our support. There is more info on FSF website. The politicians have to know what we want, and they will do what we want, because they want to get reelected. This is the most important thing to understand in politics. "Hey, look, we've got 50000 letters from around the world from people who are strongly against software patents. We'll have have a lot of support and good publicity if we vote against software patents. Screw IBM." This is how it works, folks. It's time to learn it and it's time to start acting. Don't even waste your time on reading those patents, just lobby against them even if those particular patents are ours (with strings attached, of course), because it doesn't mean that we'll get every IBM's and Sun's patents in the future, and the future is what we need to worry about.

Racket

[cyberfunk2]

Something tells me that these IP insurance lawyers are the same people as the patent lawyers. I mean the skillset would appear to be the same right ?

Who's really suprised though? It's just lawyers creating work for themselves, i.e.: buisness as usual for them.

Microsoft FUD in F/OSS Clothing...

[cdbaric]

Here we have another article meant to stir Fear Uncertainty and Doubt from ip-wars, a website created, personally funded and administered by Jeff Causey - a certified Microsoft supporter.

ip-wars is just a thinly F/OSS-veiled FUD-incubator for the Microsoft camp populated by malcontents and morons.

Jeff Causey is the Chief Information Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Alamance County, North Carolina - a 100% Microsoft shop.

Jeff is the guy that has managed to keep Linux out of the Alamance County IT infrastructure despite having to upgrade to Microsoft XP at considerable expense from Microsoft NT4 servers and (98/2000) Windows desktops.

Jeff will tell you that he had no choice BUT he is the guy that is both Chief Information Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Alamance County, NC, so who did have a choice? Jeff Causey authored the budget that clearly protects Alamance County from the evils of F/OSS.

Jeff will claim he wasn't really aware of Linux - in 2003 Jeff wasn't aware of Linux BUT he mentions it on his graphs (Linux 0%) AND he is THE Chief Information Officer for Alamance County.

Jeff will tell you that he has learned better since then but he will also reveal that there is still no Linux in Alamance County.

No NT4's being replaced by Linux network services! No Linux/Samba file/print servers! No Linux/Squid proxy servers! No Linux/Apache webservers! Not even a Linux pilot program to negotiate a better licensing deal from Microsoft.

Don't even ask about Linux/KDE desktops! Alamance County is a Microsoft shop and the reason is Jeff Causey - The Microsoft Guy in F/OSS clothing.

What a coincidence - Jeff Causey, The Microsoft Guy is the chief architect of a site that routinely attacks Linux F/OSS allies.

Jeff even removed a document from the Alamance County website that clearly demonstrates his obvious prejudice against Linux F/OSS:

20032004BudgetProposedITPlan.pdf

Try and find it at www.alamance-nc.com* - it was 'moved' when Jeff was revealed as Microsoft Guy.

* (best viewed ... with Microsoft Internet Explorer for Windows)

When the BGEs (Bitter Groklaw Exiles) start a FUD-storm against a Linux F/OSS ally you will find the idea was incubated on ip-wars with Jeff pulling the levers behind the curtain.

Beware the counsel of Wormtongue.

Bar
Copyright © 2005 CD Baric. All rights reserved.

Re:Microsoft FUD in F/OSS Clothing...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you didn't actually bother to read Jeff's article then? It's no such thing, your attack on the individual without reading the article is pretty transparent.

Re:Microsoft FUD in F/OSS Clothing...

[cdbaric]

Yes I did read the article.

It is the beginning, not the end.

Bar
Copyright © 2005 CD Baric. All rights reserved.

Software in general is not patentable, but...

[3seas]

...there is a reason or two why this is not yet common knowledge amoung the public and probably a large percentage of software developers, proprietary and Open Source alike.

The Evolution of a FOSS Advocate

[ColonelZen]

Jeff's response in detail to such statements.

http://www.ip-wars.net/story/2005/1/7/143919/5252

-- TWZ

Re:The Evolution of a FOSS Advocate

[cdbaric]

I understand that Jeff wants to do some damage control now that he has been outed as a Microsoft shill.

Jeff concealed his Microsoft Zealot background until the Alamance County, North Carolina, 2003/2004 IT budget was discovered. A document that denied any Linux F/OSS initiatives despite a large potential savings in license and administration costs that could be realized.

