Slashdot Mirror
So What If Linux Infringes On Microsoft IP?
Mr Men writes to mention a ZDNet blog entry by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes wondering aloud if maybe, just maybe, Microsoft isn't lying about having patents that are part of Linux. "Come on, no matter how much of a Linux fan you are, you have to admit that there's at least a chance that Linux does indeed infringe on Microsoft's patents. After all, Microsoft does hold a lot of patents and while Linux is open source and we can all take a look at the source code, only Microsoft has access to most of its source code so it isn't all that difficult for it to prove — to itself at any rate — that there are IP infringements contained in Linux. After all, before IBM handed over some 500 patents to the open source community, it's pretty clear that Linux was infringing some of them. Given that, why is it so hard to believe that the same isn't going on with Microsoft?" Even then, he goes on to say, so what if they do? It's not like they're going to go after us with a 'Linux tax.' Kingsley-Hughes imagines that, for the most part, Microsoft is just going to sit on this info and use it to form more and more profitable deals. Better than the alternative, I guess.
so I don't care.
For now, at least.
I guess I'm not on the same page as this guy. When I read about the Microsoft allegations, they're not against just Linux. They're also against Open Source projects. Either way they a lot of OSS projects rely on Linux as a platform and development environment. One of the potential issues I see if Linux goes down as "Microsoft Intellectual Property" is that these projects will dry up as no one likes to face litigation from Microsoft. Like when the SAMBA team cried out against Novell and I'm sure the Open Office folks wouldn't be too happy about this.
So you might be able to argue that Linux will still remain free to us somehow but I think it would be severely detrimental if not fatal to the applications that run on top of it.
I'm not a lawyer but I think that if the Linux kernel fell then a lot of the applications that make Linux great would be in immediate danger. I mean, this guy kind of scoffs at Microsoft claiming patent infringement but has he thought what would happen to projects like KDE & Gnome? I wouldn't be afraid of losing Linux but I would be afraid of losing the great applications that either stress interoperability with Windows or mimic functionality of a Windows environment.
My work here is dung.
Software patents are a cancer on modern society and economics and need to die a horrible death. I personaly find software patents immoral and thus I ignore them. I understand it's not as easy for companies like RedHat et al, but I can not see any solution since big companies has more bribe money. Sad.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
Because people seem worried, maybe some hyperventilating, and even some panicking.
Relax everyone, Linux is backed by pretty big companies, like IBM, that in the case Microsoft ever actually tries something, they'll get their ass handed to them and the Windows OS will be seen in the same infringing light.
Microsoft won't actually do anything until Linux starts eating up Desktop Sales, and even then, I don't see it happening unless MS is really going the drain, ala SCO - which won't be for many many years.
Afterall, if Microsoft really wanted the cash that badly, they would have already sued because Linux absolutely dominates in the server space, which is a market that MS wants.
This is all just a ploy to keep CIOs pondering Linux in line with the Microsoft way.
The author points to MS's secret codebase. This has nothing to do with patents.
Besides, if MS tries to sue or extort money from someone for use of it's patents, they'd have to specifiy the patents in question, and be sure that these patents would survive being challenged.
I'd say it is cheaper to FUD than to sue.
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
It's not like they're going to go after us with a 'Linux tax'. WTF? That's exactly what they're trying to do. The only question they have is can they get away with it without getting hammered by a shitload of patents which other people hold.
It's exactly the same game theory which makes mutually assured destruction work. My advice with the current US patent system? Patent everything.
Deleted
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
They'll quote a patent number, and start trying to sell licences to businesses who develop, use, or distribute non-Microsoft software
They will then come across some big businesses, like ATT, who use Linux in their telephone exchnages. ATT will tell Microsoft that telephone exchanges are lights-out, that there is nothing useful they can learn from Windows.
Windows-running Personal Computers will cathc worms, viruses, and spyware, same as they do today. Someone will mount a defence saying that Microsoft have not reduced their invention to practice; that nowhere in the patent did it mention the way a Windows system on public Internet behaves.
And that will be the end of the matter.
so what if they do? It's not like they're going to go after us with a 'Linux tax'.
They could. It's all in the patent laws and regulations.
It doesn't, next issue on the agenda please.
Since when is slashdot involved in the distribution of microsoft's latest FUD? This story *here* is exactly the kind of thing they want to see happen. Where there no real news to post today?
Of course, Linux (both the kernel and the user space) "infringes" on many Microsoft's patents, as does just about every piece of software in existence, commercial or open source. How could it not? Microsoft has, after all, obtained patents on things that were published in open source software before Microsoft even filed the patent.
The real questions are whether Linux infringes on any valid Microsoft patents, and whether Microsoft's threats have any legal significance. That seems pretty unlikely: unlike Microsoft, open source developers tend to be scrupulous about avoiding patent infringement. That means that there is going to be no willful infringement and no patent infringement for any key patents. Or, in different words, Microsoft would have a hard time getting anything more than an apology and a quick code change. How they're going to get any business deals out of that, I fail to see.
So, Microsoft, please let us get this over with and start suing.
After all, before IBM handed over some 500 patents to the open source community, it's pretty clear that Linux was infringing some of them.
They were contributed by IBM. A company contributing to a FOSS-project and afterwards complaining about these very contributions in this very same project infringing their patents is a bit of a motherfucker, if you catch my drift.
how much is microsoft infringing against open source intellectual property and patents?
....
microsoft just did an offensive move to be in the position to say "but we said it first, its ours" while the truth is, that they infringe against most others property without really having own
just getting a patent doesnt yet mean that you were really the inventor
I think you may be underestimating the public relations nightmare Microsoft would endure if they were to kill Linux as a viable enterprise platform or even (god forbid) seriously damage OSS. Not to mention that the Feds may just revisit Antitrust cases against the evil empire.
I get the feeling that the world may just be ripe for a new commercial desktop platform that will run on PCs and be an actual serious competitor to Windows without requiring special hardware to run (ala OSX). I mean, how long has it been since OS/2 went down? I think it's about time. If I could go to Comp-u-City and buy a different commercial (I stress commercial, not open source but new from the ground up) operating system off the shelf for $150, I'd do it today instead of golfing.
You are welcome on my lawn.
..the it will depend in what jurisdiction you live.
You have the choice:
Communist China or Land of the free.
Stop posting mature consideration of the whole MS Patent issue and get back to hysterical screaming about how MS plans to kill Linux with patents.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
every language makes you look at the world in a certain way.
... where to draw
certain languages emphasize certain aspects of reality.
people who speak more then one language tend to have a more
"understanding" way for things that happen around them.
a x86 architecture world with just one operating system would
be bad in the long run, because there wouldn't be any other
perspectives.
this i say because it "feels" like many patents are claimed
as to be able to force competition offf the market.
when the internet started to be commercialized there was a
wave of cyber-squatters registering domain names, even if they
would not use it.
is it possible to draw a comparison between the right of coka-cola
to the name "coka-cola.com" just like maybe the right of owning a
computer to do calculations, any calculations?
starting the chain at the first rain drop stored in a hover dam to the first
piece of coal set on fire in a coal plant to the generators that provide the
power to run all our (so far drms-less) devices and gadgets
the line?
maybe if i can mine my own coal, make my own dam, make my own electricity my
own computer etc. would this still allow a patent to take effect on me?
overkill: what if aliens use the same patented algorithem of a famous earthian
mathematician to make patterns that never repeat? can we sue them? go to war?
so we're safe. Hey, these peril sensitive sunglasses really do work.
You got it. I've been saying this over and over and I'm absolutely stunned that there are some people who still don't get it.
You don't even have any choice as to whether or not to ignore software patents. There are hundreds of thousands of them. Then there are several thousand new applications a day. I'll give you a hint. It's impossible.
That's why Microsoft ignores software patents. Even they, the richest company on the planet, have no alternative. And that's also why they're getting hit with a few 9-figure verdicts already. But they still play the game and pretend they're legitimate, because they somehow think they'll benefit, in the end, using them to crush current and potential competition with multi-million legal actions and the threat thereof.
It is mpossible to tell if any piece of code infringes. By the way, have you read many of these things? Almost every line of code does infringe.
Every line written is a ticking patent timebomb. Every player has to ante up and make their own "patent portfolio" which they can then apply against whoever sues them. If that sounds like it excludes everyone but a few rich, dominant corporations... now you're getting the idea. Only minor fly in the ointment: those patent shell companies that actually don't do any work except suing people, therefore can't be hit with a retaliatory claim. Ooops. And yet even after getting whacked by a few, MS is still winking and continuing to play the game. Shows you how much they hate honest competition.
Software Patents are currently ignored by almost everyone. But to the extent they are enforced, they will categorically end the American software industry, and software will continue to be a business in Europe, Asia, and... well basically every other civilized nation, who have soundly rejected this silly game and are by the way laughing their asses off at us.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
Not only MS has access to Windows code. A lot of companies (mine for example) has access to MOST of the Windows kernel and UI under a NDA. And I think that a lot of revisors have also taken a look to the code of very large parts of the code after many of the trials that MS has been envolved in). Not being Open Source is not the same than Closed Source.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
If Microsoft does take the nuclear option and attack major users of Linux over patents, who will take up arms against a company with sufficient money in the bank to buy every lawyer in the western world?
First and foremost, copyrights and patents are not property, so don't refer to them as such. But it also leads to confusion like this article.
Okay, it's patents we're talking about, right? Patents are published - that's the whole point of them. They aren't secret.
So what? Their source code is of no use when determining patent infringement, only copyright infringement. So is it copyright infringement we are talking about then?
Patent and copyright violation are two totally different things. Copyright violation would involve somebody with access to Microsoft's source code copying it into Linux - a highly unethical and stupid thing to do. I don't think Linux kernel contributors are likely to be highly unethical and stupid. Patent infringement, on the other hand, can be unintentional - but in this case, his remarks about it being impossible to verify don't apply.
This is a case where the term "IP" as a blanket reference to very different rights is confusing the issue. His arguments don't apply to either because he thinks they are the same thing.
I think it's also worth pointing out Stallman's criticism of the term "Intellectual Property".
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
What are Linux developers supposed to do? The problem with patents is that you can never be sure that you're not doing something that someone somewhere has thought of before you and patented. It doesn't matter if you're an Open Source developer or a developer of proprietary code. There's just no sane way to verify that one of your coauthors didn't add some code that violates a patent, or indeed to verify that your own code doesn't violate a patent. There is only one option: Wait and see. If you're using software in a country which allows patents on software, that is an unevitable risk. (There is another option actually: You could amass patents yourself in preparation for a patent exchange, but that is like fucking for virginity.)
