Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer Repeats Threats Against Linux
daria42 writes "Steve Ballmer has reissued Microsoft's patent threat against Linux, warning open-source vendors that they must respect his company's intellectual property. In a no-nonsense presentation to New York financial analysts last week, Microsoft's chief executive said the company's partnership with Novell, which it signed in November 2006, "demonstrated clearly the value of intellectual property, even in the open-source world.""
I wonder how Balmer thinks that they are going to sue something that no one owns, that no one made.
Is he going to sue anyone who uses this?
Is he going to sue those who hoste the code?
From the article it seems it is mostly the Linux vendors that Ballmer wants to target.
The US is, as far as I know, the only country that has implented all these sick software patent laws until now, how are they going to sue a UK based company?
With the current state of things the worst that could happen is that companies stop using Linux in the US, I don't see how they want to sue anyone based in Europe?
Would the US government then start supporting Microsoft in trade wars?
This whole software patent thing is beyond my understanding, I wonder if anyone out there really get the idea behind this?
So MS is now short for MegaSCO?
There is a war going on for your mind.
IBM is still digging into SCO's near corpse to find the detials of SCO's accusations. Which were, are and for ever more shall be totally bogus.
Ballmer needs to stop saying "they stole our IP" and start citing versions, files, lines and patent numbers. Otherwise Microsoft looks like a bigger SCO. And that is not a pretty picture for a company like Microsoft intends itself to be.
when he throws a chair.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
... to throw chairs at your underlings.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
So, this time he has given us a clear indication of what IP linux may infringe?
Home fucking is killing prostitution.
To: Steve Ballmer
Dear sir,
Either file suit against the parties infringing on your precious IP, or SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Sincerely,
Everyone
P.S. - Vista blows donkey balls.
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
So how many patents does MS infringe upon?
Why, yes! I AM new here.
Ballmer's Thought Process:
Hmmm Vista is floundering and we need to distract the press from this and the piracy angle isn't working... what can we do... oh yeah, let's threaten open source, that should distract them.
Alternately
Hmmm Vista sales are floundering, and even I'm not stupid enough to really think it's piracy causing it, Hmmmm.... it must be that open source stuff, time to threaten to sue somebody.
.technomancer
I would expect any effort to sue Linux will result in exposure of Microsoft source in discovery to confirm there is not massive patent infringement there which could be used for a countersuit to balance Microsoft's claim.
I'm certain that there are massive patent infringements present- possibly entire blocks of barely disquised code copied from other sources and that Microsoft isn't even aware how bad their exposure on this issue is.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Excellent reason to stay boycott Novell Suse, Ximian, Mono and other possible fifth-columnists who keep tying the open source world ever closer to C# and Microsoft.
Does anyone remember that South Park episode where Cartman became a cop?
Just think of Ballmer with those aviator sunglasses on (that had the reflection of mountains in the background) shouting: 'You will respect my intellectual propertayyyyy!!!'
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
They are speaking of the spit patent. If you spit on a sidewalk, Microsoft gets 10% of your income. Just read the EULA, they own the sidewalk that you carried your computer down to get it into your house. It's all there, in it's wonderful legal mumbo jumbo.
If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
I somehow doubt Microsoft would be foolish enough to actually fire off patent suits . . . especially when there are other big players with massive patent portfolios and a vested interest in Linux . . .
Secretary: "Mr. Ballmer, I have a group of IBM attorneys in the lobby asking to see you, shall I let them in?"
Ballmer: "My God Man! Do they want to settle my patent suit against Linux?"
Secretary: "I'm not sure what they want sir . . . but they brought a flag.
Linus Torvalds will come home and find the head of a penguin in his bed.
Hobbyists and free software advocates have succeeded where Bill Gates said they could not. They have put out a usable, alternative to solution to just about everything. This irritates people in the lock'em'in software business, as suddenly now they have competition that not only won't just go away, but is demanding and developing alternative standards to proprietary formats.
They are not only threatening as a competitor, but they threaten companies like MS with eventual obsolescence. And let's face it: no company wants to deal with something that will eventually put them out of business if it succeeds.