Jeff Causey authored that document and it was immediately moved and hidden on the Alamance County website when he was outed - just what is Jeff trying to hide?

I am not suggesting for a moment that Jeff should have revamped the entire Alamance County IT system with all Linux F/OSS applications. But how about replacing some of those Microsoft NT4 servers with inexpensive simple Linux F/OSS network services?

How about even a Linux pilot program to encourage Mcrosoft to sweeten up it's licensing deal?

I want to judge people not by what they say but by what they actually do.

Jeff is a demonstrated Mcrosoft Guy that has created, funded (from his own pockets) and administers a website that covertly operates as an anti-F/OSS FUD incubator site. The site is riddled with irrational hate messages and articles directed at numerous Linux F/OSS allies.

Microsoft has tried and failed with it's overt attacks on Linux F/OSS - ip-wars is the beginning of a 'grassroots' inside attack against the Linux F/OSS community.

Bar
Copyright © 2005 CD Baric. All rights reserved.

Copyright insurance as well?

[tepples]

So software developers and publishers are able to purchase insurance against certain software patent infringements, and for purposes of this comment, we'll assume that's all well and good.

Thing is, it would appear that songwriters and music publishers would need an analogous form of insurance against copyright infringement claims, given that there exist a finite number of distinct melodies in the Western musical scale, and incumbent publishers like to sue startups for subconscious copying ( Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music ). Has any company announced plans to offer this kind of insurance?

ip-wars anti-F/OSS Hate Site

[cdbaric]

How better to sow FUD than to freshly address a couple of inconsequential and indecisive articles covering the major fearpoint holding back Linux F/OSS advancement!

Microsoft could not have done a better job - wait a minute. Jeff Causey IS a Microsoft Guy!

Jeff Causey is instrumental in preventing Linux F/OSS adoption in Alamance County, NC - after all, Jeff is the Chief Information Officer AND Chief Financial Officer of Alamance County and that is a 100% Microsoft shop.

The ip-wars website is in fact an anti-F/OSS allie website cloaked in F/OSS clothing.

ip-wars is owned and operated by Jeff Causey - aka Microsoft Guy!

Bar
Copyright © 2005 CD Baric. All rights reserved.

Re:its well knowm..

[zcat_NZ]

Or you could go with Morrison & Foerster

#13 of the top 250, they've been mentioned on /. before suing spammers, and they have a cool domain name!

And I would most definitely agree with you

[Polarism]

sadly. :(

"forward post of the grokwars"

[thimblewit]

more like it. Try wading through such gems as "PJ Reaches New Height of Hypocrisy". Or, if Grokwars bore you, check out Harlan Wilkerson bashing RMS, Moglen, Perens, Salus, etc Edifying!

Re:"forward post of the grokwars"

[cdbaric]

EXACTLY!

ip-wars is an anti-F/OSS anti-Linux hate site in F/OSS clothing.

It is owned and operated by Jeff Causey, a 100% Microsoft Guy (judging by his actions - not his words).

The ip-wars webiste is riddled with hate and disinformation about Linux F/OSS allies, all under the cover of a TRUE F/OSS principles website!

The most dangerous thing about Jeff Causey is that he sounds plausible.

"I am the great and powerful Ozpay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

Bar
Copyright © 2005 CD Baric. All rights reserved.

Re:"forward post of the grokwars"

[raidient]

"The most dangerous thing about Jeff Causey is that he sounds plausible."

Unlike you.

Re:"forward post of the grokwars"

[cdbaric]

Thank you.

You should really look up the definition of the word 'plausible'.

(1) Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.

(2) Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.

(3) Disingenuously smooth; fast-talking: Ambitious, unscrupulous, energetic,... and plausible,a political gladiator, ready for a set-to in any crowd (Frederick Douglass).

8^)

It is not a crime to be illiterate, it is just unfortunate.

Bar
Copyright © 2005 CD Baric. All rights reserved.

Re:"forward post of the grokwars"

[Bar's Mother Figure]

Young man, my Cecil is very plausible, I am bringing him up to be a good person. You leave him alone, or you'll have a peice of me to deal with. Don't you go upsetting him, because he's got to have his tea now. He can come back and play internet later, but you're not to upset him before his bed time, because he has to have his cocoa or he doesn't sleep, but if he's upset, well I know from experience he'll have an accident in the night.
Mrs PJ de Baric

Sorry to folks on Slashdot..