Telling loudly a lie so many times that most people will start to believe it: a standard practice for politicians, salesmen and preachers. It worked for Iraq WMDs and on a bigger scale for God, why shouldn't it work for Linux?
Yes, it's possible that the Linux kernel or some big Linux app contains a bit of code very similar to some Microsoft code but that's due to the plain fact that the same obfuscation and secrecy used to protect closed source allows for similar code to be written without any chance of being checked for similarities.
That FUD is obviously a move to discourage businesses interested in investing on Linux after they failed the attacks based on performance and costs.
Aren't these ridiculous software patents only valid in the US? How much OSS development is actually done in the US and would that not mean (were this not complete rubbish) that MS could only go after OSS developers in the US only?
Given that most large OSS projects have copyrights held by developers all over the world, how exactly would it be feasable to stop a project if you couldn't go after all of its developers and codebase?
Wouldn't it just be easier for MS to bluster and threaten, all the while knowing they can't realistically do a damn thing?
How much Open Source Intellectual Property is Microsoft Infringing upon? How much are they using that they are not infringing upon due to a given license such as BSD?
There is a method in the computer industry between companies as to how they calculate teh amount of protection money they pass between themselves,
Take the granted patent paper work and stack it up, measure it and compare it to other stacks. The largest stack wins but the other have to pay protection money to the larger stacks. I don't know the specific formula as to how they calculate it, but it does happen.
So, the FSF can stack its owned stuff up but there is alot more that teh FSF does not own.
Perhaps there should be some sort of "count my work in the FOSS stack" method so that we might just see how large our (FOSS) IP stack is (and this would of cource count anti-patent IP prior art).
There are two efforts regarding software patents. "Open source as Prior Art" and a Peer Review project, but both of these are focused and supportive of software patents.
And that is the main problem, as software, by its very nature is provably not patentable. Problem is, neither side of the software rights battle wants to develop the proof of this. Human History has plenty of evidence of the usefulness of denial, but eventually this fact will come out, as facts of the earth revolving around the sun, the hindu arabic decimal system being more powerful then the roman numeral system of mathmatics, etc.
There is a quality and characteristic of being human, a human right. A natural right to apply abstraction physics. http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html
Its really rather obvious once you get past whatever idea is keeping you from seeing teh simplicity of it.
The arguement that only a fool would think nothing can have value (re: the zero place holder in teh decimal system)
Nobody can break the four minute mile, untill somone did, and then other followed quickly as their mental block was gone.
But even if you don't see it, consider what it wou;d mean across the software industry, should such simplicity of programming happen.
How about 'so sue'?
If ( when ) they think they can get away with it, they will start sending letters to every project on the globe ( where they have jurisdiction that is ) and shut the project down. Including anyone who houses it ( like sourceforge ) or just distributes ( countless number of mirrors ), and perhaps even end users.
Its not about a 'tax', its about destroying competition.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
People seem to be thinking that this is either FUD or the claims are true. It's probably both.
First off, it's blatant and obvious FUD. They're being deliberately vague about what IP is infringed, and by which open source project and/or component of Linux, and talking about being "willing" to cut deals with other Linux distros than SUSE. No question that "willing" means "if we can find a reasonable business to target, you'll be hearing from our lawyers" and that that is meant to feed into people's decisions when looking at basing a product or service on Linux and hopefully drive them to make a different choice. They're not required to say what's being infringed or why until/unless they slap someone with a cease and desist, and so they're not. FUD, and no mistake.
But that doesn't mean it isn't also true. As an early commenter pointed out, there are lots and lots of software patents out there and Microsoft has a bunch of 'em. It's easy to infringe software patents without knowing you're doing so, and even open review won't catch all of this stuff. Under the current law, Microsoft has an absolute right to pursue a license fee from anyone using techniques they had the lawyers and money to patent, and in the absense of that fee being paid to file a court action.
So for Microsoft, this could well be a big win: FUD, plus the bonus of possible license fees or at least making the open source people waste a lot of time trying to figure out the whats, wheres, and hows of the infringement. They get a two-fer on this one.
So what's next? Ideally, a good faith letter to Microsoft from (say) RedHat or some other well-funded distro asking for the details of the alleged infringement, saying that they're eager not to infringe other peoples' software patents and also stating clearly that all information provided will be released to the community so the community can correct the infringement where possible. I suspect Microsoft won't provide the information unless given a confidentiality guarantee by the distro people, which if they're smart they will not be willing to provide. Consequently, if Microsoft later files a court case, they'll be required to list all infringements in the public record of the case -- and the judge in the case will see that the distro made a good faith attempt to avoid infringement prior to litigation, which will argue in favor of giving them a generous amount of time to cease and desist.
Who wants the hassle of a linux tax? It's a pain in the ass, it'll likely be lost in legal fees spent defending the the next anti-trust action which will reference it. No no. Simply go after the companies using linux in a way that infringes on Microsoft's intellectual property, and force them to license that property (very affordably) as part of an agreement which keeps everyone from having to suffer the courts. Then spend that money in a PR campaign touting the inescabable all-pervasive awesomeness of Microsoft's technology, and manganimous corporate values for not evicerationg the offending party. Naturally, the compliance terms will be obnoxious from an implimentation perpsective. While the implied threat to other companies who make linux an important part is crystal clear, if you're not legally protected by someone who can take on Microsoft, or are capable of taking on Microsoft and winning, or at the very least destroying them too, you're the low orc on the totem pole in Mordor.
Is it really another tenuious, not particularly lucrative revenue stream that generates much ill will that Microsoft desires, or is it to preserve what they have, and keep linux et al, as playthings for hobbiests?
If that more quickly leads to a full scale confrontation between patent superpowers, it's probably best it was done and done quickly, so that we may put it behind us.
Access to the source is irrelevant, these are patents we're talking about, not copyright. If functional aspect $foo is patented and an application implements it without a licence from the patent holder, it's in violation of the patent, it's that simple. You don't need to see the source to see that - either the widget/process/UI element/whatever is there, or it isn't.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
The article author is conflating patents and copyright. Is it too much to ask that someone who (presumably) gets paid to write this stuff would know the difference? From the summary:
Having access to Microsoft's source code would neither help nor hinder anyone in deciding whether Linux infringes any Microsoft patents. The whole point of patents is that they're visible to the public. The US government even maintains a database of them that anyone with a web browser can look at! A patent holder doesn't have to implement the invention that their patent describes before they can sue someone else for infringing it. If they did, patent trolls couldn't exist.
Anyone could drive a stake through the heart of Microsoft's FUD campaign by getting a list of all patents held by Microsoft and proving, for each patent, either (a) Linux does not infringe the patent or (b) the patent is invalid. I suspect this will not happen, for any or all of the following reasons:
Microsoft, of course, could settle the question much more quickly, by just telling us which of their patents (they believe) Linux infringes. That's assuming they have any patents that would survive a court case. They must have, mustn't they? They wouldn't have said it if it wasn't true...
Just another wannabe fantasy novelist...
M$ are going to tell my company (70,000 emplyees, Linux 3rd server platform): we can sue you now unless you switch over.
Atheism is a non-prophet organisation
I have no idea if patents are treated similar to copyright law but in my limited understanding, intellectual property owners have a responsibility to defend their rights when they know of infringing activity. If they neglect to defend their rights then they may end up forfeiting those rights.
For example this would prevent the scenario of someone deliberately holding off action so that the infringing activity increased before going to town with law suits.
In other words, you use them or lose them. And MS seems to be saying, we know patent infringment is occuring but they are not doing anything about it.
Somebody set me straight if I'm way off here.
"Looking good Vern."
Happens that, IMO, it is unacceptable to do not look to the SW patent extortion^Wportfolios or ignore it, just because "Oh! the free software is so great that the White Knight^W^WIBM will come to protect us and defeat the bastard^W^WMicrosoft". The main problem to the software patents is that corrupts its main objective: to protect innovation, i.e., nowdays the SW patents are used just to erase any little/medium-sized company that "becomes visible" in the market, thus a potential threat.
I think that the community uses the major part of the time looking for escaping to the SW patent problems, but hot to solve it. Without being a professional politician nor a brilliant stratego, I see clear that the problem will only get worse while we're still, while the deep pocket SW monopolists work in the dark to consolidate its future forever.
Comes to my mind few ways of planning such attacks, yes, attacks:
1) Community joint effort, aka, fight with their weapons: create an universal patent portfolio to destroy the big corporation abuse. It is not just use the IBM as your dad, it is about independence. The target it is not to extort per se the industry, but to use the same tools that the big companies use to "protect" themselves (personally, I think that this is a repulsive way, but you can not deserve ethic to soulesss monsters^Wcompanies).
2) Community individual effort, aka, forbid the use of technology to non open sourced projects: forcing to see to big companies *how expensive* is to make a compiler, graphics library, etc. Much like the previous point, with weaker impact, but generalized (generaliced low intensity degradation).
Richard Stallman, which deservers my admiration, respect, and affection, may be it is too much ethical. We should look also for some psichopatic gurus, still with ethics and common sense, but without mercy to actively defeat^Wconvince big corporations to not considere SW nor ideas as patentable.
So, what if it is true. What if that plantation master really does hold the title over that man of color who lives in the north?
Come on, no matter how much of a anti-Slavery fan you are, you have to admit that there's at least a chance that Slave is indeed the plantation masters property. After all, the plantation master holds a lot of slaves and while this one is free, you can still take a look at his papers, only the master has access to most of the town records so it isn't all that difficult for it to prove - to himself at any rate - that that free slave is a violation of his property rights while living in the north. After all, before a previous plantation master freed some 500 slaves to the north, it's pretty clear that they were his property. Given that, why is it so hard to believe that the same isn't going on with this plantation master?"
....editorial insert: well, the appropiate responce to these kind of comments would not be a philosophical debate but is a tad of violence with a big fat "fuck you burn in hell!"
I suppose both of them would be glad to step in as soon as MS starts playing hardball in the patent game.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Translation: Microsoft has a weak hand in this game. It is easy to prove, yet they haven't tried to. If they had a full hand, they could point out at least one infringement to strengthen their case that there are cases to answer.