What's funny about Linux is that it is sort of a Microsoft tactic to get rid of competitors, namely, we'll give it away. That's how they put Netscape out of business, how they attained so much market share in media players, etc. Linux is the ultimate "we'll give it away" solution, giving away everything even the OS.
You can see why software businesses could feel threatened by Linux, but legally, they probably don't have a leg to stand on either way. Nobody can say they own a patent to a generic GUI, when Apple, MS, OS/2, etc. etc. have all used GUIs. Linux is in little to no legal trouble. But it's the last leg that they can stand on when competing for enterprise marketshare when all the other FUD runs through.
They are protecting what may soon be a failing business model: the proprietary software development house.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
I don't think that model is failing, but it will be eventually relegated to legacy & niche software. And games. Don't forget games.
There is a war going on for your mind.
How long ago was it that Microsoft was complaining that the better product should prevail due to competition and not through litigation in the courts?
Seems that they are now changing their tune... I'm not surprised...
Here's the threat. The Business Software Alliance already can come in and audit companies for bootleg copies of Microsoft software. If they've forced their way in to do an audit anyway, and they find "unauthorized copies" of Microsoft-claimed "IP" - which is to say, Linux running - then in the future they can try to levy the same penalties against you as they currently do for running more copies of Office than you can produce licenses for.
From our perspective, this absolutely has to be stopped. But the BSA already has the legal authority to get in the door in many cases, and once they're looking at your systems for Microsoft wares, they'd better be checking the Linux boxes for Word running under Wine anyway - so checking them for Linux is a minor afterthought.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
It's already a failing business model. Unfortunately, they're doing the same thing the RIAA is- paying the government to keep them afloat.
Microsoft isn't the only one- look at Autodesk.
Care about privacy? Read this!
Microsoft spent the last 20 years copying ideas from Apple, Netscape, Sun, AOL, Burst, and Google -- and now they have the nerve to complain that Linux looks like Windows??
If you check the past postings, you will find that MS and Sun financed SCO. Some have claimed that Sun was simply buying usb drivers. But they paid 40-20x what anybody else would have paid and received something like 5% of SCO, which was the same amount that MS got. Later Sun quietly sold off the stock, and I would guess so did MS.
Does anybody know whether he (Ballmer) threw any chair around?
In both cases there would be a brief chilling effect on the competition -- until the offending IP is pulled out of the Linux core and it is recompiled, at which point M$ has nothing. Except that in the mean time they may get hauled back into court for anti-monopoly practices, and that offending the highly intelligent Linux community is about as smart as kicking over a nest of fire ants -- because every major bit of M$ released code will be targeted for suing M$ for their own patent infringing code, etc.
So Ballmer's threat is akin to a robber pulling a gun in a doughnut shop only to discover that he is surrounded by a room full of well-armed, motivated policeman who would like nothing more than to put his sorry a$$ back where it belongs. We all know this, and M$ knows it as well. But so long as he can sell a few more copies of Vista, XP, etc. Ballmer has little to lose by acting the bully in the mean time.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
How's the FUD coming?
This is a classic case of casting fear, uncertainty, and doubt on a competing product. Lame. How about they spend that time and money making their own products better?
-Turkey
otherwise MS would actually name the patents, so Open-Source projects would avaoid them, and so Open-Source users would be confident of their status.
But confidence in Opoen-Source is exactly what MS doesn't want.
Fizz
It's just a FUD campaign.
If they had a real argument they would have taken it to court by now. Failure to do so would be contrary to MSFT shareholder interests.
If Ballmer wants to cite the infringement, then the Linux world can replace that code with something else that is not infringing, but that is not what Ballmer wants. Ballmer looks like he is shepherding a monolith sled down a slick slope of accusations, rather than innovating.
If Ballmer, at the head of one of the largest multibillion dollar companies in the world, can't inspire and run and produce top of the line code to make its products "Excel" on their merits and do it in a timely manner, then he ought to quit.
Ballmer is a bully, who can't even use his monopoly well (witness deficiencies in VISTA), so he switches from throwing chairs to threatening to sick the lawyers on everyone. What a wimp.
I can't see a corporation succeeding in the 21st century without being able to deliver consistently better products. When I have read the reviews on the latest VISTA OS, I uniformly am not seeing praise.
