Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer Won't Dismiss Idea of Suits Against Linux
An anonymous reader writes "According to an interview with Steve Ballmer in Forbes, Microsoft is open to the possibility of filing patent suits against Linux in the interest of their shareholders. Ballmer said: 'Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders to have a strategy.' Microsoft filed more than 3000 new applications for software patents in 2005 and already owns more than 4000 patents, including many patents on fundamental, but trivial technologies, like double clicks."
More FUD from MS Desperate times call for desperate measures. What to say, Microsoft is getting desperate. To be coming out making direct statements like this show's that Ballmer is worried about his future; he really screwed up with Vista.
Daniel Lyons has been suspected of being a SCOX puppet for Microsoft for quite some time now. And people have been suspecting that Microsoft has been funding this sort of talk in the SCOG - IBM case as well. Can't wait for the discussion on Groklaw
and already owns more than 4000 patents, including many patents on fundamental, but trivial technologies, like double clicks.
Patent the triple click or click(n + 1) and sue the bejesus out of Microsoft for all those times you have been waiting around for something to open and you just keep clicking.
What Ballmer is saying is this: if (and that's a big if) there's patent or IP imfringement anyhere in the Linux kernal, they'll look into it and take legal action if they have to. Should MS not enforce their rights, they're hosed and the stockholder get's POed. It's a sound business decision and, frankly, so obvious that it should not have even been reported. It falls into the "duh, no shit, sherlock" category. So what else is new? This ain't FUD people, this is business as usual.
Who exactly do you sue? Linus Torvalds? Stallman? A bunch of working class coders who send in patches in their spare time?
Ballmer is just saying that he wants to challenge Linux Torvalds to a chair throwing match. What better place to do this than in a court of law? There's a lot of other things in a court room to throw, too. Personally, I think Ballmer is going to kick his ass.
But we've got dibs on the single-click.
if i get in a car accident and i refuse to dismiss the idea of any back/neck injuries arising on the spot, does it mean i'm an evil litigation-happy opportunist?
he would be considered unfit to run the company if he wasn't capable of producing similarly guarded responses by default.
So, let's say Ballmer says he'll never pursue legal action against Linux. And decides 2 years from now to do so anyways.
What happens next?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
If linux is killed there is always BSD... Oh wait- isn't it dead already? :P
My humor is probably your flamebait
I think the best analogy for Microsoft's current situation is when Apple was struggling to come out with Copland. At that time, Apple flailed around a lot trying to figure out ways to make money. Ultimately, they concluded they needed to find a way to start all over with their OS. Microsoft will wind up doing the same, eventually.
In the meantime, let's hope their flailing won't harm Linux.
Free Conference Call -- No Spam, High Quality
Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property. ... That SCO group, was it? And if not, I'm sure we can find someone to pretend to be an expert and falsify information like we paid SCO, er, *head explodes*
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
These patents simply stifle competition and therefore advancement, so it stands to reason that Microsoft, being the kind of company they are, will practice underhanded methods such as this.
They are simply incapable of any real innovation and never have been, so they stifle and steal ideas and use marketing muscle to sell it as thier own.
I'd say these methods have a limited lifespan, as is clear with Vista.
They are being beaten to the punch due to lack of this innovation, by Apple, by Google and by Linux.
No amount of FUD or threats is ever going to stop that, time to move over microsoft, as your going to be played at your own game and your going to lose.
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
ponders lawsuit against Linux
I seem to recall playing around with an Apple IIe program when I was a kid that taught you how to use a mouse. I swear there was some double-clicking involved.
I suspect that the Open Invention Network was set up to defend against this very possibility. If Microsoft makes a move the alliance will use their patents to counter. Which the companies involved have a pretty comprehensive portfolio.
You mention intellectual property. What's going on in terms of Microsoft IP showing up in Linux? And what are you going to do about it?
Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders to have a strategy. And when there is something interesting to say, you'll be the first to hear it.
All you're seeing in that answer is "we have an obligation to our shareholders to protect our rights if we're being infringed". And if there's something interesting to say (in the mysterious future), he'll let Forbes know about it.
Taking that comment to mean MS is threatening to sue various companies over Linux infringements is akin to screaming the sky is falling when a bird shits on your head.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Actually it has very little to do as a business decision and much more to do with a anti-competitive strategy. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist who has used many anti-competitive strategies in the past and they won't stop until they get broken apart into two or three separate companies.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
and by they I mean Microsoft's management. At a time when their status quo has lead them to a debacle with Windows development, all Ballmer can think of is lobbing bombs blindly at the enemy. He's proven himself to be no real tactician nor to have a good eye for managerial talent.
I own stock in Microsoft and want to see these asses go. Stop wasting my money on threats against Linux and start getting Vista out. You idiots cannot get blood from a turnip, which is about what your suits against OSS developers will amount to. The only way to keep the value of my stock up is to develop a product that brings in more revenues, and suing Linux developers won't do that.
Fuck you Ballmer, Allchin, etc.
-From a shareholder who sees right through your wag the dog campaign to CYA.
He didn't state that he's sure that Linux has violated Patents, but he's saying that if they did (as some experts say), they would be forced by their shareholders to take action. This is entirely true and will always be true in every situation. If someone materially infriges on a corpoations patents and there are substantial damages to the corporations ability to make money, the corporation has a duty to it's shareholders to enforce the patents. Balmer really doesn't have a say in this matter he has to act.
No Sigs!
What is going to take for the open source community to fight back? To stop porting code to Windows? To stop releasing Firefox for Windows? To create artificial incompatibilities - I know that's counter-productive, but let's talk politics and economics, for a second.
If the U.S. government won't use the Sherman Anti-trust Act to stop Microsoft, we need to rely on one of the fundamental principles of capitalism - Adam Smith's invisible hand. We need to stop buying, supporting, using, and working with Microsoft software. I do know how crazy that sounds, but revolutions require revolutionary thinking.
Many of you claim that you use Windows because your employers do - that's a crock. Make a personal choice. I work for a Fortune 50, in an enterprise-level position, and I haven't owned a Windows machine in over 5 years. I have may 98% of everything I need at home and work function with Mac OS or Linux. In the extreme cases (that last 2%), I use CrossOver Office. Once (ONCE) in the last five years, I had to borrow a colleagues' Windows machine to complete some training - because our server software was so out of date that the manufacturer's Mac drivers didn't support the old protocols. Every opportunity I have to recommend standards, I oppose the implementation of further Windows desktop or server deployments.
Not, seriously, I'm not crazy - I know all of this isn't feasible for all of you. Don't do anything to risk your livelihood, your sustainable income, or the ability to feed your family, but seriously ask yourself... "Am I doing everything I can to support Linux and Open Source, and help prevent the patent threat that Microsoft represents?"
So may on Slashdot these days have become Microsoft apologists - they aren't that bad... their UI is far superior... I have to use them at the office... all the good games are only written for Windows... ad nauseam. We need to use what power we have to stave off a serious threat to the technologies we are personally passionate about. We are the developers, the administrations, and the infrastructure of the nation and world's IT organizations. We must stand strong if we want to have any options. Because after Linux, it's Mac OS, then Solaris, then AIX, until all that's left is Windows. All that's left is crap. Yes, it is *that* slippery a slope.
And, if we stand united, we can affect Microsoft's profits. Make their shareholders listen. Make the board of directors require policy changes. I don't hate Microsoft or any company - but this "Patent Cold War" is despicable.
I am not advocating overnight change 180 degrees. Only that you ask yourself one simple question every day...
"Am I doing everything I can to enable choice in technology?"
"Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things."
If they play the Patent card, I will make it a life's dedication to *never* buy M$ again. Thank God I'm in Europe... start dishing out for the fine, Bill...
It just goes to show how weak, afraid and mafioso-like they still are. Intellectual-property? More like a desperate grab at everything that is, and isn't, nailed down so that they can cash their chips in later...
M$-patented air, anyone? They invented breathing, don'tchanknow...
That is easy to figure out. You sue the person/company with the cash.
That means anyone making money off linux or using linux. Just like SCO delivered warning letters for anyone using the 2.4 kernel before their big lawsuit (we got one of these from SCO's general counsel), Microsoft will do the same. Lawsuits follow the cash and therefore IBM will be the first sued.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
News at eleven.
*sigh* back to work...
The more popular GNU/Linux gets, the more proprietary software companies and programmers will revolt. It's a simple clash of "classical" non-free software and open source software which we have seen glimpses of so far with SCO and other companies, but I'm afraid it's going to get worse.
;)
The good part about this is, however, that in a way, Steve Ballmer was right - Open Source software IS like cancer. Not in the harmful way as he had hoped his audience to invision, however, but in the sense that it will become bigger and bigger, and "infect" more corporate networks in which MS has a stronghold on today. The good thing that open source has going for it is that Microsoft cannot compete with it with their current business model. Microsoft is dabbling in "shared source" and other small initiatives to test the waters, but at the same time their ultimate decisions will come from their shareholders, who focus on one primary goal - profit.
With these two largely different motives, Open Source will slip into companies Microsoft can't put a firewall up against. The bigger it gets, the more MS will realise that their business model is obsolete.
See, obsolete isn't such a bad word after all.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
This is just puff - if MS ever resorted to that, IBM would have to dust off their extensive patent collection and retaliate.
Red Hat and Novell? They're big enough to fight it, and even if they lose, I was using GNU/Lunix before they were around, and it'll still be available after they're gone. IBM? IBM have been building a patent portfolia for decades. Bring it on!
Linus? Not even Microsoft could countenance a PR gaffe of that scale. People like Linus.