This also shows clear ill intent. If the problem was the infringement, the normal thing to do is to tell the infringer first, so that the infringement stops. Microsoft chose not to disclose their concerns. This means that in Microsoft's eyes, infringement won't stop. It follows, that Microsoft wants, what they believe to be infringement, to continue. Therefore, the infringement is not the problem, their grudge against GNU/Linux is. QED.
Or, alternatively, they could just go after us with a Linux tax.
It is Microsoft.
terrorizing the civilized open source community... you should be ashamed, Steven.
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
Must be a really slow news day.
- Nothing will happen. Microsoft is afraid of a total patent war, which will harm everybody.
- There will be a special "US Linux" version, inferior to the "INT Linux" version. Thinking about it, there is already a superior international Linux version. (MPlayer anybody?)
- Microsoft will try to slower down Linux distribution using their patents. Most likely move is selling licenses to whoever would like to use Linux without the fear of a patent lawsuit.
The last possibility will probably lead to a patent war between Microsoft and IBM. Big portion of IBM Servers market is Linux-powered. Therefore, if Microsoft threatens IBM Linux market, they will eventually pull up their 40,000+ patents, most of them "software patents", and start threatening Microsoft back. The result will be a total patent war, which both companies are very much afraid of. Therefore I believe Microsoft will be extremely careful not to wake up (blue) giants from their sleep. Still, it will be fun to watch from a safe distance (Hey, I do not live in the USGood.
The patent system in the US is a complete mess. When a monopoly can be recognized by the legal system, and still allowed to fill it's war chest unquestioned, something needs an overhaul. I too challenge microsoft, just as sco was challenged, to come forward with their disagreement. This is pointless because in all probability, microsofts intent is not based on resolving a patent issue. Their intent is to kill the competition. They will drag this FUD out for as long as possible. Novell is just a pawn (or paw0n3d rather) in the whole thing. In the meantime, you can
let Novell know how you feel here: http://techp.org/
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
After all, before IBM handed over some 500 patents to the open source community, it's pretty clear that Linux was infringing some of them.
Says who? If there's one thing that the SCO case has been good for it's been to demonstrate that Linux is pretty solid from an IP perspective. IBM didn't necessarily hand over the patents because they thought Linux was infringing on them. You're making that statement without investigating the reasons behind why IBM gave the Linux community a patent shield.
If anyone has proof Linux is infringing on their patents, then step up to the plate or STFU.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Considering that the wheel was recently patented in Australia, and that playing with string and parting your hair in a particular way have all been patented, I doubt there is anyone on the face of the planet that doesn't infringe some patent somewhere simply by living. Patents are broken and probably hopelessly so.
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
KDE, Gnome, and many of the other "Linus applications" will work just fine under other OSSs, including BSD and Solaris.
#include int main() { std::cout
My new blog
I do not believe that Microsoft will ever sue Open Source over patents.
A patent lawsuit would force MS to allow inspection of MS source code as part of discovery. MS has used BSD, quite legally, in the past. With the copious amount of open source code written, the chance that a FOSS coder wrote an algorithm that MS has similar code inside Windows is very great. The second issue is that borrowed proprietary code may also exist inside Windows.
MS has already lost patent lawsuits, the dirty hands defense could make case that MS cannot sue because of the past misdeeds.
FUD will continue, but I don't expect any lawsuits.
It would move offshore and underground. Just like crypto development did.
The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Someone should sue Microsoft to force them to reveal which patents of theirs they think Linux infringes on. If Microsoft fights the suit, they don't want to defend their patents and they are then rendered worthless. If they reveal the patents that they allege are infringing, then Linux can be changed to work around them and they are then rendered worthless. If Microsoft does nothing to allow Linux the opportunity to fix things, then their case is harmed a la SCO's antics. The only way Microsoft wins is if the FLOSS community does nothing.
Let Linux die, it is kludge anyway. There are still the BSDs and now, Solaris. NEWS FLASH: Solaris is UNIX as defined by The Open Group. I personally love FreeBSD and Solaris. They are superior in just about everyway. Let the flame wars begin . . . .
I was severely flamed in Slashdot for saying the exact same thing to a journalist eighteen months ago. How the wheels turn! Next time, maybe don't be so quick in scorching the messenger.
... read "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".
A question if you were a MS stock holder would you not be pissed at MS saying for 8 years that Linux infringed on their IP and yet MS has never pursued a court case? Than what about that legal minefield of public discourse of top MS management over the past 8 years.. The TSCO case proves that is in fact a minefield..
Fred Grott(aka shareme) http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com
The fact that MS's source code is closed is irrelevant, because MS's patents are public documents. The problem for Linux (and other free software) is that its own source code is open to scrutiny, making it easier to spot patent violations.
> After all, Microsoft does hold a lot of patents and while Linux is open source
> and we can all take a look at the source code, only Microsoft has access to
> most of its source code so it isn't all that difficult for it to prove - to
> itself at any rate - that there are IP infringements contained in Linux.
You are confused. Whether or not a particular Microsoft patent is implemented in one of Microsoft's products is irrelevant to whether or not Linux infringes it. You want to compare Linux code to the published patent disclosures, not to Microsoft's code.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
what is this infringement? the tcpip stack? or the ftp client?
_ In Egypt Networks: Network Solutions with a Twist
If SCO sued IBM with actual patent infringement (instead of pure endless bullshit about copyrighted, but nonexistent, code), that would have cripped IBM, or at least IBM's Linux business. Microsoft could step in and do the same, but with real patents, really crippling IBM.
IBM would pay a huge fine, without necessarily getting a license from Microsoft to continue using the patents. IBM is knocked out of the Linux biz. Not just selling the OS (or services to sell/install/upgrade), but its whole biz unit, as its market is crippled from losing its vendors. MS goes after RedHat, Oracle (to prevent it entering the biz). The Debian project evaporates in a millisecond without budget or corporation, under Microsoft's fiery patent gaze. Only Novell's SuSE is left, under the MS agreement. Most businesses drop Linux, and the open source model, because it doesn't come with a corporation prioritizing clearance of IP through the Patent Office. Then MS competes hard against Novell with its own new, improved MS Linux, which is just a flipside of WINE to run Linux apps under Vista. POOF! Novell is finally dead, too.
Linux the hobby OS can survive. After all its infringing IP from the big corporations that made it so broadly popular (and a threat to MS) has been removed, hobbyists could figure out a way to code it differently, not violating those patents. Lots of developers will drop Linux because its market is dried up. And MS will go after some developers, and probably some big remaining users (if any), RIAA/MPAA style. Possibly MS won't bother to sue every hobbyist with an email address or anonymous code contribution. But Torvalds will probably go to jail, or at least some kind of neutralizing status, at least as an example of an inventor who dared to succeed in crossing Microsoft.
Linux will look like Carthage after Rome razed it to the ground, sowed its fields with salt, and slaughtered its kings and warriors. Hail Microsoft.
--
make install -not war
> Every line written is a ticking patent timebomb.
Actually, it is worse than this. The ticking time bomb includes every line of code that runs on any computer your software touches. Almost all software projects depend on outside packages to run. These include libraries, operating systems, programming environments, and even other software packages. To force a change in your project, all someone needs to do is force a change in any related piece of software. Worse, the change in the other piece of software might have nothing to do with your package. The patent infringement could simply be triggered by how or where the unrelated piece of software is used.
For instance, if I write a web application using ActiveX on Internet Explorer, then some company (Eolas) can sue Microsoft (not me) and force Microsoft to change its code, and now I need to change my application that uses ActiveX.
You can also get in trouble for patents if you are a Canadian company (RIM), with your server in Canada (no s/w patents here). If your customers are in the U.S., and the software on your server violates a U.S. patent held by a U.S. company (NTP), then you can still have to pay.
Finally, if you write a piece of software that implements a patent-free algorithm (like principal components analysis), and your customer implements it into a business or industrial process (polymer processing), then your customer can be sued for using your software.
Software patents are a complete cancer. You can't design any kind of complex system without potentially violating someones patent on something.
After all, before IBM handed over some 500 patents to the open source community, it's pretty clear that Linux was infringing some of them.
That's a blogger writing there: and maybe not too surprisingly, he doesn't mention what he thinks made it 'pretty clear' that Linux infringes any patents. I frankly doubt whether anything like that was pretty clear at all.
Patent infringement shouldn't just be casually presumed to exist -- even though some bullish (and bullying) patent owners have been happy to call infringement, even without specific grounds to make any such claims.
Some while back, there was a whole lot of talk about Linux supposedly including infringements of hundreds of patents, but the people who launched this suppositious idea weren't prepared to identify what they thought were the patents concerned.
This is an area where practicality and prudence can sometimes suggest caution in circulating too much (suppositious) information. It's not prudent to make public admissions of patent infringement, and it's not a friendly act to suggest publicly that your friends' products infringe patents of possibly-hostile third parties.
I'd suggest that optimum public handling of perceived possible patent risks for FOSS software can somewhat resemble good methods for handling software security risks that could be exploited by malware. That is, strike a balance between the need to inform software developers and users of any real and serious threat, balancing that with the other need, to provide users with a fix (where possible) before a hostile party can swing an exploit into action. Also to be borne in mind in the patent situation is that information to developers and users can also alert a previously-unaware hostile patent owner, just as security information may alert a previously-unaware malware author.
So what can prudently be done about a specific patent that someone somewhere in the community may perceive as a possible infringement risk? I'd suggest it might include the following:- Start a discussion about the specific patent, identifying the patent and its critical dates (but not identifying current technology applications that might come to be accused as infringement). The initial purpose of discussion would then be to gather information about possible lack of novelty or inventiveness, or other defect, in the patent. This is about searching for prior art and looking for it in unexpected places as well as expected places. Real-world discussions, to make any clear sense, usually need to focus on concrete technology applications that might fall under a patent claim. The best/prudent concrete applications to focus on here, are technologies that certainly existed before the patent's earliest critical date. The focus of the discussion would then be, what (if any) real novelty is there in the patent, and how (if at all) is that real novelty present in any of the patent claims.
This kind of discussion can of course be either private or public, but making it public can be helpful by gathering in more people's knowledge of what went before the critical date(s) of the patent. The more eyes there are on the question, the more likely it is that the crucial prior art will be found.
Desirable outcomes can take several forms.
One is, to make sure to preserve a good and accessible public record of critical prior art evidence that might otherwise get forgotten -- when evidence gets forgotten, the loss of that evidence may allow a hostile patent owner to claim more than its entitlement.