[Bar's Mother Figure]

...but it is time for Cecil to have his tea. I am always having to do this. He won't answer me. He sits in his room all day long in front of that computer. I don't know what's got into that boy. I have to go on the internet and use google or Yahoo to find him, and then reply to his posts, just to get his attention. I am so sorry about all of this. Today, I have had to create an ID, because if I go onto Slashdot without, I am an anonymous coward and they mod you down for that. And Cecil does need his tea and I think he might not see my post. Now, you will look after him while he's here won't you? He's not sliming anyone or causing trouble is he? He's a good boy really, and he doesn't mean any of it, but I do worry about him sometimes. Especially when he is on CKX or SCOX with those shills, yahoos and astroturfers. They frighten me, I don't know what could become of him. Now, Cecil, come on Mommy has to give you your tea, and then Mommy is going to put on her red dress and go out. You can play internet all evening after you have had your tea. Sorry about all of this. Please don't let him get into trouble or do any trolling. I would die of shame if he started trolling, he is so young for his age.
Mrs P J de Baric

Problem with "loser pays" rule

[Hanzie]

Unfortunately, the "loser pays" rule means that nobody would dare bring suit against the big guys.

Remember, AT&T was able to hold off the US Government for 30 years. Microsoft beat the US Department of Justice. Mere mortals (we) would never have a chance against the immortal corporations or government, since a large company has only to "discover" you to death to win. The only way the little guy can win is to get a large firm to take a case on contingency, and none would be willing if they risked having to pay hundreds of millions for losing.

Anyone reading this post and thinking I like the current system need only read my .sig to see how disgusted I really am.

hanzie.

Re:Problem with "loser pays" rule

[grotgrot]

The big guys can already do this to you today, and the little guys don't have much of a chance of winning anyway. And note that it isn't always loser pays, but only if you initiate the lawsuit and only if you then lose do you pay the costs. I certainly agree that it is a good system but it is IMNSHO considerably less bad than the current system where people whose time is free can spray lawsuits around without much consideration for wether they are right, or adverse consequences to losing.

It would also help the free software community and patent situations. For example if someone sues you for patent infringement now, even for a patent that shouldn't have been granted (ie most of them) then winning that case will cost you a considerable sum of money.

Re:Problem with "loser pays" rule

[Hanzie]

I think you have a very good point.

Zealots need not apply

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a little open-mindedness?

> In reality what is happening is that the GNU
> operating environment and the Linux operating
> system beat Sun in the marketplace fair and
> square-- not because of some "open source" magical
> pixie dust, but because it's a better product--
> and Sun knows this.

As a satan worshipping Sun engineer, I'd like to express my disagreement with this statement. We do not "know" that Linux is a better product. In fact, we most certainly do "know that Solaris is a better product than Linux". In many many arenas. Though unfortunately not all.

Let me tell you this as a Sun employee: I'm disappointed with our weak management who seem middle aged, middle of the road policies, and *average*, I'm sick of the pathetic marketing department (todo: must check to see if there is actually a marketing dept in org chart) who fail to get the message out about what *I know* is the best OS available today.

I'm disappointed in that because I do care. We build good stuff and I'm proud of that. Foolish as I may be, I believe that this is a company with integrity, honour, exceptional engineers and quality products.

I hope you some of the more open minded /. readers try s10 and recognise that while it may not better Linux in all markets, it is better in many. The day I'm happy running performant Solaris on my old x86 desktop and laptop here at home, that's when I'll stop using linux. Til then I'll use what's best for each job, including posting this from Windows because I need to grab the photos off my camera.

So any zealots still with me... how many cpus does Linux scale to?

Re:Zealots need not apply

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you some of the more open minded /. readers try s10 and recognise that while it may not better Linux in all markets, it is better in many.

The problem is that Sun's management appear to be trying to target Solaris for all markets, or at least many markets for which it is not better than Linux in the ways that people care about. And it is management, not the engineers, who made the decision of under what terms Solaris was to be open sourced.