The FSF? Well, Stallman is no Linus in the popularity stakes, but I'm sure he'd relish the opportunity to be given a soapbox to point out that patents are indeed the big threat to competition and choice.
Whatever they do though, Microsoft will send one message loud and clear: they can't compete on technology, so they have to stifle the competition.
Is that really how desperate they've become? If so, then that's a good sign for their competitors, both Free and otherwise.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I think a lawsuit (if it happens) whould be to discourage businesses from
selecting Linux. I am sure there are a lot of corporate IT depts out there now
that at one time would never have considered Linux, now are selecting it for
all the reasons we use it for. Whats better is the growth has been a cushion
for these IT managers to not have to be out there on their own. One way
Microsoft can turn the table is to sow a little fear in the IT managers boss.
Just a wiff of a patent lawsuit or some form of injunction and it would have
the desired effect of steering some IT depts away from Linux and towards Microsoft.
Its a bit hard from a conceptual point of view to see how you pin the tail on this
one, whats injunct worthy here is not necessarily so elsewhere.
Not to mention the ill will it may engender. Still corporate Vista is on track
so they say, and thats the one Ballmer would be trying to force upon IT depts. The timing
would be right, sow the lawsuit, reap the rewards.
Hedley
that merit is unecessary in the said lawsuit (see SCO) but only need to generate enough FUD to halt or slow adaptation.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Lyons hand fed him this question. It was something he wanted to talk about. You think that he would have commented otherwise.
So I suppose I owe them a quarter for every time I double click something.
Maybe I should apply for a patent on taking out stupid patents, so that I can counter sue.
Ballmer: What do you mean we can't patent the word "Start"?!! *picks up chair and launches across the room*
I'm sure this is review for most of us, but this is the end game right here, right now.
Microsoft has been hoarding patents, regardless of prior art, for some time now. The patent office will grant a patent, when it's not contested. They have 4000 or so now....
Now comes the fun.... litigate.... and do so against open source. Leaving the cost of this litigation with the large Linux vendors who's pockets are not nearly as deep as Microsoft.
And here's what they bank on: They can bankrupt the Linux movement financially, regardless of whether the patents would stand up, simply because there are so many of them.
Will it work?
It will work unless there is more pressure put on Microsoft than defensive litigation. There has to be a market reaction. There has to be people walking away from Microsofts product on large scale basis. There has to be PR from the linux side that's almost as dirty as FUD.
Sadly, I think we are going to lose this war for the time being. And that is not easy to say: Because it means that I will literally be out of a job and unable to continue in business. I'm an independent consultant and mini-ISP.
Imagine if Ford wasn't trumped by GM in the days of "Any color but black"?
In the Ford/GM days there was a corrective force in the marketplace through GM's product response. I'm not sure that today's consumer is ready/educated enough for that choice, I'm entirely sure that the courts really won't understand these issues for another generation, and I know Microsoft will not restrain itself based on the greater good.
Linux is in my mind equivalent to GM's product response in the Ford monopoly days.
If Microsoft is successful in a patent assault on Linux and FOSS in general, it will effectively remove FOSS from legal use in the United States, and probably many other western countries.
And here's the upshot: Countries like China, Tiawan, Thialand, pretty much the entire pacific rim and 3rd world countries are NOT going to respect US patent rulings. Leaving the USA at a competitive DISADVANTAGE as FOSS development moves OFFSHORE along with it's USAGE and REVENUE.
People need to really think about what is happening here. This is about more than business and patents. This is about freedom and the good of our markets.
What if Gutenburg took control of what was printed on the press? What if Gutenburg had absolute control over the press and it's design?
The computer is just another printing press. We all need to vote with our feet and dollars to prevent a catastrophe in the free market from happening- and if it happens, it will be in the name of Microsoft Shareholders.
Think about it.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
I really do actually remember when SCO... were the good guys I don't. The old SCO were a bunch of arrogant assholes, run by a president who couldn't keep himself from slobbering all over his female employees. The SCOG had to try really, really hard to be even more sleazy than the old SCO... but they succeeded.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I welcome a Microsoft lawsuit against Linux. If MS can point at Linux open source code and make claims -- the claims must be backed up with hard evidence (and stalling tactics would be frowned upon as bullying by many, thus hurting MS in the media). The Linux legal team could argue that since Microsoft has a right to view Linux code and raise legal concerns about it, then the Linux "team" (ie: open source community) must also have a right to view the Microsoft code, and scrutinize it heavily as well, for GPL infringements. Which code will have more infringements? Care to hazard a guess?
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Or is it just another FUD? Or is it maybe this here http://wyoguide.sf.net/papers/Cross-platform.html?
O. Wyss
See http://wyoguide.sf.net/papers/Cross-platform.html
The counter suits and criminal charges for filing harassment suits would destroy even Microsoft...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Say there is an infringement on the Linux kernel against one of Microsoft's patents.
Who do they sue in this case?
Sure, they can sue RedHat, Novell, etc. But that does not solve any problems - heck, all RedHat/Novell/Whoever would need to do is alter their installer to grab the source from kernel.org and build it during install time.
Would they be allowed to sue Linus for patent infringement, even if he was not the one who wrote the particular code, or would they need to sue the person who wrote that code?
What if one person wrote half the functionality and someone else the other half?
For that matter, is there even a case for infringement if you are disributing uncompiled binaries?
But it is FUD. The term has nothing to do with the accuracy or fairness of claims; rather it is used for claims intend to discourage people from using a product regardless of the merit of the claims. Here, Ballmer is by his own admission only speculating that Microsoft could sue. Why not simply look into it and sue or not sue? Because this way, he can pre-emptively discourage the use of Linux.
English is easier said than done.
Just think, with the $$ MS has built up, they can pick of each Linux Distro one by one.
MS will have the Mainstream press trumpetting their position, linux will have Groklaw.
MS will have the Feds on their side, linux has a cute penguin.
MS will have an army of litigators, MS will have EFF volunteers.
MS will have hundreds of millions to prosecute this, Linux has a cute little Penguin
We all new it was coming. and it's most certainly coming.
How do you propose to convince the majority of Microsoft's customer base to boycott? That's hundreds of millions of users. How many real slashdotters are there again?
uh huh...
good luck.
Fedora's Greg DeKoenigsberg has finally posted a explanation on why Redhat has now included Mono in Fedora Core 5:
If Microsoft should choose to sue people for using projects under the umbrella such as Linux or MONO, the Mutually Assured Destruction clock hits midnight.Also see what Risk to USERS of open source from patent claims?
Come on people we all know that he really just got booted off the Windows Vista monstrosity (I would call it a project but... well you can fill that in). He is looking for something to do some reason for him to stay and justify his enormous salary to Bill. We all know nothing works better to tingle Bill's thingy (well what ever he has) then threatening to sue someone and bashing Linux and it's a double bonus that he dose it in the same sentence.
Torvalds to catch chair thrown by Ballmer.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
you roll over too fast.
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
Don't some of those expire soon? I mean, patents are, what? 17 years? 1991 release of Windows 3.1 + 17 years is like 2008, right?
Also, couldn't IBM and Novell just step in and nail Microsoft on about a thousand patents?
From TFA:
Say again? Moving fast? When's Vista being released again? That's what I thought.
It gets funnier:
I bet it involves chairs. Lots of chairs. And a monkey dance.
Without you I'm one step closer to happiness without violence.
> Write to your representatives and ...send cash or don't bother.
If what I've read here http://gregdek.livejournal.com/4008.html is true then they would be opening a huge can of worms. Of course I'll feel better when OIN is fully explained and more out in the open. It would be sweet revenge to have the threat of business crippling lawsuits available to OSS projects.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Trying to control another's language is really sad...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
The Corporation is a documentary with left wing, right wing, capitalist, and academia views describing what the corporation really is and why these types of things occur.
In essense, big businesses are owned by shareholders who are far-enough removed that they can profit from a corporation's illegal actions without directly being responsible or affected (well, maybe with their shares falling in value).
So, this is not suprising, this will happen and in fact it *should* happen unless the likes of Ballmer can prove to their shareholders why it would be in Microsoft's best interests NOT to sue other entities that are violating their patents, or to put it another way - not playing the game according to the rules (that they sometimes write through lobbying).
That news was brought by Microsoft. There is no way that those questions where made by an idependent reporter. So, now I have the question, why now?
It seems to me that Microsoft is fighting to stay alife. Not on the long term, but that we could have a nice surprise on the next mounths.
Microsoft could chose to use its patents against FOSS any time, but it chosed no to do so. Why? The only explanation I have is because of PR. Using patents against a (perceived as) weak opponent would cause severe harm to the image of both Microsoft and software patents on the public. So MS was waiting to use it when softPatents where better accepted or bad times came. Software patents are not better accepted now, so it must be the second option (treatening to use have the same effects of using them).
We've seen a sequence of very bad news for Microsoft on the last week that could put its stocks very down. MS seems to have contability problems (like most other big companies out there), and there is some speculation about them hiding bad results. At the formal side, there are no good news also, since MS isn't as lucrative as it used to be, and don't seem to be able to grow anymore. They may quite well be on a bubble, and managements would know that. If it is a bubble, and burst, they'll rapidly get out of money to invest. And MS with no money to invest is a sitting duck, just wating to get shot.
People, we may have won that war!!! It is early to be sure, but it is very possible.
Rethinking email
Save $50?? To which MS Product are they referring? MS Office is over $300! XP Pro upgrade is $200. You are saving quite a bit more than $50 with a linux-based alternative.
Ballmer would have been derilict in his duty "to the stock holders" IF he hasn't had MS coders scouring the Linux kernel source, and other FOSS projects, for YEARS, on the lookout for stolen MS IP. After all, UNLIKE Microsoft's practices, the development of the Linux kernel, and other FOSS projects, has always been and still is an OPEN PROCESS!