Mr. Ballmer, look inward to see where the problems for Microsoft exist.
Behold "Young Frankensteve" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6rqXHX3O48&eurl= . :)
Because it wasn't too long ago that they had to hand over around a billion dollars to Sun alone due to the patents and IP that Microsoft was infringing.
Microsoft clearly take IP abuse very seriously, like giving credit when they use open source software, or when stealing other commercial companies IP, they are clearly very serious about abusing other people's IP.... they've been doing that so long they just seem to assume that everyone else must be doing it too.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Shame on us, the Linux community, for stealing things like graphical interfaces and claiming it's ours.
Shame on us for stealing enhanced search ideas and claiming it's ours.
Oh, wait...
Mod points are a dangerous tool. Abuse them wisely.
This will probably happen in court. And MS can always ask the court to seal the records to prevent "loss of company secrets" or some such thing.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
It is very nice to hear Mr Ballmer yelling (cursing) this way, it means he is affraid for open source, open source is making more revenue then Mr ballmer wants.
So guys keep on the good work, when Mr Ballmer is yelling like a fool, the work is very good.
Thank you developers for this nice moment.
You are reissuing empty threat against Open Source. (Cancel/Allow)?
In Soviet Russia, dots slash you!
...should be required by law to publicly release compilable source code. That way it's easy to see who is copying things. As it is, Microsoft can look at Linux source, but the reverse is impossible.
Hobbyists and free software advocates have succeeded where Bill Gates said they could not. They have put out a usable, alternative to solution to just about everything.
"Hobbyists and free software advocates?" Like who?
Red Hat/Fedora - large corporation that had built a brand name on Linux.
Novell/SUSE - large corporation that had built a brand name on Linux.
Ok, that's just two examples, but let's accept that Linux reached the point of being a commercial thing years ago.
It would interesting to see how much if the real work on Linux is being done by hobbyists, and how much comes out of paid developers at a handful of medium to large corporations.
Three Squirrels
Once Microsoft starts filing patent litigation, a cadre of cross-litigation will ensue, from the likes of Red Hat (small cap) to IBM (major cap). Thanks to the SCO litigation, the ability to prove property rights is no longer in question. The remaining patent issues will cause a backlash against Microsoft of the size it has never before seen, just when its flagship operating system can't get out of the tank, and its flagship server operating system is devolving into little server licenses for all of the elements that should be in the box, like certificate management, email, and so on. Go ahead Steve. Make your lawyers rich, and your friends very pissed off.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Remember folks, Ballmer was talking to financial analysts, not technology people. Ballmer loves to grandstand when he's talking to money. And someday his big mouth is going to get him in trouble.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
If any Open Source projects start trying to copy the Vista 'IP' it's their own funeral - no need for a lawsuit...
Nothing witty
Balmer and Co. are lining up the daleks up. You need to bail on the agreement and take to the hills, NOW! Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate!
Look Out Above!
This sabre rattling against Linux has potential adverse effects for the entire economy, if Microsoft is able to push Windows into every corner. Windows is just terrible in certain situations, such as ATMs and aruably, pocket PCs and handheld devices. Perhaps the government should be looking into anti-trust; we need to see competition in the market place for operating systems.
IBM has a big stake in LINUX continuing as it is. A relatively large percentage of their big mainframes are sold with LINUX running on them. The reason for having a large number of patents is to have the leverage to negotiate mutual use agreements. Balmer and MS will cause trouble by forcing some sort of mutual use agreement while spreading fear and doubt in the potential users of LINUX.
MS has got to be feeling some pressure with lack luster VISTA success. They have huge amounts of cash; but, the business analysts have to be wondering how long it will last if their cash cows start to under produce. When stocks sell at large multiples of their earnings the price is set by confidence that the company's earnings will increase at a steady rate. If confidence in the company's ability should fail, MS would be very disrupted. It hasn't happened yet; but, they have to allay the fears of people who recommend stocks.
Look at him go!
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Ballmer really needs to shut the hell up. He doesn't know HTML from Source code, and has the 'high school football jock' mentality.