Another is, to preserve a good and accessible public record of explanations and evidence showing how the real novelty of a patent focuses on some feature that is not needed for the function that is really wanted by the public. This is a not-uncommon situation: the patent owner would really like the patent to cover everything broadly that performs function X, and may even try to persuade the world (and a court) that this is what the patent really does cover. But the e
As part of their agreement, Novell is paying Microsoft per sale of their distribution. Hence, Microsoft already IS taxing Linux.
From GPL v2:
All direct or derived GPL source is subject to the GPL.
If there are licensing problems with the software, you do not have permission to use or distribute it.
If there are problems with IP conflicts, the GPL explicitly does not apply to the source code in question. That means NO ONE has the right to distribute that software except the AUTHOR/OWNER, and they must use a license other than the GPL to do so.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
BSD Won it's COPYRIGHT battles for the ORIGINAL code core. If it infringes on any current Patents or if
any of the new code infringes, it will face those battles AGAIN.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Didn't the novell agreement state they wouldn't sue microsoft? Why would they do that? Possible that MS has stuff in their code that is a rip?
I always thought it was much more possible for the closed source guys to "steal" various IP and try to get away with it.
In the case of Copyright or Patent, you're not obligated to enforce or completely lose the rights like in Trademark's case.
It WILL, however leave it open for a defense of laches (delay) against which you can reasonably ask for damages and they can
say that they don't owe them to you- but you can demand them to stop infringing at any time unless you give the impression
that you chose to not enforce against a class of individuals. At that point, while they can still be drug into court and all,
they have a positive defense against litigation (may/may not work, mind) that can give them an out all the way around.
You'll note that most businesses won't go the Patent Covenant/Licensing to FOSS projects route without care in what they're
doing for that very reason.
Oh, and to the people that say it's all about how many Patents... There is a lot to that- but the right Patent in the right
place and right time can be just as problematic to another company and weigh in as if it were the whole of a Patent pool like
OIN or IBM have in hand. Just ask Microsoft about that one- they've been burned several times in the last handful of years
and their patent pool didn't defend them at all- and this is when they HAD a substantive pool at their disposal.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I beg to differ with the parent post. US Patent #414159.905 Abstract: A novel approach for the standard compliance for C++ compilers What is claimed: 1. A series of ASCII characters constructed of valid keywords within the C++ programming language assembled in a manner to elicit error output from a standard conforming c++ compiler. 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the compiler is a C++ programming language compiler. 3. The system of claim 1, wherein the operator all of the keywords a valid words within the standard. 4. The system of claim 1, wherein the compiler comprises a scanner, a parser, an analyzer and an executable-generator. 5. The system of claim 4, wherein the source code comprises at least one statement, and the statement comprises a keyword representing several operators, the keyword recognized by the scanner. 6. The system of claim 5, wherein the parser receives the scanned source code from the scanner and determines if the operator is preceded by and followed by an operand. 7. The text provided to system comprising claims 1 through 6 such that an error message is generated. Hint for the moderators...Funny. Hint for future moderators, funny if it weren't true :)
--- Liberty in our Lifetime
Since there seems to be continued hand-wringing over this issue, I was wondering if anyone out there has taken the opportunity to look over what patents Microsoft actually has and get a more informed opinion of matters.
I'm not an lawyer, and I'm sure that 99% of Slashdotters aren't either, but it seems that a lot of these patents are pretty broad... But then, the vast body of prior art has a fair chance of shooting them down - right?
Market? I didn't know people discussed the "market" for free software.
BTW, MS just doesn't "get" lunix. It's all about making software which people and companies CAN'T make money from. It's about making corporations dependant on the support of a high-priced armada of consultants, rather than using the software company's product support.
Contrary to the poster, if they know about infringments they can't just sit on it. If they know about infringements they have to take action or their claims are prejudiced.
Me too, but it doesn't even matter.
;-) You try sending an algorithm or method implemented according to the underlying guidelines of either to the USPTO, it explodes.
Didn't bother to RTFA as the summary indicates that the blog is useless waste of space:
Software Patents != Actual Code. And this is fundamentally confused in the blog (judging from the summary, which is a bad habit, admitted).
Linux doesn't contain Microsoft's code "IP", period.
As to patent "IP", MS has enough of a portfolio to make sure that IBM, Sun, Novell, SGI, Amazon, Red Hat, Google, Bell Labs, SAP, you name it all violate at least one of them in some way. And these companies likewise own "war patents" of their own. And nobody wants to start that war (because it'll be ugly and end with IBM's Nazgul mopping the floor). So it won't matter in practice, period.
The only way to completely avoid any patent issues is to program exclusively in Mindfuck or INTERCAL, which are completely alien to anything even remotely human OR corporate
Sweet. I've got a patent on 'the use of for-loops to repeat sections of code'. I've got this funny feeling somebody, somewhere, might have infringed once or twice?
I think i have to patent the if sentence.
These day seems to everything can be patented
some of them must be re-considered, there are some stupid patents like
moving the mouse cause a shade of the pointer
or... closing an application cause a sound which is not default OS sound... (yes, that could have been signed up as a patent few years ago or today with the right lawyers) and Microsoft signed up many of these stupid "patents". I wonder how much Microsoft are using other people's patents in XP/vista
its more likely that microsoft patented something they seen in linux years ago and then they say it infringes. we need a huge prior art database so when microsoft says it infringes on a patent we can say look here you patented something that was already in linux. submarine patent blocker database anyone?
What if MS infringes on Apple IP?
Google uses linux internally, maybe MS is setting up to sue Google!
The patent tradeoff is supposed to be disclosure of the patented technology in return for a monopoly over a period of years. There is also a requirement that the patent not be obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art involved.
Patents are often issued for obvious technology (the subject of a Supreme Court case this session), and are often written in such obfuscatory language it is impossible for anyone to know exactly what technology is being disclosed. In many cases it seems to me that the patent claims all solutions to a *_problem_* described in the patent rather than disclosing an implementable *_solution_* to the problem.
Also, there is a company that investigates patent portfolios for financial and insurance companies' due diligence whose president claims that about 37% of patents issued worldwide are fraudulent.
The only problem for the open source community is that it takes money to fight all this patent nonsense.
Because people seem worried, maybe some hyperventilating, and even some panicking.
That's the M$ plan, but I don't see any of it. What panic have you actually seen outside the Wintel press? This really is Microsoft's last gasp.
Microsoft won't actually do anything until Linux starts eating up Desktop Sales, and even then, I don't see it happening unless MS is really going the drain, ala SCO - which won't be for many many years.
No, this IS exactly the same thing they did with their SCO sock puppet and it's all they really have: an empty threat. They dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into SCO but they never had the first real infringement. This patent move is more of the same and just as empty. If they really had something, they would have laid it out.
Free software is making desktop inroads and is about to make more. Companies like Lowes have already kicked Microsoft completely out. Vista is going to push more companies in the same direction. People sitting on Windows 2000 are going to see even less of what they want in Vista than they did in XP and migrating to free software will be very attractive for them. The end will come swiftly.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
As so many have observed, there's no real profit incentive for Microsoft to sue Linux users/distributors. This is all about giving Microsoft's corporate sales force a talking point that hits home with executives. Corporate management is very risk averse. (Remember the Y2K fiasco? Uncounted billions were spent chasing a software bogeyman that, in most cases, wasn't much of a threat.) As such, one of the strongest arguments a salesguy can use is that their competitor, though appearing cheaper, nevertheless poses hidden costs in the form of legal threats. After all, what if a company decided to have their whole corporate enchilada depend on Linux, and then a lawsuit comes along that renders their entire IT infrastructure invalid? Even a short-term court order that bars use of Linux until infringing code can be repaired would be disastrous. If the salesguy can persuade even a reasonable doubt on that point, it becomes a no-brainer for corporate management.
The problem for Linux evangelists is there is no real way to counter that line of argument.
First I think it's important to note that patented software has LITTLE to do with the source code. It has everything to do with the results of the black box process. "A method of adding two numbers together" could be executed in a wide variety of ways but would all 'infringe' on the same idea. So let's at least try to leave source code out of this. (Source code *would* serve to prove infringing methods since the data manipulation could more easily be mapped by tracing the execution as represented by the sources, but that's only one method of proof, not an indication of infringement. The indication would be more along the lines of following an authentication protocol or a method for mapping files in an allocation table.)
Let's say Linux (by which I mean GNU/Linux+X.org+GNOME+KDE and all the other things I have known to associate with the gigantic mashup of software) infringes on patents held by Microsoft. (I'm fairly certain that there *IS* infringing code since Wine and SaMBa are so successful at duplicating so much of Microsoft's product functionality.) What might result if Microsoft were to attempt to assert any of them?
1. Movements to have the various patents revoked would be set to match each individual case would undoubtedly occur. Some would be successful and some would not.
2. Of those surviving attempts as revokation, I think other means and methods would exist to work around these problems. (For example, RedHat/Fedora doesn't include MP3 support yet virtually every RedHat/Fedora user installs MP3 support for other sources in convenient packages. RedHat is safe, the users get what they want. The same would likely occur in all other instances found similar.)
3. Microsoft would not go after individual users, businesses or schools who use Linux. It would me P.R. suicide and would most likely only happen as part of an exit strategy. Such tactics would remind most of us of MPAA/RIAA's but unlike the **AAs, everyone has heard of Microsoft and knows them for the ubiquitous goliath that they are.
4. Microsoft would go after companies making profit by distributing and supporting Linux attempting to keep Linux down to the level of a social movement. I think this is very likely and seems to be was is beginning to happen right now. Even so, I think there would be a breaking point at which the other companies that distribute and support Linux in similar ways would have to rally to support any other entity attacked by Microsoft if only to preserve their own interests. Ultimately, it would condense and precipitate into P.R. suicide if Microsoft were to actually become agressive.
For the moment it seems like Microsoft's activity is doing exactly what it was intended to do -- stir up "FUD" without an aggressive and obvious campaign and to create fighting within the community.
This is how I interpreted the article.
"So what if we infringe on patents? We're Open Source--you can't hurt us!"
Lovely excuse for breaking the law. It certainly should convince more companies that they need to start using this illegal-but-untouchable code.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Stop posting mature consideration of the whole MS Patent issue and get back to hysterical screaming about how MS plans to kill Linux with patents.