Further, I have no doubt that Gate's lawyers would already have filed a legal action if they found MS IP in ANY FOSS project, especially the Linux kernel and FireFox. In fact, if they are aware of such violations they have a legal obligation to inform those projects so that the projects can mitigate the damage.
No, the REAL QUESTION is: "How much Linux & FOSS IP is hiding in Microsoft's secret code base? I'll wager it's MILLIONS of lines of code.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
I wouldn't call it 'rolling over'; I'd say it's a matter of taking a realistic evaluation of the circumstances and forming an opinion based on that.
IBM won't cut their throats (by engaging in a needless patent war) and the other players (red hat, the fsf) don't have the deep pockets required to fight a legal battle against someone with a war chest the size of MS'.
Not to mention the fact that any patent battle will take decades to shake out (MS has the lawyers to insure that) Free Software will be frozen in time (because it will be illegal to work on it); by the time the dust has settled, it will be 2050 and no one will care any more.
Just calling it as I see it.
Unfortunately, that's simply not true. Perhaps the best example is the herd behavior that's very cleverly exploited by Microsoft. Not to mention the efficacy of Microsoft-sponsored FUD. There are actually people out there who consider that Windoze is more secure and stable ... no kiddin'.
The Raven
...to bring "Microsoft Democracy(R) and Peace(tm)" in the world. We will just "nuke" everyone who will stand in our way to our last fort. Now we see why there is software patents. They are weapons. And again "we didn't know what monster it will create" from creators. No, you didn't. Because those who had forseen it, won't make such system in the first place.
There is a reason why economics should be regulated by scientists.
It is getting more and more farse. It is really all? It is all you can do? West? It is called progress? Capitalism?
It is *sad* to see all what have been good, go. But it is has to go. Such thinking is dead end for free market and capitalism itself. Anyone sees it more and more.
Less on my emotional and moral rant... Now we see "then they fight you" phase at it's maximum. Question is - will be there "and then you win" phase for us, free/open source software and small business? What Microsoft, sinking like Titanic, will take with it?
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Look at the huge blue screen behind Balmer's head: http://images.forbes.com/media/lifestyle/2005/08/0 5/ballmer_162.jpg :(
Talk about a fighting spirit? With people like you around, no doubt the world became what it is today.
IBM has been putting a lot of their resources supporting Linux. I doubt they'd back off if MS files a suit; They have a pretty consistent portfolio.
Res publica non dominetur
And while he's at it, he can patent re-writing 60% of his crappy code.
Assuming they have a patent, what does it protect from? Does it protect from people who manufacture and sell an item that is essentially the same as what they have patented? Does it protect from someone who manufactures and gives the item away? Does it protect from someone writing a description of how to create the item for yourself from raw materials and giving away or selling the description?
IANAL so I don't know the answer. Is there anyone reading this who isn't ANAL, er I mean, is a lawyer who could answer these?
And, if they don't know what that is, then they're even more dangerous than the ones that know what IP is because you can just grease their palms with some green and they'll vote for it.
Where's the PC Party? Where's our friends? Where's the people that want to vote to overturn IP patents, the DMCA and to tell the **AA where to shove their litgation?
Those are the people that I want to vote for. Those people represent us. These people are us.
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
Microsoft's double-click patent only applies to buttons on handhelds (or, as they word it : "limited resource computing device", and later "Small, mobile computing devices, such as personal desktop assistants including hand-held and palm-type computers and the like").
... well ... everybody did this, but never on ... well, you know ... small, portable computers. Yeah, there, it's a complet novelty.)
And if I interprete the patent correctly, even then, only to physical buttons.
And I still think that the patent is bogus.
(You know, it's an innovation because
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof for my post which this sig is too small to contain.
Any organization that applies for more than 1,000 patents in the previous year should be charged $100,000 per application. If they're going to bogg down the system they need to pay for it. That should at least slow them down a little while we wait for our congress to make software patents illegal (yeah, I know I'm dreaming).
Developers: We can use your help.
How can they be "sound business tactics" if they don't make sense? Anyway, what's good for Microsoft is often different than what's healthy technology innovation in general.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Get the party started so that it can be finished and over. The only strategy that could dimple now is that of waiting. We all know how the story ends and that it is better than the punishment of the waiting. Lets make some noise and speed over this bump.
Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property.
I couldn't quite understand that, so I used Babelfish Microsoft Translater (Beta) and got the following:
I'm blowing steam out my ass, but I'm pretty sure that if we paid the right professors the right amount of money, they'll be able to scrutinize the Linux code to the point of finding something that we can claim is in violation of our abundant trademarks. And if they can't, we'll just try to run Linux businesses into the groud by trying to claim they're infringing on our "array" patent, or whatever I pull out of a hat at the time. Cause those SCO lawsuits sure as hell ain't working, and we're losing almost as much money on them as we are on the XBox, ya know?
Wow, Microsoft sure has a condensed language.
In all serious, I think that one line is important. I think there are experts. Not I have experts or I'm speaking to experts, but I think there are experts. So he has no idea if there are people that claim that Linux violates MSIP (or, if there is, if they have proof to back it up.)
More hot air from a guy who hasn't been allowed to have his executive leather chair back (windows cost money, you know).
Linux/OSS isn't playing Microsofts game.
Sue all you want. Open your war chest of patents and fire away, Have IBM join the fray and fire back with an army of lawyers and tons of prior art. Drag Donald E. Knuth to court and have him confess that he came up with large parts of the stuff everybody claims to have a patent on. Force people to join patent ammo interest groups and have 10-20 wisecracks come forward who've managed to pass "pattern-matching" and "bit-vectors" passt the patent office clerks, ready to sue MS to chunky kibbles - or step down for a mean xx million sum.
Be it that in the end, 50% of Linux is actually 'illegal code'. 'Illegal' as in 'patent-thought crime'. Illegal as in 'may never use FAT' and 'may never use CF12xx encoding for characters.'. And so on. But never forget:
Linux/OSS isn't playing Microsofts game. It's not about money. It's about nice computer stuff that's fun to lots of people. It's about software that does interesting things, not about making money. It's made to work without money. It's about PHP. Mozillla. Python. Blender. Not about Money.
MS won't survive as a software-only company. They can sue, burn 5-10 billion and set back desktop Linux by a decade. And they have to if the shareholders demand it. But they can't win. Because OSS is not playing their game. OSS has more IT expert manpower than MS can even dream of. And it's machinery is fuled by passion, not money. That's what scares the piss out of MS.
"... then they fight you. Then you win." QED.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
"Let's say you think you can save $50. And then you go and waste three hours."
I think I spent more than $50 for my copy of XP (yeah, I actually paid for one), and I am quite sure I've spent more than 3 hours re-installing the OS _and_ the various service packs, hunting for and removing spyware and viruses, etc...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Ballmer said: 'Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property.
Interviewer: Who are these experts?
Ballmer: Top men.
Interviewer: Like who?
Ballmer: Top men.
Interviewer: Can you give me a name?
Ballmer: Top. Men.
I view this as an admission that Microsoft and more importantly, the Windows codebase has become far too unwieldy to compete.
The logical response to Linux would be to create a product that surpasses it in security, speed and features - in that order. You can argue all day about the ideology of open vs. closed source, but in the end, those three things matter the most. Unfortunately Microsoft has been unable to do so. Windows Vista contains 50 million lines of code, Windows XP was "only" 30 million. From the already-bloated codebase of XP comes an operating system that doesn't really contain any new features that makes it stand out from its predecessor and comes from a company that is known for producing horribly insecure software that follows a steep hardware curve with each release that seems to defy logic.
One is forced to wonder where the extra code and hardware demands are coming from, and I believe the best analogy based on the information at hand is that they've got an old, leaky roof that wasn't designed properly in the first place. They refuse to replace it, and instead hire more and more workers to run around with bits of roofing material and keep adding layer and layer of patches on top of old patches and half-baked repair schemes and the roof is sagging more and more and needs constant propping up and reenforcement.
The best idea would be to trash the roof and sit down and decide "What makes a good roof, and how do we implement the strongest, most lightweight roof that will be compatible with the structure we already have in place?" Rewrite Windows from the ground up, trash the kludges, hacks, fragile dependancies that seem to teeter on the edge of complete collapse on a routine basis. All legacy support should be relegated to virtual machines, and the nightmare of thousands upon thousands of dynamically linked libraries should be addressed once and for all. Create a lean, nimble, modular OS where each component is not so deeply rooted in the rest of the software that one change can send the whole house of cards tumbling down.
This would require a significant investment in time, money and human resources, but I really can't buy the argument that the current approach is functional or sustainable in any way shape or form. It's been over 4 years since the last version of Windows was released, and we're looking at waiting until the approach of the 6th anniversary for a piece of software that is more or less functionally identical to it's predecessor and 40% larger and even more of a drag on the underlying hardware. There is no excuse for taking the better part of a decade to develop something that already exists and there is no excuse for the bloat associated with doing that. That is a clear sign of bad management and bad design. Bad management has allowed the faulty design to continue to drag Microsoft down.
Windows, like the power grid or the economy, has become one of those important, yet vaguely understood complex systems that it's creators can only pretend to understand to any significant degree. I don't believe there is any real methodology to approaching a complete revision of the codebase as no one is really sure how those 50 million lines of code and thousands of libraries really interact with one another. It has become such a monolithic, impenetrable mass that there is no way to address the flaws that run deeply within the code because the entire system is so interdependent and poorly-understood that it has become a game of hacking your way around the bugs and hoping it doesn't break anything else.