This is a problem because Sun's management seems to be trying to target these markets not based on Solaris's own intrinsic benefits-- which mostly come down to unmarketable things like reliability and suitability for high-end hardware increasingly few people want to buy-- but based on artificial benefits, like fear of fictitious lawsuits and engineered GPL issues. Solaris is not a bad thing, but this is.

So any zealots still with me... how many cpus does Linux scale to?

How many CPUs do I have?

Re:Zealots need not apply

[inode_buddha]

SGI is selling 512-processor boxes to the Gov't. and sub-contractors. And no, I do *not* mean clusters, I mean boxes. Meanwhile, there is progress on hot-swap CPU and RAM.

Re:Zealots need not apply

[jdhutchins]

Linux and Solaris are both good operating systems that have their own areas that they run best on. Linux runs well on relatively cheap x86 hardware, although it will run on Sparcs as well. Solaris runs well on very expensive, big-ironish Sun servers.

One of the reasons Linux is used so much in most servers is that you can get just as good performance for much less cost with x86 clusters. Some of Solaris's nice features, such as cpu partitioning, etc, aren't really applicable on lower-cost x86 units. I don't know many people who would run Solaris on their big-iron Sun servers, and I know about as many people who would run Solaris on their cheap x86 hardware.

Re:Zealots need not apply

[Anonymous Coward]

I will believe you the day Sun releases Solaris under the GPL. Until then, you say will be considered FUD.

Re:Zealots need not apply

[dynamo]

unmarketable things like reliability

Re:Zealots need not apply

[htd2]

SGI is selling 512-processor boxes to the Gov't. and sub-contractors. And no, I do *not* mean clusters, I mean boxes. Meanwhile, there is progress on hot-swap CPU and RAM.

Err getting an embarassingly parallel (hand up if you don't know what that means) workload to scale is rather different than getting a mixed workload to scale.

Almost anything can to the former, Solaris, Linux, HP-UX, Windows. A much smaller subset reliably scales with the latter and Linux aint one of the members of that Subset.

Just to hammer this point home, the only mixed load commercial type workload test that SGI have ever published for the Altix 3000 (which you think can scale to hundreds olf CPU's) scaled to 13x throughput when you went from 1-28 CPU's and trust me thats terrible.

not really

[DarkTempes]

because their agreements tend to read as 'legally binding' and not just as 'agreements'. meaning they can't just pick up their sticks and then be like BWHAHA, PAY BITCHES! sun and ibm arn't trying to screw open source, they rely on open source for alot of things, and with releasing their patents for FOSS they get free advertising and popularity of their 'ideas' basically...a win-win for both sides look for the actual pdf file papers on the releases, and read through the wording, and it tends to be quite logical and simple and not able to be used to backstab FOSS

Step on a Crack...

[serutan]

Following the same lines as Intellectual "Property," the government could create more business opportunities for the paper and money shuffling industries by making it illegal to step on a crack. There could be pole-mounted cameras eyeing cracks 24/7, face recognition software to identify violators, fully staffed monitoring centers, court-appointed private agents to issue citations and collect fines. There could be insurance policies for accidental crack stepping. Frequent walkers could set up speed-payment plans that automatically plead guilty and pay fines out of their bank accounts. Providing equipment and services for the crack-stepping enforcement industry would generate thousands of jobs. In fact, the more things we make illegal, the stronger our economy will become.

3000 times loss

[Vitanova]

Offering insurance against softwarepatents is difficult. Ian Lewis of Miller Insurance company said at the Brussels' FFII conference that a company lost 3000 times the premium. For every pound premium it received, it had to pay out 3000 pounds.(74th minute)

Wrong again.

[raidient]

I was not thinking about the 'plausible' aspect, I was considering the 'dangerous' statement.

IMO there is nothing more dangerous than a bigot.


Copyright © 2005 WC Harpic. All fights deserved.

Cross Dresser Baric

[Anonymous Coward]

Is a Linux wannabe ... goes by the handle - Linux Mystic ... well known for trolling any place that is unmoderated so his crap will stick around for a while ... actually is a underemployed wannabe wuss.

Sun patents are NOT for F/OSS

[PhilHibbs]

F/OSS means Free / Open Source Software. The "Free" means, essentially, GPL and other compatable licences, where the freedom of the software is guaranteed by clauses in the licence that appear to be restrictive, but maintain the freedom over the long term (i.e. that prevent the software from being proprietized).