I wish to GOD all you pro-FOSS people could be sent back to the IT industry of the 70's so you could EXPERIENCE the 666-kinds of HELL that it was being in IT when no two computer manufacturer's systems were interoperable (cripes even most computers from the SAME manufacturer required significant effort to work co-operatively unless they were identical models!). -- On a side note, this probably goes a long way to explaining why IBM is so enthralled with this approach: through it they see a return to the era when that business-model allowed them to rule the IT world.
Anyway, getting back to my point, at least if you could actually spend some time in that technological quagmire, you'd get a clue as to why that glow that YOU see coming off your idea of 80,000+ home-brewed Linux distros scattered across a hundred million unique installations ISN'T some nirvana-like halo, but rather the resurgent glow of the burning pits that we all crawled out of 25 years ago...
Going from a time of near-global compatibility and interoperability (now) to virtually zero of either (without significant individual knowledge of C/C++ and the MAKE utility) (as you imagine it) is TRULY a trip back into hell...
WHY? Microsoft source isn't at issue here. If MS never produced Windows, they'd still have the patents, and the patents are what counts.
Repeating? He is a Teletubbie! :-)
Al Gore should sue, he invented everything!
Microsoft had already sold 35,000 open-source coupons out of the 70,000
what is open-source coupon?
http://xkcd.com/c225.html
If it's as valuable as that Novell/MS deal, it's not that bad.
zip is zip.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I agree completely. This is nothing but FUD. Balmer is doing his best to convince people that if they run Linux they may run into serious future issues so best to play it safe and stay on Windows platforms.
What intellectual property he is talking about ? What if people who helped draft the TCP/IP protocol decides that from now on only xyz company can use there intellectual standard . If any OS that sends me a packets on port 137,138,139 ,etc, i(my OS) reserved the right to respond in kind . So , keep your patented intellectual protocol away from my pc , otherwise my OS will respond in the same language that other OS(sender) understand.
There seems to be a lot of that going on lately...
Because who else except a floundering closed-source company that bought a Linux distro in a desperate attempt to find a new business model could unanimously act as IP Position spokesman for the entire "open source world", as His Ballmerness so eloquently put it?
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
'the Linux world can replace that code with something else that is not infringing'
I think he realises they claims that OSS violates MS Intelluctual Property are void. Else why are they going about reinventing open protocols. According to the Halloween documents one way of deny OSS projects entry into the market is to de-commoditize protocols & applications.
davecb5620@gmail.com
... Richard Stallman was seen banging his shoe on a table while shouting "we will bury you!".
Just as the SCO matter looks like winding down (with The SCO Group running out of money to fund the bogus legal action) up pops Microsoft repeating exactly the same accusations and, in the same manner as Darl, not identifying the IP that they claim is theirs.
It's time to challenge Microsoft. Either identify by file and line, the code that they believe is their IP or shut up.
Linux source is visible to all. Even Ballmer can download and grep through it. SCO did and couldn't find their IP.
Microsoft think that they are legally untouchable. Prove them wrong.
Clearly Microsoft is trying scare tactics with Vista sales floundering and piracy apparently not an adequate scapegoat.
As for Novell, I'm not really sure what to take from this because despite its "alliance" with Microsoft, it's still trying to take something from it.
See this article for more.
What really counts in a patent suit is that the patents are protected (i.e. defended when infringed) and VALID. MS has a history of using (mostly BSD) Open Source code in it's products. If challenged in a case, it would be trivial to show that the patent was let erroneously, because of prior art. MS settled with Novell because Novell OWNS outright the source code AND THE APIs of Unix. If MS uses BSD in it's products, then it is in a tenuous position in regards to infringing the IP of Novell.
You don't see Novell asking the Open Source community for licensing fees, since they know the source is clean, and they support it.
dot-sig.
IBM has a big stake in LINUX continuing as it is.
So does Google, Yahoo, and a number of other serious players. Steve's threats may frankly bite him in the ass.
Where have YOU been.
...as far as 70's era computers go: I'D LOVE VAX CLUSTERS.
NOTHING CHANGED.
For serious systems, you are still limited to single vendor solutions. This is necessary for support. The moment you add "generic" memory to an HP, IBM or Sun their support people will give you the cold shoulder when a problem happens. The components may be cheaper due to open standards shared by all of the vertically integrated vendors but the basic situation remains.