The failure to address this is being projected on Microsoft's competitors through actions such as lawsuits and other means to stifle the development and adoption of rival products, as Redmond lacks the will to make the tough call necessary and probably inevitable at this point. They have an incredible talent pool that can pull off some really wonderful things, but they have them running around like madmen trying to keep Windows from imploding. They continue to pour talent into the black hole of Windows development, and they face increasingly diminishing returns because there probably isn't any way to make it work anymore. Sooner or later they will be forced to accept this.
Seems like a death cry to me. When a sofware company can't get it's own software working properly and turns to filing more and more patents just so it can sue other companies that is a sure sign that something is terribly wrong. Is Microsoft going to become a huge version of SCO? Rather than making products they'll just try to cash in on anyone else that tries to make a product. To bad they're big enough to cause a lot of damage on their way to the bottom.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
I think even some Microsofties, let alone shareholders are tired of being dicked around by their managers who obviously can no longer manage the juggernaut anymore.
Bo
FORBES: You mention intellectual property. What's going on in terms of Microsoft IP showing up in Linux? And what are you going to do about it?
BALLMER: Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders to have a strategy. And when there is something interesting to say, you'll be the first to hear it.
That's FUD all right, but it ain't coming from Redmond. That's a guy saying what corporate honchos always say when they're asked if they're going to sue party X in the future: "no comment". Any corporate lawyer will tell you that you simply do not say you're not going to sue someone. And generally you wait til the last minute to say if you will.
But hey, Slashdot successfully trolled another page hit, so this infotainment wins in the end. I wish I had the bandwidth capacity to compete with slashdot, since when it comes to journalism, I could probably do better given ten minutes of spare time day. To say nothing of slash-"5xx"-code.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
It's an acronym, not a word. It stands for "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt", it's a marketing term, and can also be defined as (if you really want to) "Fucked Up Disinformation" if you like that better. It's no more a word than "LOL" or "ROFL". I mean this as a correction, not a flame, so please don't take it negatively. I do however agree with the frequent overuse of the acronym.
And you know, let's say that person has a death in the family.
So, is he going to fucking kill linux developers?
sent from my slashdot browser.
Microsoft is not a "normal" company, in a legal sense. They are a monopoly. In American law, (when enforced), monopolies have certain restrictions to encourage a healthy business climate (i.e. competition.) Therefore, Microsoft suing to prevent competition should invite the eyes of regulators.
Next, software patents are widely considered b*llshit. This has been discussed to death on here. I think if Linux was breaking Microsoft's copyrights or trademarks, you'd see a different reaction from those not suckling Microsoft's teat. Patents on double-clicking are quite different than verbatim copying someone's code.
And last but not least, threatening to sue as part of a campaign in the press is quite different than actually suing. If I go out and talk to the press and say, "I may sue so and so for such and such", I am implying that there is something there to sue for. If I'm full of hot air, and I'm just doing this to hurt the reputation or business of another entity, I am on shakey ethical and legal ground.
I say to Ballmer: go for it. Let's see how the EU (which is apparently not in Microsoft's pocket like the US DOJ) reacts. I don't think it will be pretty.
That's my innovation, and I've got it patented. It's mine. Don't even try it. Also, all extensions to coding-with-your-pants-unbuttoned technology are mine, in both the zipper and button-fly arenas. [Note: Patent excludes all pants unbuttoned-related unwholesome practices, as they are verboten under current thought and sodomy laws.]
I think Ballmer is a clown, but here is what was actually said:
Question You mention intellectual property. What's going on in terms of Microsoft IP showing up in Linux? And what are you going to do about it?
Question Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders to have a strategy. And when there is something interesting to say, you'll be the first to hear it.
This statement does not imply that the only strategy is a legal recourse. It doesn't imply that the strategy will not be a legal recourse either. It just means that MS will have to look at any problem case by case.
You can't handle the truth.
Those that have commented that Ballmer's responses are 100% in-line with what any self-respecting representative of a company would say are exactly right. I read the entire Forbes.com piece, and Ballmer may have overstated a few things with regard to the value and level of the competition Microsoft faces from F/OSS, but none of it was unexpected given their more overt attacks against Linux, Gnu, and F/OSS from the past (and present, I guess).
What was disappointing to me was the obvious lack of objectivity shown in a publication many consider to be a valid source of business information...myself included. An objective story presents facts and responses from both sides, and lets the information stand on its own merit for the reader to form an opinion. Every question in this piece looked like troll bait. I couldn't say for sure whether the questions were arranged to promote a Microsoft spin, to enrage Ballmer into saying something stupid, or were simply the closest the author could come to approximating objectivity in search of a story. In any case, I found it to be a worthless and disappointing read.
That was under "Technology", and not "Opinions", right...?
MS is on the death march toward Vista, the death march toward Office 2007, the death march towards a .Net strategy.
Wars on the IE front, Wars on the server front, Wars on the standards fronts.
Legal battles with various corporations, the patent office, and various governments.
Let them come against Linux. Who are they going to pick a fight with, IBM? Redhat? Novell? Maybe this lawsuit will break the (MS) camel's back. I do know that discovery in any MS versus (Linux Corp.) case will be very, very interesting. Linux's dirty laundry is avaliable for everyone to see, but won't it be nice for (Linux Corp's) our lawyers to take a look at MS source, MS confidential e-mails, MS's internal documents?
I think so. Not to mention that IBM'll be able to contribute a bunch of that stuff from their current discovery involving MS's contacts with SCO. And if IBM gets drawn into (Linux Corp) versus MS, I think very interesting things will happen.
Not to mention that MS will never have any success versus Linux; even if they smear one linux company, the "community" will rewrite those portions, and move on.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Ballmer: ...if there's a bug in Linux, IBM is not the responsible party to fix that. It's whoever in the community. And you know, let's say that person has a death in the family. I'm not saying we're perfect, but at least you can expect appropriate commercial responses out of a commercial entity.
Right... So we can at least see critical flaws patched quickly.
The name calling might not be impressive, but he also got first post and a +5 mod, which are two of the most impressive things ever.
FUD is a good acronym: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. What other term would you use to express the concept? It isn't name calling, it's simply stating what they are doing. If they want to sue, sue. There is no reason beyond spreading FUD to announce that "We might sue."
The article isn't misguided, Balmer is. Precisely because he is spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt rather than, say, useful information about the merits of his product and how it has better features than Linux. Therefore, claiming that Balmer is spreading FUD doesn't distract from pointing out why he is wrong, it IS why he is wrong.
I'm now thinking that perhaps you didn't know what the acronym stood for and took it as some kind of insult. It's the only way to explain your lack of comprehension as to why the term is accurate. That or you are some kind of Microsoft sock puppet who is deliberately spreading FUD about FUD.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
So they sue 100k people in the US. On the other side of the Atlanctic Ocean, all their precious patents are futile. Oh, and there is some woman in Brussells who is not very happy with the M$ monopoly. She's got some power over there. But the negative press about the suits will NOT be futile on the other side of the ocean. Linux will be totally legal in Europe, while every newspaper tells people 'they couldn't beat Linux by technology, now they try it The American Way' (Europeans are on average not very impressed by the merits of the US legal system).
The fun is, there is more than one ocean. On the other side of the Pacific one, US patents are worth less.
Trust me, I work for the government.
Dear drone that do like microsoft because it allows you not to care,
I have "super weapons" that will win the war, you can tell that to all disbeliever.
I didn't pull them out right now because I'm didn't have the time yet to bother, but I will if needed.
So you are on the winner side anyway, you can keep free will, brain, and capacity to critisize under wrap
not required, do not think it could hurt.
And this will work, at least for one more quarter, and who cares for next year anyway ?
"people value [...] the compatibility our stuff has with itself"
Okay, but it's not compatible with anything else. And that's a problem.
What does "da-deet" mean? Pick a real language and use that, Steve!
I'm glad that MicroSoft acts responsibly, stands behind its products, and patches its products in a timely fashion.
Not like some free software, eh? Look at that - sendmail has an unpatched bug where it does not log some mail!
"You mention intellectual", but I do not think it means what you think it means.
On a lot of these interviews, I think they could really use a better spokesperson than Ballmer. This guy might do better. Rant over for the moment.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
The problem with launching nukes is they crap up everything and you never really know how far the radiation is going to spread. I could see many unintended bad consequences for MSFT in that course of action with very limited upside. MSFT has a lot of customers running both operating systems. I'm not sure it's going to improve their image to launch patent suits against them. It's corporate insanity. Of course, so was SCO's misguided strategy and it didn't stop them. Still, a patent shill launching a suit is one thing. They don't have any market to protect. A company like MSFT doing it, it's a sign of weakness that stinks of desperation.
More and more MSFT reminds me of the prom queen who graduated with so much promise and eventually ends up being a cheap hooker. Like getting in bed with SCO. What a PR disaster that was. Almost as bad as Ballmer going to Asia and threatening them with litigation in his keynote address. ROFL! Nice one, Steve. He's got a good head on his shoulders, too bad he can't get it out of his ass.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Remember the good old days?
DR Dos
Norton Defrag
others?
Microsoft has stolen its share of code, and been slapped around for it. However, even when they get caught with cookis from the cookie jar (stuffed up their @$$) they deny it, even as the proctologist removes the evidence...and they pay off the dogs with bones covered in the fat from their dishonesty.