I can present you with a reasonable response when Microsoft presents something more than empty menace. When they present the first violated patent, I'll be happy to debate it's merits. Until then all there is is M$ BS, designed to FUD free software. They only hysteria is coming from a company in Redmond that's losing marketshare.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Plan 9 existed at the time but was not Open Source. Nonetheless, it was not only hardware-neutral on a platform, it was hardware-neutral across an entire friggin' cluster - something even Windows Cluster Server fails to achieve today.
Many of the commercial PC unixes were - by definition - dependent only on there being an 80x86 processor and sufficient memory. They weren't tied to a damn thing and could run any PC device for which a driver existed or for which you wanted to write one. PC unixes that supported the IBCS standard (Linux was one for a while) were also OS-independent, capable of running ANY application written for ANY OS that ran on the Intel architecture.
(One of the major reasons Linux has Oracle today is that Linux users were capable of running Solaris binaries as if native on their platform. Enough did exactly that that Oracle decided it was loosing too much money by ignoring the platform any longer, especially as it was no longer viable to claim Linux was too immature to handle an RDBMS of that size.)
All in all, then, it's clear that Windows was NOT technically superior (it provably did less in some areas, as I've been able to list examples), nor was it the most hardware-agnostic (again, I've cited examples of far superior agnosticism).
Windows won the desktop for the following reasons alone. It had vastly better marketing, it was far more aggressively pushed, Microsoft had no hesitation about overstepping laws, the GUI received a lot of attention, Microsoft turned being dumb into an asset and a badge of honor amongst users, the price was hidden by folding it into the price of the hardware - thus creating the illusion of being free.
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)
Ok , now let me break it down for you. Based on the above links showing the Microsoft Innovative Features, and the little video clip of Pirates Of Silicon Valley, which is based on a True Story mind you, I have come to this conclusion: Seeing as Microsoft, has stolen code before, and hates Linux so much, as I have shown in the past, this selection right here gives you the information you need to know, if you read between the lines: At Microsoft we undertook our own analysis of our patent portfolio and concluded that it was necessary and important to create a patent covenant for customers of these products. What they are saying, if you read between the lines is this: " There are parts of code, somewhere, in some feature of Windows, be it current, or Vista, that are copied parts of Novell IP." In order for them to not get thier ass handed to them in court by Novell AGAIN, they need to come up with some solution, that will allow them to skate by and not get sued. Whats the best way to do that ? Make a deal with Novell, saying " We wont sue you, if you dont sue us" .. Thats it, its that simple.
Since Microsoft is claiming that Linux has thier IP code, and they checked out thier portfolio, why else would they need to make an agreement like that, "IF" Microsoft didn't have any of Novell's
Makes sense to me.
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog. view&friendID=20324789&blogID=196478440&Mytoken=0B 8E5F8B-DD46-4538-A56268A5523D6F4713954253
This really is Microsoft's last gasp.
As soon as I read this in a Slashdot post, I automatically assume that the author is a complete and total moron for trying to predict the end of the world's largest and most successful software company.
And force Ballmer to stop doing it.
Dog is my co-pilot.
I've been running Linux as my primary OS for the last 8 years, and contributed hundreds of pages to a newsstand Linux magazine. But I have to reply to your post:
This really is Microsoft's last gasp.
Dying animals lying on the ground take their "last gasp". Tiny, suffering companies heavily in debt and struggling to keep a handful of employees going take a "last gasp". A massive, intensely rich and enormously successful company with fingers in every pie is *not* taking a "last gasp". That's utterly absurd.
Microsoft has a vast amount of money, presence in all manner of markets, gigantic market dominance and extremely succesful products. It is ridiculous to suggest it's remotely near a "last gasp". It sucks, but the company has colossal mindshare -- for many, perhaps most normal folks, Microsoft *is* computing.
Free software is making desktop inroads and is about to make more.
I don't see much "inroads": circa 4% of the market after 15 years of Linux development. Firefox and OpenOffice.org are doing better. But, frankly, so much needs to be done with Linux before it becomes close to the mainstream. Users are endlessly baffled by the scattered development, all the distros, desktops, toolkits, library versions etc. Installing software on Linux is still alarmingly complex -- if it's not in your distro's repos, you have to wait 6 months or a year to get a distro update, or have to faff around with source code or "development repositories".
It's orders of magnitude more cumbersome than the SETUP.EXE that will just *work*, without having to consider if you have Fedora Core 4 with these three updates or Ubuntu 5.10 with backports or SUSE with this extra repositories. Software should be like music CDs or video DVDs -- you just put it in and go when you get the latest thing. Linux is nowhere near this (want the latest Gnumeric? Oh, Ubuntu 6.06 doesn't have it. Upgrade your distro (sheesh!) or mess around with this devel repo etc.). Windows isn't perfect but it's a lot closer. I do believe open source will eventually triumph as a desktop OS, but it's going to be something like Haiku or Syllable (ie not based around 1970s UNIX concepts) and take at least a decade.
The end will come swiftly.
NO IT WON'T. There've been very few companies with the size, success and capital of Microsoft in the history of the world, and they don't just disappear. You talk about it like Microsoft has one product, one market, and one way of doing things. Microsoft is enormously adaptable and canny, and will be a major presence for at least 15 years to come. Do you not understand that Microsoft can, and will, change? Guys like us *detested* IBM in the 1980s for similar reasons -- now they're pretty much our friends.
I just needed to point that out. I don't like Microsoft products, I don't use them, and I wish they'd actually get some justice for the company's monopolistic practices. But all this "last gasp" and "end coming swiftly" is so comically apocalyptic and surreal -- it doesn't remotely make sense when you actually look at success, money, market and mindshare.
Microsoft is vast, spread across many markets, loaded with money and extremely popular. It sucks, but it's true. They'll be around for a *long* time yet, and like IBM, who knows -- maybe they'll be on our side one day. Microsoft can and will adapt to work in whatever market and situation is the strongest.
I'm dumfounded to scan down through so many posts and see "Sue Microsoft" only once, and that on a post about "force them to show their cards".
Granted it completely depends on white knights (IBM - oh, the irony...) funding it, but so many companies have their business model at stake, I think a fund could be put together in short order. It would strike the whole industry as upsetting to see a largish group of multi-billion-dollar companies sueing Microsoft. Bad for business.
Then they hit Microsoft with about a hundred GPL violations. Spurious ones? Well, maybe...maybe not. For a court to decide. At length. During it, Microsoft should have to hand over every punctuation mark of its source code for examination with a proctoscope. (I know that phrase usually ends with "microscope", but in this case...)
And not sued for mere filthy *money*, of course, no way to buy off the OSS community with that stuff; sue for compliance with the GPL. Which is to say, making public all source code in which allegedly GPL'd material is embedded. Stop and think about how the mere possibility of that would sit with Microsoft investors and the consequent drag on their stock price while litigation went on.
The OSS community is not rich in dollars, but the litigation possibilities inherent in massive amounts of GPL'd code that MS programmers in a hurry to make deadline (they always are) may have quietly lifted mean that, legally, the OSS bunch are actually the ones with a nuke in their pocket. Fines are "conventional weaponry" - being forced to reveal source code is being nuked.
But the standard is harder to make with GPL violations than patent violations because they have to have stolen the EXACT copyrighted code? That sure as hell didn't end the SCO suit in a few days, did it? It's STILL dragging on, though it only did damage for a mere year or so before everybody but the slow court process realized they hadn't any real smoking guns.
I'm not advocating frivolous suits, of course - I happen to have a gut feel there are at least dozens of entirely reasonable questions to ask about almost any proprietary code out there these days, written by people under pressure with a free solution readily available a download away. If the functional result is the same as a GPL solution, it's not unreasonable to suspect, and demand a check.
People sitting on Windows 2000 are going to see even less of what they want in Vista than they did in XP and migrating to free software will be very attractive for them. The end will come swiftly.
Do me a favor and read Slashdot posts from 2000 ("Windows 2000 is a complete rewrite! There's no way MS can ship it without huge numbers of bugs. This is the end of Microsoft") and posts from 2002 ("I hate the XP interface! And no one is going to want to pay for a minor upgrades to Win2K. And mandatory registration?? This will definitely drive people to Linux").
Then take a look at Microsoft's incredibly profitable financials. And the immense amount of money in the bank. They could bleed for DECADES before it'd be a significant problem.
Your last lesson will be to realize why people buy computers. People buy applications, not operating systems. Linux is incompatible with their software, therefore Linux is totally and completely useless to the vast majority of people. Yes, a small number of people only want email and browsing, but for some reason Linux people think this is more than a tiny part of the world.
Just wait for it -- Vista will be yet another cash cow for Microsoft.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
There are those pundits out there that for whatever reason are absolutely towing the Microsoft line and even in here... slashdot.... peppering the pages with junk. First off; if Microsoft really believes they have been wronged, they need to bring it before the courts. Now. This playing the media thing just isn't workin'!
Frankly if they don't have any legal foot to stand on, then they; Microsoft, and all their friends and supporters, need to stop this charade now. I bet it wouldn't be too long before someone takes Microsoft to task under the laws of slander for the junk being peppered in the news, et al.
Tit for Tat.
Just my humble opinion for what it's worth.
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
Wouldn't it be possible to in some way force MS to open up their source to prove that they are not infringing on the GPL in some way?
Probably not. . . well, we better try everything to keep those pesky software patents out of the EU !. .
the right to open, the right to modify, the right to improve.. . . does your stuff actually belong to you?
There was a time before Microsoft and there will be a time after Microsoft.
If you laugh at that, please go read the poem Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley.
I think that the issue here is not "microsoft" versus "linux", but instead
"software patents" versus "innovation" (yes, you read it right, *versus* innovation).
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
The article author wrote "only Microsoft has access to most of its source code". That is terribly uninformed. For many years MS has allowed academic researchers access to Windows source code, this includes students. You had to apply, MS had to like your research topic, and you had to sign an NDA, but the terms were pretty fair and did not interfere with publishing your research. I knew someone who worked on such a research project as a student.
If Microsoft attacked Linux, it would do major damage to companies that use Linux servers. It would be impossible for every Linux server to be migrated under an "or else condition." It would do damage to businesses that rely on both MS and Linux. There are so many reasons why it is really too late for them to effectively take over the code and grab Linux companies by the balls. They are probably waiting to see what Google's stake will be in the OS market before they even attempt to press the buttons. I don't see the big bully beating up Linux for lunch money, it would be horrible PR and would cause major damage to technology markets and tech development. They may have some legal ground but it would really seem silly for them to do anything.