--and you can quote me-- --E
--E--
If Microsoft is threatening to use patents to prop up their illegal monopoly, wouldn't it be possible to petition the FTC or the DOJ to take them to court and have their entire patent portfolio released into the public domain and further ban them from holding new patents for a decade or so? They're already a convicted monopolist and it's pretty obvious that their previous punishment didn't help change their evil ways. Perhaps a letter writing campaign is in order?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The term you're looking for is "Software Engineering", which is a field that studies the problems involved with the development of software. "Computer Science", despite the name, is a branch of mathematics. The creation of a piece of software usually involves very little Computer Science. Computer Science is mostly performed by researchers at universities who create algorithms that developers proceed to copy out of books.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Yes, his statement presents some FUD. But the OSS community should call this bluff and turn this FUD into an advantage. If you think about it, outsource companies have been doing what is similar to OSS (their products are called 'knock-offs' and they're virtually being paid nothing) and has benefited everyone over time.
1) that could be switched over to AIX, if needed
2) I hadn't thought about that; excellent point.
3) Any patent battles would take out american companies; and most of the major corporations are american (as is Debian, AFAIK).
Sorry about your ISP, IMHO the slashteam is making bad decisions with regards to IPs (I've had addresses banned for months just over two bad posts) and then scrambling to draw in new readers because everyone's flocking to digg (?). Trolls aside, they should be making posting easier, instead of messing around with tags, etc.
Don't worry about concentrating on making a market leading product. When all else fails, fall back on lawsuits against companies and people that can't afford to defend themselves. Whoever said that Microsoft was working to better its image and adopt better business practices clearly was talking out of their ass.
Microsoft never fail to disgust me.. I look forward to the day when I can finally wash my hands of them all together.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
Daniel Lyons wrote a scathing article asking why Microsoft invited 300 of his fellow journalists to an "Important Event", which happened to be scheduled at the same time as Novell's BrainShare. He reported that MS techies demonstrated flying whizbangs with VISTA, doing tricks so complex that "Average User" could never master them. What he got out of the whole event was the VISTA was XP with additional worthless bloat just piled on.
Apparently, Lyons must have been taken to the woodshed by Forbes (or MS) and this article demonstrates Lyons in his usual role as MS lawn jockey, dutifully feeding canned questions to Ballmer.
The question of major interest, "will Microsoft sue Linux for IP violations?" is amazing in its bluff and bravado. There is little doubt that this question was designed to deflect attention away from the FAILED LAUNCH of VISTA and, simultaneously, to slow the already rapid adoption rate of Linux. It has failed on both counts because MS has become too transparent and too desparate.
Microsoft (Gates and Ballmer) know FULL WELL that if they sue the Linux kernel poject they have sued IBM, Novell, RedHat, HP, several foreign governments and agencies, not to mention the US DOD, the NYSE, movie studios and PDA manufacturers the world over. This will open up counter suits claiming that MS has stolen Linux code/IP. Then they'll have to PRODUCE their proof, which will open up their own code to public scrutiny. Considering how many times they have already been convicted of stealing other folks code Microsoft wouldn't survive that revelation.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Wouldn't that qualify as prior art?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
\
SCO: "You have stolen our source code! We are suing!"
Open Source community: "Show us the code we "stole" and we'll change it!"
SCO: "We can't show you the code you stole because it's part of our IP and that would just be giving it away! Plus we want to sue everyone who's ever used open source and then charge $700 per linux license - so to show you would not be economically feasible"
Open Source community: "Go fark yourselves until you prove we stole something!"
s/SCO/Microsoft/g
s/code/patented\ technology/g
Wisest is he who knows he does not know.
"I probably know more now than I did six months or a year ago, about what's going on. So I'm getting smarter every day."
I can't believe that I'm the only one that posted about this...
Trust me, I'm not a Microsoft hater(or an Apple hater for that matter!). I personally have a PowerBookG4, MacMini, a few XP Desktops and a W2K3 server at home. But I can't believe that this guy is one of the public faces of Microsoft while he almost single-handedly is running the company into the ground. I don't remember where I read it know, but the author of the statement was right, "Ballmer wouldn't even have made it into management had he not started the company himself!"
Microsoft shareholders probably own stock in Linux technology companies as well, so would it be in the shareholders interest? I'm curious about the diversity of technology funds out there that may include both the plaintiff and the defendant.
I think you will only see real aggression against open source when it starts to seriously hurt financially. When people/businesses start to find the idea of buying the next version of MS Office ludicrous when Open-Office is free, that's when the shit will hit the fan. Microsoft will then start to do everything it can to destroy open source competition. They can't do it by making their own products better since the freeness of open-source is hard to beat.
The only thing they can really do is go after open-source legally. The legal angle is really a weak point for open source since it is based on collective altruism and there is not much money available for legal costs. All we can hope for is that companies who have an interest in open-source, such as IBM, will step in and help.
Wouldn't it be ironic for MS to claim patent infringement. It seems that every argument they could make in a patent case would be an argument against their own success (seeing that they violated all manner of regulation related to fair play in business.) I think it's clear that MS has secured its safety by being able to buy political protection - either in form of direct contributions, or by threatening to put so many on unemployment - which is the same thing. But the courts would be exposed for their unfairness is MS sued on similar grounds (Patents after all are a branch of the monopoly laws).
Conclusion: a fork of linux should be created with the express purpose of infringing MS patents is a bold way so as to initiate the conflict. I think MS loses this one hands down.
AIK
A few years back, when IBM started selling Linux clusters, we purchased one. They certainly supported the custom kernel they provided us, even though it was built off a RedHat distro. They also fully supported the build of OpenPBS they installed, as well as giving us a Life Sciences consultant to custom configure it to our needs. Of course we paid for it, but to say that IBM doesn't stand behind Linux (or any open source software, for that matter) is ridiculous.
I don't hate Microsoft by any means. In fact, I think they write some excellent application code - I use it on my Mac. I do, however, despise Microsoft's tactics, and choosing them as an IT vendor may make fiscal sense today... but will it make sense when they sue Red Hat, Novell, Apple, Sun, and everyone else out of the market in a flurry of patent suits? They don't even have to win the suits to force several major companies out of business in legal spending. Or worse, those companies could roll over... either way, we end up with Microsoft as a true monopoly.
And they won't engage in price fixing... no... not Microsoft... never....
As for the philisophical basis of Open Source (or, if you prefer, Free Software) - it all comes down to whether you drink Stallman's Kool-Aid© or Raymond's Kool-Aid©... Personally, I don't necessarily see this as an Open Source issue (though, I suspect we'll be the ones carrying the banners, so to speak) - I think Novell, Red Hat, Sun, IBM, HP, and every other software company that potentially violates one of Microsoft's crap patents should take a stand and drop support for Windows. Why sit there, like lambs waiting for the slaughter?
"Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things."
Ballmer ought to worry about the problems with IE and the rest of Microsoft's junk. If he really wants to bury linux and google, then his company should turn out first rate products. Best way to beat the competition, and at the same time provide something socially useful. That should be Microsoft's mission, and it can also be their legacy. Yeah sure. Snakes on a plane
Arguing that Linux (or Windows) is better is NOT FUD!!!
Unfortunatly far too many stupid people on all sides of the arguments here think FUD means "an argument about why A is better than B from somebody who likes A". That is NOT "FUD". It does not matter if the argument is true, false, indeterminate, or incredibly silly. It still is not "FUD".
FUD is "an argument about why buying B instead of A is going to cause you pain and suffering, irregardless of whether A or B is better otherwise". Again it is entirely unimportant whether the argument is true, false, mixed, or silly. That is FUD.
About the only "FUD" I have seen from the Linux side is things like the original post, along the lines of "it will be the downfall of computerized civilization unless you stop buying Microsoft". (unfortunatly that isn't very strong fud, as even if you believe it you would figure that civilization will fall anyway because too many other people are buying Microsoft).
Plenty of people label anything from Microsoft "FUD", and that is wrong. Saying "Windows is a much better and faster and more secure and perfect OS than Linux could ever hope to be" is NOT "FUD". Saying "we might in the future sue you if you look at Linux" *IS* "FUD". Learn the difference.
http://news.com.com/Microsofts+file+system+patent+ upheld/2100-1012_3-6025447.html
Microsoft holds the patent to the FAT file system. Most, if not all Linux distributions still ship with support for FAT, including the ability to format and read/write to the filesystem. Taken to court, Linux would lose.
Please, please, let him do it. I hope he does and the litigation kill Linux... IN COUNTRIES WHERE THERE ARE SOFTWARE PATENTS. Then when people start to notice that those countries have a competitive disadvantage (at least in some areas), with respect to others that can use Linux and other OSS perhaps the whole idea of software patents will go down the drain.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
suppose that m$ did find some kind of infringing ip in linux and they attempt to sue. i expect that if they were to win, they'd see a second slew of anti-trust lawsuits making the claim that microsoft's enforcement of certain patents demonstrably stifles innovation and generally screws the public because it is now impossible to work on $package. personally, i think that companies which have been convicted of anti-trust violations need to have some limits on their ability to enforce their ip rights as a way of offsetting the damage they did. just a thought...
Someone should patent buffer overflows, and bring microsoft to its knees.
The people who make decisions about how their IT budget will be spent don't give a rat's ass about your feelings.
And that's the problem. The IT departments of this world continue to saddle their users with this broken shitpile of an OS and its attendant posse of fucked up bloatware application suites. I mean, for God's sake, Visio can't even paste into *itself* without screwing up the colors.
I'm tired of Cancel buttons that are cruel hoaxes. I'm tired of the whole OS going into a catatonic freeze if I try to delete a shortcut to something on a remote server that no longer exists. I'm tired of interfaces that look like they were designed by either Nazi or Stalinist architects. Seriously, only a hard core sadist would even conceive of menus that change each time you use them.