There are two patents that MS has incorporated into their OS at a root level that could be enforced by simple informing MS they are no longer allowed to use the IP. The two in question are TCP/IP (owned by UCB "University California Berkely" birthplace of radicalism) and Zeroconf (Apple).
Now there is nothing in the license that says the creator doesn't have the right to revoke your authorization to use their IP and should Berkley (BSD "Berkley Software Distribution - UCB) decide to retaliate, they could kick every windows system offline simply by revoking the right of MS to continue using the patent. Remember that Berkely is also a Law School so they have enough lawyer wannabee's to do much of the grunt work in pulling such a case together against MS simply by throwing it out as a class asignment.
Now how many other fundemental patents can we find that MS is using under revockable license terms? Put your thinking googles on folks and lets start putting together a retaliation list.
Your last lesson will be to realize why people buy computers. People buy applications, not operating systems
True, but this is another area where MS is losing. I haven't run Windows for about three years, and the only proprietary software I depend on is OmniGraffle and OmniOutliner. Everything else is Open Source. My mother uses my old Windows 2000 license, and uses it to run OpenOffice, FireFox, Thunderbird, GAIM, and The GIMP[1]. She sometimes uses Opera, but the only thing that keeps her on Windows is the fact that she has a cheap USB camera that only has Windows drivers (or, did, two years ago when I last checked). In a few months, she will be inheriting my old ThinkPad, which will run FreeBSD with the same applications on it she currently uses. This will also be easier for me to provide help with, since it's an OS I actually use regularly.
For most people, Microsoft provided everything they needed in 1998; Windows 98 and Office 97 were, more or less, acceptable for home use. OpenOffice is now better than Office 97, and GNOME/KDE are better than Windows 98 in a lot of cases, so it's fairly easy to switch. A lot of people, like my mother, haven't had the need to buy any new software for quite a few years, and WINE is now pretty good at running things they bought back then (in some cases, better than newer versions of Windows).
[1] Depressingly, she finds the GIMP to be quite easy to use, in spite of being one of the most computer-illiterate people I know.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I think it's an equally interesting question whether Microsoft is infringing on Linux...
In my defense, the original code was a fully compilable "Hello World" program, but slashdot ate my code for some reason.
My new blog
If they sued, wouldn't the defendent have the ability to see Microsoft's source in discovery?
I'm betting they have an unbelievable number of patent violations, stolen GPL code, etc. in their code base because as a closed code base it's probably never been reviewed.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
There's a Mexican standoff in place in the industry right now, and it's been there for years. MS, IBM, Sun, Novell, Heck even codgers like Computer Associates all have enough vague patents to start a big nasty lawyer-fest should they choose to do so. For the most part, they keep each other in check. It's a fragile balance though. I think it's practically a given that MS has at least one and probably many patents upon which a number of FOSS projects could be claimed to infringe. Some are probably imposable to code around too, being on basic ideas like UI elements, file access, printing, or any number of obvious fundamental computing concepts. Sure, they should be invalid in principle, but you'd need to out lawyer the Beast of Redmond to prove it. What I wonder is, does really MS have the balls to do something about it? One would think that actually attempting to dust off Red Hat or whomever with a patent infringement suit would be much like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. It could easily broaden into a wider morass of litigation like SCO almost did. Once the patent wars begin, where would they end? Starting IT Patent War I would have the potential for big gains, but who could foresee the outcome? Do they really want to risk a patent fight with someone like IBM? Could they justify that to their share-holders? I'm sure the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire both thought teaming up with the Kaiser would let them pick off lots of territory from Britain and Russia. You can't find those countries on a map now.
...would be Microsoft's filesystems...FAT, VFAT/FAT32, and NTFS.
It's very unlikely that Microsoft will actually want Linux to get rid of those, though...because if Linux no longer in fact *did* infringe on Microsoft's IP, Dr Evil would no longer be able to issue his veiled, Mafia-like threats.
After all...the ability to extort money from people is what they really want here. Heaven forbid that they try and earn revenue from actually making/selling a better operating system.
for many, perhaps most normal folks, Microsoft *is* computing.
Sadly it is, but I agree.
maybe they'll be on our side one day.
I'd have a hard time believing that this is possible with the current management though. They have invested too heavily in the GPL is Evil, Communist and Unamerican mantra.
OK, so if MS claims that there is patent infringement, then since it is a civil matter *they* must prove it. If it is patented, they have already revealed how it works so exposing the MS source code will *not* harm MS in any way.
So why don't they prove it? Why don't they show us? Why don't they say, for example, 'Linux infringes on patent 12345'.
Instead they are making vauge claims, hints and allegations. If they had anything, since Linux is completely open sourced, it would be easy for them to to point out where Linux infringed patent 12345. Just mentioning patent 12345 would probably be enough for a heads up maintainer to find and fix the code.
What may be happening is that Linux is using the same technique as code MS is currently using and holding as an unpatented trade secret.
But trade secrets have no legal protection, so tough noogies to MS. If it was important they should have patented it.
No, I think this is just another FUD campaign and looking at the number of articles popping up in this and other forums I have a vauge suspicion that much of this is astroturfing. Just spreading FUD through hints, vauge allegations, uncertainties and innuendo.
C'mon MS show us the goods. Where is the infringement? Which patents are being violated? Either put up or shut up.
I wonder if this doesn't pan out if Linus or others couldn't sue them for slander or libel.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
The entire concept of patenting computer ideas is completely immoral anyway.
The entire thing should be completely ignored.
Chicks Have All The Fun
Does it have to do with non published data or communication formats that were reverse engineered for Linux?
-=[ place
So What If Linux Infringes On Microsoft IP?
Please don't take this wrong but I'm tired of hearing about this over and over again. So if SCO can't make any headway with Linux infringing and if Microsoft can't then will people simply stop this crap and allow us to do our job? This constant harasment is annoying and should be shutdown. After all these years I'm thinking there isn't anything to this crap.
After awhile I'd say let the naysayers put their money where their mouth is or simply stop harasing us.
What if Linux infringes? What if it doesn't? BTW, Microsoft is famous for stealing someone elses code then paying later when they are caught. How do we know they haven't stolen Linux code for XP or Vista? There are two sides to this argument.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
Why are self-professed "rightists" so out of touch with reality, half of the time?
You think it's the fault of the left that China has most-favored nation trading status with the United States? (News flash: Walmart is now classifed as left-wing).
In point of fact, the left has been complaining for some time about chinese sweatshops.
(And "openly celebrated"? Huh?).
- The first is on fundamental algorithms and data structures. I say "fundamental" in the sense that these are a natural way to solve particular problems. So it might turn out that Linux is using a schedular or a VM indexing system that happens to have been patented by MS. But this kind of thing is generally possible to work around. The truly fundamental algorithms here are in the prior art and have been for years, so anything patented by MS can only be construed very narrowly if it is to be upheld at all. But if it is construed narrowly then you don't need to make many changes to avoid it. So this is nuisance value only.
- The second is on particular compatibility features, such as the precise protocols used by SMB. It might well be that the only way to inter-operate with MS file servers or Active Directory domains is to use a protocol that MS has patented. If so then in theory MS can issue a Cease & Desist letter and force the Samba team to go off the net, or at least stop Samba shipping in commercial distributrions.
So one way and another I don't reckon that MS has much leverage.But suppose they actually do this. The US competition authorities are likely to stay supine, at least until the next presidential election. But the EU is very much in activist mode, and those patents probably don't apply in the EU (getting world wide coverage on patents is an order of magnitude more expensive than just getting a US patent, and most EU countries make software patents a lot harder anyway). So far the EU has held off requiring MS to open up its IPR completely, because the Samba project has been able to work around it anyway. But if they see MS using interface patents to block interoperability they might well change their minds.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
Minix was written by Andrew Tannenbaum, a professor at the vrije universiteit in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Your employer is a convicted monopolist, here and over there. That makes you guilty by association if one were to use the same logic as you do.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
I heard a lot of Windows code was ripped off from BSD. And who knows what else they ripped off in their applications. Does Microsoft REALLY want light shed on the nature of its competitor's source code if that implies countersuits can be filed that would require Microsoft to reveal its source code?
This is a battle Microsoft doesn't want to fight. That's why it uses SCO as a small fall guy. If it directly chases Linux, it will get burned so badly in court. A court case against Linux would be such a major legal event that it would bring the software patent system into question, and closed-source companies don't want that either. Because there are so many examples of negative consequences of the patent process in the US that it risks complete destruction of the system.
Legal experts for linux should prepare themselves for an all-out war on Microsoft that will kill them. And like others are pointing out, they can't kill Linux. Not internationally, and probably not domestically in the US.
Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
Funny, I thought it was European Union...
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
there will be a time after Microsoft.
There might be. But it won't be in our lifetime, unless something absolutely catastrophic happens (ie: Enron). Barring that, organizations of that magnitude simply do not collapse.
WTF does IP stand for? It's bad enough when non-technical parts of society borrow technology acronyms and give them completely unrelated meanings, but its 10x worse when the IT industry does it to itself.
So WTF does IP stand for??????
This is wrong. Utterly wrong. This is playing their game, and the solution of such games is just not playing.
Microsoft is doing this for a purpose. They don't outrun their competitors. They buy them.
Since you can't "buy linux", they're going after each linux vendor with the excuse of patent protection, and suck them up one by one.
No, really, this isn't a matter where one can laugh about it. Patent protection is mafia-style protection,wrong at the beginning.
I really, really hope the linux vendors won't fall into this trap.
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
My alarm clock infringes on someone's patents. There are a tremendous number of stupid patents in the software industry. You do your best to avoid the ones you know about, but you know everything you ship infringes somewhere.
Again, it's the cold war. Everyone has nuclear weapons, pointed at eachother, ready to strike at a moment's notice. The only thing holding them back from firing, is that they can fire back, and everyone goes broke.
Productive system we've got here.
The ______ Agenda
All patents are arbitrary anyway, so no matter where you put the borders on it, they are arbitrary. A patent is a monopoly granted by gouvernment. This isn't a monopoly on anything you desire, but delineated by your patent claims, other patents, prior inventions and other rules of the gouvernment.