We're tired, my friend. The users are tired and worn out and ready for revolution. There will be an accounting. There will be a totaling of sums and lists will be drawn up! We shall have our revenge! Being an IT person will become about a safe as wearing "Hi! I'm a witch! Kiss me!" T-shirt during the Inquisitions. Cleetus! Go get the rope!
Where is most of the economic base of Linux? That's right; American distributions and corporations.
When the money dries up, you're left with bupkiss; this is something that the "oh yeah america isn't the world" crowd conviently overlooks.
Be a shame if one your loved ones were killed by a chair.
Chairs get thrown.
You can't win, Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Wasn't somebody appointed by DoJ to oversee MS in these antitrust matters?
What the hell are they doing?
OK, scratch that.
Do you think Ballmer is fighting for his shareholders or for his ideology? Now who is the long-haired freak?
C|N>K
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
-Mahatma Gandhi
Hopefully we're in the fighting stage
You appear to be saying that this is somehow different because the buttons are physical.
What the heck do you call the buttons on a mouse then?
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Blue Screen of Death(BSOD). I think they patented this and a couple other colors now with vista:)
Very innovative.
Need more?
OK, I'm sure the SEC and the US DoJ has plenty.Nope nosiree, no FUD to see here, right? Hint: maybe they shouldn't shovel so much of it if they don't like the taste that much.BTW, who is there to impress and why?
C|N>K
We fell down the slope years ago when we went from centrally controlled computing ( Computer centers and mainframes maintained by professionals) to decentrallized computing ( Personal computers everywhere, administrated (or not) by whomever ).
If personal computing had not taken over as the driving force in technology development, we would see computers/computing as another utility. We would be plugging dumb terminals into holes in walls (net outlets) or maybe there would be some wireless connections for dumb laptop terminals.
Whether or not that would be better who knows. If you were one of the "chosen" who got to work in the computer utility it may have been wonderful. For many of us, well would have had much different lives/jobs.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Even if they cant 'win' with their patents, they can surly pummle most anyoe other then IBM and SUN into obvilion.
We all know the reason to amass patents is to squelch others, otherwise why have them? I wonder where the critical mass is, when they start suing everyone on the planet, even worse then the *AA's.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
... they've just been doing it by proxy, through SCO. Or, does anyone disagree with that??
You must be new here.
C|N>K
Clippy.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/0 8/08/1247220
People on both sides of this argument need to relax. Microsoft isn't going to sue any linux vendor/team. If there were any patent violations in the Linux kernel, Microsoft already would have sued.
Judge to Microsoft "If you knew there were patent violations, why did you setup a Linux Lab ?"
Microsoft does hold questionable IP related patents on vFat/Win32/SMB included in any given Linux distribution. They see fat support, Samba, and Wine on top of Linux as IP violators.
IANAL,
Enjoy.
It's just the normal noises in here.
Devil 'lopers! Devil 'lopers! Devil 'lopers! Devil 'lopers.....!
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
There's nothing subtle about it. You raised the original objection to the use of the term "FUD", and now you want to change that question? Well, OK, but whose definition shall we use for being "smart" or "constructive"? Why should anyone use their definition? Hang in there while I play the world's smallest fiddle for your impressive arguments.
C|N>K
I disagree. Any decent programmer needs an understanding of at least the basics of computer science, because he needs to understand about algorithmic efficiency (e.g. big-O notation and all that) and data structures in order to be able to choose alrgorithms and data structures appropriate to the problem he's solving.
In other words, a "programmer" who isn't a computer scientist would likely end up doing stupid stuff, like using bubble sort on a huge linear array when he should have been using a hash table (i.e. something completely different) instead.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Sue "Linux" (or more realistically, Linux vendors) for patent infringement and I think you'll wake up IBM with its huge patent portfolio.
I want Microsoft to sue Linux. I really do. So we can get rid of their frivolous patents they have. lets put Microsoft on the block and do some inspecting. This will definitely do it. They are grabbing pattents right and left for some time now. I am sure if a Judge sees the patent on their double click for a mouse hopefully that patent will be dropped. The mouse click has been the same all these years and Micosoft has said nothing till now. How old is their Patent I wonder?
In principle, Microsoft could probably suppress Linux for years with a horde of patent infringement suits against anybody distributing Linux. It wouldn't much matter whether or not the lawsuits hold up in court; the cost of fighting them would be enormous.
But it would be a very dangerous policy for MS to pursue. MS has already had a close call with the Justice Dept. They are probably safe under the current administration, but given Bush's approval ratings they can hardly count on that continuing. Attempting to suppress MS's most serious competition--and one that is substantially not-for-profit--with questionable patent claims could easily culminate in the dismemberment of MS.
It is much safer for MS to attack Linux by proxy, by supporting firms like SCO, and to sow a little FUD whenever the opportunity presents itself--like this one.
Seriously, Apple should copyright the work that went into making the OS X GUI and the GUI itself as artistic work, and sue the living shit out of Microsoft when it releases this "Vista" nonsense.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
Balmer is just fronting. An all out patent war against Linux would be a Legal and PR nightmare for them. It might stir up further antitrust issues and would likely incur the wrath of the Linux community worldwide. I think that a war would be disasterous for both sides, but Microsoft would ultimately be the loser. We have weathered quite well against SCO, which I believe was sort of a pilot lawsuit for MS. As a result, I doubt they'll be dumb enough to try an all out frontal assault.
Their best bet is to maintain a threatening posture and attempt to slow the growth of Linux as long as possible while they transition themselves further into a services oriented company.
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
I'd love to see it happen. It would be a celebrity deathmatch! Fine entertainment for sure.
What weapons would they pick? So far I got:
Balmer: chair
Anyone?
I assume that this means that the next announcemt from Micro$oft will be that Windows Vista will not ship until 3Q 2009
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Mod
Way to guarantee that European and Asian gov'ts legislate M$ out of their markets: will Balmer also sue the various governments who mandate the use of Linux and Linux-based software? Will China, Japan, India, Russia, and Korea care about Balmer? Should anyone?
But you can bet the MS auditors will threaten to sue your employer if they find any linux or unix boxes in the computer room.
And if you installed it guess what? You can kiss your job goodbye.
This is not fud but intimidation and its quite powerful as those will be tempted to always use a Microsoft solution for fear of the MS and BSA auditors who check EULA compliancy.
I guess it will turn into "nobody ever got fired for using Microsoft products"
http://saveie6.com/
Most computer users are far from computer nerds. If my mom couldn't use Windows anymore, I imagine she'd give up on computers all together before she'd try to learn Linux, or even OSX. Even my father who is very computer savvy for someone in his sixties would have trouble moving away from Windows. The same goes for probably 90% of the computer users I know.
Yes, it would be great if an operating system with a less domineering business strategy had risen to the top instead of Microsoft, but the truth is Microsoft has provided a platform that your average Joe can use. If Windows were yanked out of the system, much of the world would be technologically devistated, at least for a time. I certainly don't want to see these suits go through because of what they'd do to the Linux community, but I don't want to see Microsoft go bust either.
This sort of stupidity makes (us) Americans look bad. Not just because it's xenophobic jingoism. Competition and meritocracy are core American values (despite evidence in DC to the contrary). MS was charged by the US government with anti-competitive practice and found guilty. Regarding merit, few of MS products could be called superior (since about 15 years ago) yet they have won market share through anti-competitive practice and excellent marketing.
to err is human, to forgive is divine, to forget is... umm...
They patented double clicks? I always wondered why linux distros tended to come in only single click default veriaties...
``Rag
Competition and meritocracy are core American values
This is absolutely wrong, and the rest of your post proves it.
Your statement might have been more true 50, 80, or 100 years ago, but not now. Today's core American values are big business squashing innovation and smaller companies, monopolies having free reign, and no-bid government contracts used for war and natural disaster profiteering.
You and I would like to return to an earlier time where competition and meritocracy were the norm, but sadly this just isn't the case any more. Believing it to be is delusional optimism.
I agree with what you are saying, but I want to think that there is something wrong with there speculations. I'm now lawyer but I want to think that there is a certain time limit on how long you can know someone if infringing on you patent and doing something about it.
If there is some legal people here I wish they would clear this up for me.
Considering that they would have to deal with Google, Apple, Red Hat, Suse, IBM, Mozilla and every other Open Source group, I think that a law suit would be a last ditch effort.
Vista and there new line of Office tools need to be innovative and show value for there cost or MS is going to have some lean times.
they can sue microsoft until the courthouses all fall down.
MS is just throwing up straw men and using boogeymen scares to distract from their inability to get any more product out the door. the underpinnings have just gotten too complex for MS to hang any more bags on the side of their system and call them features.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
>>>>>Vista is probably the upper limit on what the size of an OS (or any computer program) can be. Yeah, and who could ever need more than 64K?
I'm not discounting lawsuits against Microsoft either, buddy! Thought you ought to know.
you had me at #!
Windows XP is fast, (relatively) stable, pretty, and easy for the average user.
.net2.0, MSSQL Server 2005, biztalk.
.net 1.x to 2.0). This is a challenge given the Windows community worships on the altar of compatibility and many windows depelopers are change-averse.
.net managed code...etc... and now all that is left is a pail fuzzy inkjet printout of the original vision.
.config files.
XP can be MADE to be fairly fast, but it can even more easily be made to be a big, slow pig.
For some time hooking up a stock XP machine to the 'net would bring it crashing to a worm-infested halt within minutes--literally. XP has reached a point of stability but for a great deal of its lifetime it was unstable as hell--mostly because of its massive vulnerability to exploits and "turned on by default" philosophy regarding services.