So if gouverment says 'no patent can be implemented totally in software' then that is the rule. There is nothing illogical about it.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
That being said, no, I don't think China should have this status.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I'm not laughing at the eventuality that there will be a day that Microsoft will be no more (though that length of time is undetermined and is likely to be longer than any of our lifetimes).
But the prevalent idea amongst fanatics that Linux will be the successor to the throne is absolutely hilarious. Innovation is a concept. Software patents are a legal construct. You don't beat well tested legal constructs with concepts, and you can't win the argument by telling the judge that you didn't patent something because you're just against the idea of patents.
Linux itself is both trademarked and copyrighted. Why is is ok for the creator to say that nobody else can use the term without his permission, or use the code without obeying the license, but horrible for someone else who has created something to take the third step and protect his work with a patent? It isn't about innovation at all. It's about wanting to take something for nothing because it suits your purpose, because without circumventing the law, you CAN'T compete against those who are willing to pay for it.
Besides, the sheer difficulty that the average user faces in simply getting a Linux distribution to work correctly with their hardware proves that the community isn't really about innovation at all, because IF IT WERE, it'd be looking into making their tools as easy to use as the competition, which still wouldn't level the playing field, but would at least show that they're interested in trying. Their actions and attitudes betray them every single time.
First narrow the list of patent threats to patents that actually should be valid, and that there is no prior art for.
Isn't the bulk of linux a direct clone of the operation of Unix, which AT&T gave away years ago? All the X window stuff ought to be safe as well.
If you strip out Mono, and perhaps the Samba tools, really, how much is new in linux that could violate a valid patent?
I personally have no need for anything like Mono, and if there are good quality Windows NFS clients, we can start to remove the SMB protocol from linux systems, linux ought to be clear of MS patent threats.
Course there's always the dumb patents (like MS patenting skype last week) that could be an issue.
Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
Industrial-age IPRs are Draconian in the Open-Community of the 21st Century
..., and must be replaced ASAP for peaceful and reasonable global development that will displace the present corporatist/religious/dogmatic Luddite IPR system. Today there are to many Luddite corporatist minions in world governments and the UN preventing economic development outside the legacy S&D (supply & demand) economic models. RealityCheck: "Change Happens or Shit Happens, then Change Happens AFW"; So, opposition to change by oppression (DRM, DMCA, software patents, ...) is the shit, and none of US, EU, others want more of the same Draconian Luddite legacy oppression.
.... Some of these were replaced somewhat peacefully (Britain, Belgium, Holland, Sweden, Switzerland ...). Regretfully some were replaced with extreme violence (France, Russia, ...). Many reasonably converted from the legacy Luddite feudal system to the new industrial age. The industrial age governments and economies were sometimes ideal based in democracy and meritocracy, but due to weak human character the ideal frequently devolved into plutocratic corporatism/communism [AKA: Modern Feudalism]. The real lesson learned from the extermination of the French and Russian aristocracy by the merchant class of the time was keeping a balance between hope (our children's life will be better than ours') and cruelty (a lottery path to plutocratic riches/power) could assure a peaceful usable inhibited productive public.
... anyway ... today in the USA, EU, Japan, Israel, Australia, New Zealand ... we have the duty (if not the right) to commit peaceful civil-disobedience in the interest of our family, friends, citizens, nation, culture, humanity ... without any fear of death or life imprisonment. I will use OSS, OpenContent ... until I die. IOW: FUCK THE DRACONIAN LAWS!FTDL! peacefully and teach others to do their duty for our future).
..., and I even buy music, DVDs, and legal MS products (for my wife ...), but if US, EU ... continue down this path of economic, culture, and public oppression, I am sure eventually, I will have and use illegal products or make an illegal copy of a song for personal use..
Draconian laws are historically displaced by cultural/community enlightenment or revolution. Industrial-age IPR laws are anti-competitive, economically stagnating, totalitarian
The draconian feudal aristocracy was replaced in EU as a form of economics, culture, government
Well
I have not as of today broken any laws. I make small donations to GNU/FSF, Firefox, EFF, PBS
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Find out all the places where Microsoft Windows breaches any of the 500 patents IBM transferred to the opensource community.
The only way to get out of being sued by a megacorp is to find a way to grab their balls then threaten to squeeze if they do. Thats just the normal big business game these days.
Micro$$ code is secret so no one knows what it is or where it is in its code base. Suppose micro$$ in an effort to cause trouble, takes some linux code and just puts itinto its own codebase somewhere. They dont even have to really use the stolen code. Then all they have to do is now caption the code and perjoriousely claim that this code is theirs and is an essential part of windows. Who is going to prove them wrong seeing as they hold all their code in secret. They could do this multiple times and use their armies of lawyers to tie linux users up in courts for years. They could depend on their paid sock puppets like the senators from Utahahaha and Nevada to back them up in the political arena and pass even more laws raising them and their money above the law. Look at your software licenses. Would any other business get away with selling products that it was against the law to look at. Would any other business get away with laws holding them immune for product liability suits. And that is just for starters.
No, but they do fade away from dominance.
No, it doesn't.
Now go on and prove the opposite.
You may develop the idea independently, and if it's an obvious idea MS may lose out to prior art, however, this article gives the impression that MS code was stolen and incorporated into Linux, which is exceptionally unlikely.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
they know that this is totally ridiculous. combined with the fact that MS is scared like hell about linux (see halloween documents) and that steve ballmer saied (about 6 month ago) MS will fight linux (and started negotiations with novell short time later), I come to the conclusion that this is their plan:
- MS wants a monopole in the server market
- MS knows they can't beat linux in quality
- MS makes a contract with novell
- MS tells companies that suse is the only legal linux http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/07
---------- WE ARE HERE ---------
if( comanies switch to suse ) {
- MS buys novell
- MS rules the server market
} else {
- they'll make up something else and stab novell in the back }
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
It's clear MS has jumped the shark. It no longer even pretends to compete on features anymore. The CEO of the company had just started to wage a war patents. The war is not over, it's just started but this is their waterloo. MS will implode, they have just started a war they can't possibly win and have de-facto admitted that they are unable to compete on the quality and the desirability of their products.
It's not their last gasp, that won't come for a while but it's their first step along a path that spells their doom.
Sell your stock now, this company has nowhere to go but down.
evil is as evil does
Can't we all just get along?
Microsoft has access to the GPL'd code, we have access to patent descriptions. Anyone can investigate whether there's Microsoft patents in GPL software. And if there is actual MS code lying out there GPL'd illegally, the community can fix that just as soon as they inform people. Businesses that sell Linux may face lawsuits, but that's a risk Microsoft is equally exposed to. Look at the list of acknowledgments in IE sometime. The amount of software Microsoft finds, borrows and buys compared to initiates and develops in house is incredible.
... That would certainly be interesting but there's no reason for Microsoft to do this. It would dismiss the speculations about the claim being FUD, but it wouldn't achieve anything else."
"Some have called on Microsoft to come clear on what the infringements are
It would do something: it would promptly stop the distribution and unfair appropriation of MS developed and disclosed technology, as is their right under the law. Patent law exists to protect investments in technology and innovation, not to place landmines in the way of development. Doing nothing, when you're aware of infringements undermines the purpose and intent of disclosure in patents, and silently endorses the use of your technology. It seems to me the author thinks Microsoft can use the courts to negotiate a license on terms they'd be unable to receive under a normal business relationship.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
for one more time ...
you can infringe on a patent even if the code is entirely dissimilar.
A patent has nothing, NOT ONE THING, to do with patent infringement
If I patent a method which allows me to do some cunning thing with a web site, if it's accepted then you can't implement the same method - EVEN IF YOU WRITE ORIGINAL CODE. the patent has nothing to do with code. Nothing at all.
People are confusing patent infringement with copyright infringement.
It is, of course, entirely possible that MS code contains fragments of Linux code, but that is conveniently hard to research, let alone prove.
As soon as anyone would level that accusation the first question would be how they'd know in the first place (as you would have been handling stolen property AFAIK), and true "anonymous" doesn't exist anymore..
So, in principle MS, and, it must be said, any other company writing proprietary code could use GPL code in breach of license and company confidentialy would draw a nice, cosy veil over it. Strikes me as an incentive..
He first says that "there's at least a chance that Linux does indeed infringe on Microsoft's patents". And tries to justify this by saying "only Microsoft has access to most of its source code" . But only the whole damm planet has access to what the patents say.
What does Patents have to do w/ Source code. Does anyone think that Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is aware that anyone that has a patent has to basically make it public.
"Besides, the sheer difficulty that the average user faces in simply getting a Linux distribution to work correctly with their hardware proves that the community isn't really about innovation at all, because IF IT WERE, it'd be looking into making their tools as easy to use as the competition."
Actually, with Ubuntu and Gnome, IMO they're already there.
Let's see;
Installation of Apps:
Windows - Get on the internet, open a browser, search for application Foo, download application, start setup, click next a few times, agree to an EULA. Done.
Ubuntu - Get on the internet, open Synaptic, search for application Foo, select it, press apply, lean back while it installs itself.
Hardware support:
Windows - To get hardware working you generally *always* need to install the 3rd party drivers. Not to mention XP itself needs a floppy drive in order to install on modern Hardware.
Ubuntu - Admittedly spotty in some cases, but when it works the OS does a remarkable way of getting out of your way. Plug in your USB drive and see it magicly appear on your desktop, same thing with Digital Cameras, same thing with most other common hardware. Only problem is when the hardware deviate from the standard - Which doesn't happen all too often.
General use:
Windows - Come with the OS, a few games, a sub-par Webbrowser (yes, IE7 isn't quite up to snuff, even though it's a tremendous improvement over IE6), a bloated single-protocol IM software, a crippled media player and a few other things. Must-haves: Media Codecs, decent Media Player, decent Webbrowser, Office Suite, Antivirus, Antispyware.
Ubuntu - Come with the OS, a dozen or so games, a superb Webbrowser, a bloated multi-protocol IM-software , a crippled Media player, an Office suite and a few other things. Must-haves: Media Codecs, decent media player.
In closing, I find Ubuntu easier to use most of the time, and so does my mom (completely non-techie), sister (also non-techie) and my friend's parents (both non-techies). I'm not claiming Ubuntu is perfect, but if it were so bad, how come all these non-technical people are using it?
You think it's the fault of the left that China has most-favored nation trading status with the United States?
Yes:
You think it's the fault of the left that China has most-favored nation trading status with the United States?