Whether XP is "pretty" is a matter of taste--I personally find the default gummybear, theme-by-fisher-price look repulsive.
Microsoft has kept it patched and updated (to some degree), and provided a service pack for some larger upgrades.
Perhaps with the latest IE vulnerability they should reach for a higher degree. SP2 was definitely the right move but the truly correct thing to do would've been to put much of what was in SP2 into XP in the first place.
And at the same time they've released several versions of media center, tablet pc, etc.
This is not innovation. This is the same old garbage with fresh new garbage piled on top...and they have been midle commercial successes at very best.
All the while building the tools for their future strategies, including VS.net 2005,
This is Microsoft's biggest saving grace--they make some top-notch developer tools. I really think that if it were not for Visual Studio that not even monopoly-induced inertia could keep them secure as industry leader. Ballistic Ballmer was right on the mark when ha ambled around the stage, stomping and beating his chest yelling "developers! developers! developers!". The only thing is that their future strategies seem a bit hard to pin down...that and they've on occasion pissed off said developers by throwing compatibility to the wind (a lot of depressed VB6 coders out there...and there are a number of annoyances in migrating from
What is it that you need so bad from Vista other than 3d desktop graphics?
Almost nothing at all. Vista was hyped as a big new thing...then MS suddenly had to pay attention to security and put out some big fires and "reload". Oops...no time for WinFS...gotta cut back on the ambitios rewrite of system componenets in
There is one thing that is welcome...and that is the deprecation of the registry and DCOM...but both are still there. At least there are supported, standard alternatives in Vista in the form of Indigo and XML based
XP will still do everything my MacOSX box will do (and much faster) and with the proper tweaking, it'll do everything my Ubuntu laptop does as well.
XP will do it "good enough". It just does a mediocre job of most things. My experience with Macs as of late is limited but I really notice little difference speed-wise, considering the amount of eye-candy that OS X (which I also find a bit off-putting once in awhile).
Windows XP is a great operating system, and I'm glad to have something stable enough that we don't have to upgrade every year
Except that we actually do upgrade it in a sense--every month when Windows Update has a round of patches to install.
MS has a problem on its hands really...it has slipped into managin Windows a bit like an open source project--it is updated often but rarely is there a ground-up, major reworking. It has made XP into a mediocre but (finally) stable and usable OS, and if MS just kept issuing updates and service packs it would evolve into what could be considered a true quality product. The problem comes in because
.. sums it up nicely, I thought.
No, I did not read the f***ing article!
I have known too many perfectly practical teachers to subscribe to the old putdown that
Those who can't do teach
But after all the years of SCOing around so that the name for a has-been operating system company has become a synonym for DESPERATE/FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT we may need a new saying:
Those who can't code sue.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
...is why SlashDot is even publishing this non-story FUD for our perusal. If Ballmer starts actually making threats, okay, it becomes a story. Until then, it's so much bloviation. Move along, move along. Nothing to see here.
Listen to what I say, not what I mean...
To: Steve Ballmer
RE: Possible Patent Infringement Linux Kernel Source
Dear Mr. Ballmer,
http://www.kernel.org/
Have at it!
Cheers,
Linus
1) You don't have to be right to win, especially if you have more money, and msft has about $60B in the bank.
2) The lawsuit itself is a msft victory. The very fact that a linux company is being sued causes anti-linux "FUD." It doesn't matter in the least if the lawsuit is merritless.
3) The lawsuit also punishes msft competitors with legal expenses. Msft can drop $100MM on a bogus lawsuit and never miss it. It's pocket change to msft. But, to a small innovative company, being sued by msft is death. It doesn't who is right is wrong.
"If SCO wins, on anything whatsoever, we're going to plunder whatever company we can for whatever we can get. If they lose, we don't want to commit ourselves to plundering, as that could backfire. We finally confess that we goaded SCO into the lawsuit, and that we are using them to find out what is legally going to hold water without us getting burned in the process. We're only doing so, however, because if we didn't, some insider was going to rat on us to ESR."
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Anybody read "The Way of the Weasle" ??
"Well, I think there are experts (not named, of course) who claim Linux violates our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment (of course not! that would not be the way of the weasle. you don't ever back up innuendo). But to the degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders to have a strategy. And when there is something interesting to say, you'll be the first to hear it."
It's the other way around. Very much so.
F/OSS is working to be more compatible with msft. Samba is trying to work with msft systems and networks. OpenOffice is trying to work with msft documents. Xine and mplayer are trying to work with msft multi-media formats. Linux is trying to work with NTFS. And so on, and so on.
Msft, on the other hand, is fighting to be incompatible with everything that is not msft.
I really don't think Microsoft is reckless or scared enough to start such a process. Obviously I could be wrong, but I just don't see it happening.
Open Source: I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
Msft tried to keep their involvement in the scox-scam secret, for a reason.
Msft is -very much- a co-conspirator in what is a very serious scam. Arguably, the scam was seriously damaging to IBM, and others. As I understand it, IBM makes billions every year in Linux support.
If the sunw lawsuit against msft was worth $2B, the IBM lawsuit should be worth at least $5B. Not big money to msft, but the DoJ may take notice of another huge msft scam.
Expect the lawsuit around 2008, after the present administration is out of office.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
A friend of mine made it 2 years ago back when Vista was called Longhorn.
you had me at #!
I've had only a few beers, so I should still be able to post a comment...sort of.
....shiiiaeeeeeeet.....mofo
IP Patents...the game? I have a lot of money. so I'll patent shit I know I have no rights to. But a bunch of self-funded nerds? We'll see who wins in court. I gots WAy more money than them...even if they do get the FSF involved. I gots mad money. So I'll win in court. They'll be like, "Oh, I can't even afford a lawyer, ok, you win."
Secondly, if you don't think MS will go the way of SCO, you are SORELY mistaken. SCO was all fun and games and ha hahahaha stupid McBride with his stupid name and stupid company. But you KNOW MS learned from the whole deal. If MS EVER gets to any desperate point, they are totally going North karea on FOSSes ass with it's patent portfolio
It's all fucking money...money money money. Who's got the money...fucking republican bastards..should kill every last mother fucking one of them. Racists biches.
-- A cat is no trade for integrity!
The point just flew right over your head, didn't it? Microsoft more than likely has software that violates patents that OIN members hold. If Microsoft starts patent litigation against Mono, it risks the same litigation in return from OIN members. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Microsoft will not "KILL MONO", because doing so would be very, very costly.
Also, Mono is not "in Linux". It is an application which can be run on a Linux system, and is included on a handful of Linux distributions. This does not mean it is "in Linux", as there are versions for Windows, Mac OS X, *BSD, and Solaris.
This poo is cold.
Sounds perfectly rational to me. MS is a parasite on progress: An emblem of waste and ignorance. The sooner they're buried - or at least humiliated - the better. They've slaked an insatiable greed on the great fountain of PC cash for far too many decades, the party is coming to a close. Pretty soon we'll be hearing the clear-out-folks music and the lights will come on... Tomorrow brings the revolution, and who'll be first against the wall?
It's not even true to say Microsoft reflects some obsolete point in computing history. The fact is, in every category their products are mediocre. UNIX surpassed Windows in reliability and utility at least 25 years ago, and it hasn't exactly slid backwards since then.
Mac OS X and Linux are everything anyone ever needed. Like my journal says:
you had me at #!
Usually i am not writing but just reading the posts here at slashdot. But this is sometheing i feel a have to write something about. Mr Balmer is talking about IP. That makes me laugh a little. So what the f**k is IP? If i was god maybe then i would have the right to talk about intelectual property, because world would have been entirely my creation and then all there is and all that would be,should be considered derivatives of my work (and that should be ok because i would have not copied a thing from anyone, nonexistense is cool). Fortunately this is not the case since i am not god, so i cannot file complaints against anyone. I am not living in a fictitious world, but the way things are going, the time where someone patents the way we lift a glass to drink water in not far away.Its crazy, i know but whereis the limit? I believe that alphabet, one of mans greatest inventions, sould have been patented for eternity.
2+2 = 5 (for very large values of 2)
The moment Microsoft aggressively goes after Linux for software patents, the EU would come slamming down on Microsoft even harder than they already have for anti-trust.
This is my sig.
Oh yessssss, come and sue Linux, Ballmer. The chair you're going to be thrown back at the face is not going to be a "micro", nor a "soft" one !
-- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Vista slips largely because keeping things backward compatible makes things more complex."
Nope. It just means that you include a preinstalled image of the old versions of Windows and a copy of VirtualPC with every copy of Vista sold. Integrate the VirtualPC emulater into the Windows UI, and some hooks, and say screw backward compatability in the new OS for anything but the emulator. They already bought VirtualPC. Whats the problem?
This type of activity by Microsoft won't shut down projects - it will just drive them to other countries and/or underground. Projects that infringe on patents in the US will be hosted in countries where they are not infringing. OK, say the US passes a law that makes it illegal for US citizens to contribute to offshore projects that infringe on US patents. The coders go anonymous, using their handle. Bullshit like this is so easy to route around - I'm not worried.
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
You and I would like to return to an earlier time where competition and meritocracy were the norm, but sadly this just isn't the case any more.
And it never was. Look up the history of the phrase "robber baron". Look up the history of the companies that were given "crown charters" to develop the Americas.
Government intertwined with big business is the historic norm. We fight against it sporadically, and have some partial success. Then we move back toward the norm.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
nt
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
According to studies, Linux does infringe on a lot of patents. In a certain study infringement of 283 patents were found and out of these 27 belonged to Microsoft. Even Richard Stallman has been mentioning this in interviews as well as in talks, thus giving the claim some credibility in my eyes at least.
Since SCO is now in everyones seen as a Microsoft sock puppet, even the Redmond company realizes that it would look incredibly silly to continue using SCO as their megaphone for spreading Linux FUD.
Microsoft is at a crossroad right now. People, companies and governments have started demanding a lot more software freedoms in the last few years and it's clear that Microsoft can't tackle the "Linux threat" (i) in the same manner they've tackled all other competitors since their beginning. Since Microsoft's hand is more or less forced right now they seem to have no other option (at least given their current business model and unwillingness to become a service company) than to pull out the patent card. This might very well be a Pandora's Box, since there are a lot of big companies having a lot more patents than Microsoft who are betting a substantial part of their future on GNU/Linux. However Microsoft currently only has three options.
1) Sit back and watching their market share shrinking (due to many factors such as regulations of software freedoms in certain countries and general sway in corporate attitude towards freedom).
2) Become primarily a service company, backed by software which is still lacking in the OSS community (ii)
3) Start a legal battle to slow down the inevitable, allowing a few more years of enormous margins.
Now clearly option 1 is out of the question since it flies in the face of any Harvard MBA. Option two is not something Mr. Gates is very comfortable with and will likely not happen while he and Mr. Balmer still has significant influence over the company's direction. So They're left with option three...
i. Linux happens to be a manifistation of software freedom which looks tangible enough for Microsoft to grasp, since it can apply the typical corporate stratagem of having a "threat" and an "enemy". Tacking these labels to the real reason for their headache namely "freedom", would not play out very well as a media stunt, nor for their own employees I would guess.
ii. The future of proprietary software is in my view to fill whatever gaps exist in the OSS offerings at any given time or to invent (iii) new useful stuff. However the OSS community will catch up eventually if the applications are of enough use which means that the "software aspect" of a company who relies on proprietary stuff will have to raise the bar and / or find other gaps to focus on more quickly. It's all good in my view since it would likely accelerate the development pace in the industry.
iii. By invent I don't mean the buzzword / marketing term for "refinement" but real innovation.
Children: Daaaaad! Vista and Office late, we hungry! Steve: No worries, kiddos, Daddy will put FUD on the table again.
Stuff like this stinks, and I don't want to support it any longer.
many patents on fundamental, but trivial technologies,
might not a new comment but aren't those two words oxymoron? trivial is useless, insignificant; fundamental is essential or important.
okay, now you know I'm a stickler for grammar
Europe is a continent. There's a lot of countries there with their own legislation, and, IIRC, in some countries patent offices have approved some software patents. The main point is that European Union has been forming a directive on patents that would unify the legislation regarding to patents. Now patent offices in different countries approve patents on various standards.
The whole point of directives is to have same standards regarding to laws in every country. And that is exactly why the corporative lobby groups concentrate in lobbying directives: they end up in to the legislation in every country. Luckily some of the countries may circumvent the spirit of the directive, as did France that pretty much took away the restrictions in DRM. That's all because the directive defines the minimum and every country is allowed to extend the laws then.
?SYNTAX ERROR
...
...
Then they fight you
"Linux violates our IP says Ballmer" Fri Mar 24, @02:24PM
recent submissions "Hilf benchmarks Linux" rejected Fri Mar 24, @06:14PM
"Bill Hilf benchmarks Linux"
davecb5620@gmail.com
Microsoft will not enforce their patents, if they have any that they think undercut Linux, not because there is any real defense (there is not) but because they will wait until Linux is well-enough established that the patent negotations will go smoothly.
Patent licenses are a large planned revenue stream for Microsoft, and they are only possible when there is a large captive public of infringers who keep infringing. Thus, Linux growth is actually good for Microsoft, seen from this point of view.
If you are aware of a patent infringement, and do not act against the infringement in a timely manner, would your complaint be accepted by the courts if you came along years later?
Many Microsoft pattents are very broad and are quite vulnerable due to the existence of prior art.
I believe Xerox would have a much better claim to double clicking than Microsoft would.
Waitaminute, I thought that the FUD against using FOSS was that if something went wrong, there'd be no one to sue. Who exactly is Ballmer going to sue?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Hmmm, if I claim a method (which is the basis for software patents), then I can sue anyone who uses this method without my permission.
Yes, I can sue someone who uses software that implements that method, because the user is using my method. Yes, I can also sue the people who distributed or wrote the software, because they contributed to the infringement.
This is one of the things that makes patents on methods/algorithms/language special. They do not simply cover the production of products, they cover their actual use.
My blog
Microsoft is too late, again. Seems to be the company motto at the moment.
They make this statement just as Vista and Office are delayed, their stock goes down, and IE critical flaws make the headlines. It's not a coincidence.
Twinstiq, game news
How the heck do you sue an operating system? This just shows just how far out in left field Ballmer really is. It wouldnt surprise me if he really truly didnt understand that 'Linux' isnt a company or a person.
I'm, of course, too lazy to do a USPTO search, but I bet nobody's bothered to patent triple-clicks yet.
Of course, all that would do is push the need for quadruple-clicks, pentuple-clicks, sextuple-clicks, etc. right on up to infinituple-clicks (which Microsoft might as well patent anyway; that's what it takes to clear a BSOD.)
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
It is decidedly Orwellian that so many people think that severe limitations on freedom are properly called "rights". I do not say fascist or totalitarian, just "Orwellian".
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
IANAL and may be totally off base, but wouldn't estopple apply if MS knew of violations and did nothing?
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
I hear a lot of bullshit about Microsoft lawyers sometimes, but from what I've seen, they tend to use lawyers defensively rather than aggressively. If they start suing people over patents, then they risk:
- losing the patents when they're scrutinized because most software patents are for things that are mind-blowingly obvious to even newbies versed in the art. This would cause them to lose the ability to license the patents to other proprietary software vendors.
- additional anti-trust scrutiny. They can't claim they're not a monopoly if the government upholds their patents and just plain says it's illegal for anyone to compete with them. At least under the status quo there's some argument about whether or not they're a monopoly.
- not being able to enforce the patents anyway, because Linux development is so internationally distributed.
If I were a MS stockholder, I would want Balmer to shut up right now, because he's talking about a course of action that might reduce my bottom line. The present revenue strategy of getting Windows preloaded on brand new PCs, is the only reason MS is still in business, and it has been immensely profitable. Keep it up and your stockholders won't divest or sue you.As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Didn't we see this back in 2004?
3 38228
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/18/1
Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
It means I hit the wrong key, didn't notice it before I posted, and didn't want to post an "oops". "IMHO" is what was intended.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Is Ballmer implying that Microsoft actually invented stuff?
Thanks for noticing, for getting an on topic first post I was bitch slapped into karma oblivion. At least two people with mod points went back and knocked down all my previous posts to -1 with trolls, off topics and redundants. I was banned form posting for twenty-four hours and I'm not allowed to meta-moderate anymore:( There some mean people on /.
Yep - iPhoto does allow tagging and boolean tag searches. But, then as you say - migrating would probably be a huge pain in the ass.
BTW - the newest version (6) supports libraries of up to 250,000 images.
"Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things."
I'd classify that more as showmanship than zealotry.
On the other hand, who often leads a group of zealots?
When I wrote that the EU isn't keen on US corporations I said "unlike Ireland, which is a subsidiary of Microsoft". Of course, with Ireland being a member of the EU, it should have been "with the exception of Ireland[...]".
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
the corporation has a duty to it's shareholders to enforce the patents
I wonder who are the moderators that could mod you Insightful. I would have moderated you Troll. Do you really know what would happen if Microsoft would be stupid enough to sue Linux for patent infringement? IBM and these guys will immediatly sue them back for every patent they hold and Microsoft is using. How will this be a good thing for Microsoft's shareholders? So no, Microsoft is not planning to sue Linux. They are just trying to spread FUD to slow down the adoption of Linux and you are the only one who does not get it.
If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
I'm such a moron... I can't believe I entirely forgot about a great piece of Linux photo management software - F-Spot! Larry Ewing (of Tux fame) has been working on it for some time for Novell.
It looks to be an iPhoto work-alike for Linux.
"Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things."
Good point despisethesun...
In the SCO v IBM lawsuit, after the pipe deals between SCO and RBC and SCO and Baystar became known, and the fact that Microsoft pointed the RBC and Baystar Pipe faries in SCO's direction, IBM made 4 patent claims against SCO.
IBM has since dropped those claims in order to expedite the case (get it over in 100 years instead of 300).
One of the patents was for displaying information in a hierarchical format. Surely SCO UNIX displays data in a hierarchical format, as can most OS's.
So what's the point?
Well, I believe the patent claims were not aimed at SCO, but were shots across the bow of anyone trying to back SCO. The pipe deals, Microsoft, and Sun started to pump money into SCO. Next thing you know IBM steps up and says we have a patent that covers displaying information in a hierarchical format.
Suddenly Microsoft and Sun loose interest in SCO. Could you imagine an injunction on the sale of Microsoft Windows, and Microsoft Office? Do you think Microsoft really wants to try to go toe to toe with IBM. IBM has a pretty serious set of grudges to settle wih Microsoft, and can probably ante up 10 patents for each 1 that MS can put up.
IBM's patent claims were never aimed at SCO, but at any one that might back SCO.
Heck this is IBM. The probably have a patent on using bytes with eight bits!
OIN is trying to create the same kind of reprisal situation for open source. If Monkey Boy and his minions want to take Linux or Mono to Court, let him. He might have to explain to Microsoft's shareholders why Vista will have to be delayed another 12 or 18 months while Microsoft re-writes code that potentially infringes on OIN held patents.
Lets see Ballmer try. I think I know who'll blink first.