Yes:
If you call Clinton a leftist you're either a Republican or you have your head up your ass. Actually, those're pretty much the same thing.It is now an integral and important part of my life. If some company comes along and tries to prevent me from using these open source products or supporting the community, there will be physical rebellion... or all out war.
Meh.
Top 15 Countries by Average Monthly Hours Online per Unique Visitor
Among Visitors Age 15+*
March 2006
Total Worldwide - All Locations
Source: comScore World Metrix
Avg. Hours per Visitor March-06
Worldwide 31.3
Israel 57.5
Finland 49.3
South Korea 47.2
Netherlands 43.5
Taiwan 43.2
Sweden 41.4
Brazil 41.2
Hong Kong 41.2
Portugal 39.8
Canada 38.4
Germany 37.2
Denmark 36.8
France 36.8
Norway 35.4
Venezuela 35.3
* Excludes traffic from public computers such as internet cafes or access from mobile phones or PDAs.
I'm sorry, where are those 150 million accounts on there? Given that the particular study you referenced doesn't mention how that estimate was reached, and the low amount of usage of the US compared to other nations, I would suggest that they're counting every member of an American household which owns a computer connected to the internet. This is not an accurate protrayal of *usage* which is more relevant than the number of aging relatives who've learned to send email.
Current success does not guarantee future existence.
Woolworth
K-Mart
Caldor
Zayer/Ames
Sears almost went under a decade ago
Wordperfect
Commodore
Atari
Coleco
Texas Instruments
RCA (RCA is just a brand name now)
Osborne
Zenith (just a brand name now)
Kodak (well, it has a faint pulse, but not much of one)
Polaroid (it's comatose, on life support now)
Service Merchandise
AMC
Packard
Studebaker
Tower Records
Pan-American Airways (just a brand name now)
Tonka/Kenner
Child World
Need I go on?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
You should check out Autopackage. Programs such as inkscape and Xara which use that installer are a breeze to install on any distribution; if dependencies are required the user is informed in a user-friendly manner, plus the user is prompted for the root (or sudo) password where/when privilege escalation is required rather than the installer's simply failing in a user-unfriendly manner. Meeting those dependencies is still difficult on some distros (notably Fedora and Redhat, which tend to lag behind others) but it's still far easier than most package management-based installers.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
OS X is not proprietary?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
twitter, is there a particular reason you've started using your sockpuppet account again?
Very good Anonymous, you can read. Just not very well. Try looking down a tad further:
China has had MFN status for several decades now... you can't pin it on Clinton alone.
(And yeah, the equation of "Democrats" and "Leftists" is pretty weak, but whatever.)
That's not a case I have any interest in advancing, but if I were going to I would point out that it's been a long time since China has invaded another country. On the other hand, it sure would be nice if they'd let Tibet go, eh?
Well, we're agreed on something then. It's one of the odder quirks of the American political scene, that "conservatives" are so gung ho about "globalization" (i.e. providing financial support to the world's largest communist dictatorship). I mean, how do get from "Cuba => embargo" to "China => 'we love you!'"?
(But anyway, I've been looking around for photos of the annual Chinese Torture and Imperialism celebration, but I haven't turned up any. Got links?)
Ever heard of Clive Sinclair?
I believe that David Stein's proposal is brilliant and quite workable on several levels. This is a dangerous and really good idea. This note is about how to set that up, ideas and suggestions.
I'm not a lawyer
A Wiki may be the best tool.
Seems to me we'll need to pull the patents somewhere, set them all as status: unread, then start going through them. It is not so easy to determine how we'll judge them right at this point. I think there will be levels of grey. Wikis allow this. I do think that after going over several hundred patents it will become clearer how to classify them, and we simply need to keep flexible, which Wiki lets us. Wikipedia's experience is a good guide here.
Thus, with experience, we can create a post-read status that is broad enough to classify the patents. If the post-read status is "this patent is absurd; need prior art" then we should issue a request for prior art. For example, we could put a stub in saying, "Need prior art for a 'bit-mapped screen' "
If we classify the patent as, "Probably a good patent on irritating animated paperclip", then, well, who cares? No sane person wants an irritating animated paperclip. We give it a "who cares" status as completely irrelevant.
All I'm pointing out here is the classifications will make themselves clearer as time goes by.
Do we have to be trained patent lawyers to read these things? I don't believe so. A patent is supposed to allow someone trained in the field to create the patented thing. I think after reading a few either we'll get it. People trained in patent law and IP can sure help a law, especially in tricky cases.
Just the fact that this structure is being set up to start work, and then is operating, will cause some -very- interesting activity (see also: Just What IP are we talking about here, Microsoft?). Therein is half the brilliance of David's idea.
If there are downstream consequences for knowing some patents then so be it. I can stand working in IT and never developing some software that Microsoft's patents cover (*yawn*).
We need ideas on how this could be implemented efficiently (e.g., how could these patents be accessed en masse, do they need to be scanned?), and so forth.
I'm a bit of an idealist so I'll just mention that the first time a bunch of software patents are openly checked could serve as a benchmark for how many software patents are appallingly bad, which in turn, might serve the purpose of turning them all off.
Thanks, David Small
davetracer@aol.com
From http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/docs/HOWTO/Advoca cy
And how do you keep the militiant anti-microsoft crowd from destroying your wiki by marking everything "who cares" or otherwise ruining your rating system?
If you limit who has the ability to edit the wiki, then you have to deal with some method to decide who gets to contribute, and who doesn't -- might be a problem, but might not (think "your honor, their own 'experts' did not include people such as PERSON-X or PERSON-Y, noted experts in the field, who tried to volunteer their services but were turned down. Obviously their conclusions are flawed if they don't want experts to review these patents!" -- it doesn't have to make sense, it just has to seem reasonable to a judge).
As I posted elsewhere, this is going to come down to a linux-friendly company with deep pockets paying a flock of patent lawyers to go over stuff.
Nice though wikis can be, they're not the solution to everything.
Since that fact might influence the ongoing debate in the EU on software patents. It'll show the grave negative effects of software patents, and defeat those that seem to think that more IP protection always is automatically good for the economy.
It's not like they're going to go after us with a 'Linux tax.' Kingsley-Hughes imagines that, for the most part, Microsoft is just going to sit on this info and use it to form more and more profitable deals.
The above are foolish remarks. Go read about the first DOJ case, then go read about the second. Microsoft will go after any profit it can get, legal or not, moral or not. This fantasy that Microsoft is somehow above requiring royalty payments from Linux distribution vendors in exchange for not getting sued out of existence -- remember, MS can and would out-spend and therefore out-last ANY challenge, valid or not -- is simply asinine and in obvious ignorance or denial of historical fact.
If Microsoft opens the case against Linux, then the world will have to do likewise against Microsoft. And then it will not be limited to Linux, but to every other software vendor, and would MS want to open their source to scrutiny?
Do you think that only Microsoft employees have exclusivity on honesty; every one of them honestly developed propriatory logic to solve problems, without having completed research and possibly copying an already existing bit of logic from prior publications. Not one of the 30,000+ developers would do that! Right!
Leslie Montreal
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Last time I checked, the project leader of the Linux kernel was Linus Torvalds. Last time I checked, he was living in the US. Therefore he is subject to US laws. Did he move or what?
People in other countries could fully fork it, but it seems the mainline kernel is run by quite a few people living in the US--I seem to remember a few other big leaders in the project are in US too.
I would love to see how much open source code (specifically BSD) is in MS's OS. The whole IP Stack, DNS. How much open source in Directory Services? Who much perloined code is in all of MS's X.500 products? That being said then MS's seems to have an obligation to at least leave well enough alone. If MS where really magnamimous it would donate a little ot the Open Source world. If not for the simple fact that it will always come around to help them out in the long run with more inovation that can be re-channeled into future MS endevors. Since MS is always against the ropes it would not be in their best interest to start pushing some crappy patent claims against the open source world. That would really endear them with the EU, South American Govt.'s, US Dept of Justice and several Attorney State Generals...
Paul E. Bahre
How would one know anyway, whats to stop Microsoft from stealing and inserting GPL'ed source code into Windows source code base and claiming they wrote it first? Does any independent third party hold Microsoft source code in some sort of a legal proof copy? If so how often is the base updated and re-certified, with the constant evolution/bug fixes of the code base? The way I see it there is no way for closed source software to prove it's copyright short of such a method, even a check sum value of the packages can be manipulated with comments and such. It seems to me that closed source code should never have been granted any form of copyright protection since issues such as this prevent it's being clearly provable as legitimate. Things like a book, digital document, schematic or blueprint are certainly easy enough to prove as legitimate first copy, but closed source code, how?
Another thing, just how much GPL'ed IP is Microsoft Infringing upon? How is anyone to know? You can't compare the code because it one party keeps its code closed. As of yet another issue, just what IP are they discussing anyway, that subject to the law in the USA?
Now this is an example of a IP issue where copyrights are concerned. The other IP issue is patent infringement which is just as stinky a mess due to reckless patent grants. Way to many patents have been issued for obvious fundamental computing concepts, business methods, research methods, technological concepts, etc. Software patents are an especially way too generalized in application. I have looked at a few and the way they are written makes me wonder who the idiots were that thought issuing patents for such a nasty mess was a good idea. I am surprised that no one has managed to patent gravity yet. Political/corporate USA has a huge interest in sequestering and protecting IP since it is about all they can look forward to now that they have sold off/out virtually all of its value added services like materials processing and manufacturing for short term gains.
The next 50 years should be interesting.
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew
Did you actually chase the Y2K bogeyman? I did. The Fortune 500 company I contracted at invested insane amounts of overtime to have myself and many like me chase through millions of lines of non-critical, non-realtime code to attempt to find and fix Y2K issues. All to enable management to prove that they were "responsible" and effective in handling a crisis. (Never mind the fact that shareholder's money was being spent like water on a problem that mostly didn't need fixing). Other developers I've spoken with shared much the same story. I suspect a study of the overall effectiveness of Y2K remedial efforts would reveal that, in most cases, there really wasn't much of a problem. The primary benefit reaped by Y2K remediation was a general spotting and fixing of previously unseen bugs, not an avoidance of the much-hyped Y2K meltdown.
David Stein, could you contact me off /. to discuss this? Thank you.
David Small
davetracer@aol.com
so what part of microsoft do you work for? microsoft is for people who are dumb enough to use the virus loving bug-ridden bloatware and stupidly pay the microsoft tax on every new machine. linux is for people who can think.