You're forgetting that the whole point of these machines is to DO WORK. That requires that they be engineered well for that work and not just slapped together like some 50's japanese radio. Cost is NOT the first consideration. Making your own multi-vendor Frankenstein isn't either.
Quit confusing hardware standards (that existed even in the 70's) with software standards and monopolization.
Your 80K distro remark is also a pathetic false strawman.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
i've always liked the example of 'ftp.exe'
the version i used for the following example was taken from a server 2003 box
strings ftp.exe | grep Copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
Someone please remind me, are we so poor nerds that we absolutely must work and help MS's products look and work better than they actually are? To help the bottom line of this chair throwing asshat?
Why should we help him and his lame attempts to do business? Why should we help anyone, be it relative, neighbor or company, be successful with MS software? Because of money? Are we that poor?
Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
Yeah, but before there was binary compatibility, there was ZERO possibility of virus propagation.
If we brought back deliberate binary incompatibility, but in a controlled way (i.e., enforced source compatibility; well-packaged source tarballs build anywhere and ones that don't are badly packaged), and insisted for compiling an application to require a deliberate act on the part of the user, there would be no more malware.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
http://www.xkcd.com/c225.html
Um, no.... The rule for ALL patents is that an idea can't be patented, but a device which implements the idea can. For example in the mechanical world, they have had "nut crackers" and different kind of "nut cracking machines" for many many years. So I can't patent the idea of a nut cracking machine, but if I come up with a device that is the latest greatest way of cracking a nut out of it's shell (the nut cracking laser-cryo sonic air-hammer 2007...), and it doesn't infringe on someone else's patent I can patent it myself.
Which in the case of a "software patent" means that if an "inventor" comes up with a unique algorithm that implements a particular type of functionality (say video compression) in a way that has never been done before AKA no prior art, etc., they can patent it. Not that I agree with software patents by the way. Because the USPTO and the courts seem hopelessly clueless on understanding the difference between the ideas and the implementations and all of the anti-reverse engineering crap, etc. in the DMCA made it even worse.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
All this article does is further this thought: Would Mr. Ballmer continue to rant and rave, threaten and coerce if he didn't believe that Linux may eat his lunch at some point. I believe that the more you hear from Microsoft and it's leaders the worse Microsoft's wallet is being drained.
Linux isn't "stealing Microsoft's candy". A better analogy would be that Linux is eating fruit that grows on trees everywhere, instead of buying Microsoft's expensive proprietary candy.
Agree with you that closed source will soon be extinct. But it will be the development of a decompiler that puts the nail in the coffin. Whoever spoke with a straight face of abolishing slavery, before the time of James Watt?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
with 50 billion bucks and a still-functioning business model to use in suing the world. M$ is so fricken big that one workable legal tactic is to hire all the best lawfirms so you can't get a good lawyer.
I don't think he's blowing smoke as some have suggested. I really think M$ wants to sue anyone and everyone until they have finally broken Linux.
M$'s real strategic difficulty is doing this without triggering antitrust actions, class action suits from competitors, a genuine revolt from other countries, the software industry,etc. Global-sized coordinated opposition is preventing M$ from launching RIAA-style attacks on the world.
Oh, and one other thing is at least slowing them down: The complete and utter invalidity in any such claims.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
I am gonna FUCKIN' *KILL* Balmer!!!!
{throws chair across room}
Caveat Utilitor
I think you are right; but, more interesting is the whole question of whether software patents serve any public good at all. The original reason for patents is to see to it that inventors are rewarded for innovations that might be very expensive to develop. It seems to me that a lot software patents tend to look like someone patenting air. The expensive part of software development is almost constant in a given software development process. The special little algorithms that people develop don't look the same to me as the car Alternator. (I think that was a Chrysler innovation.)
Take 100 groups of people working on the problems solved by some of these patents. Now project how many of these groups would fail to solve the problem. Would the answer be larger than 1 in most cases? The only utility of software patents is to increase the number of billable hours in corporate law firms.
"Sales of Vista are really horrible"
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
From the TFA:
Maybe my interpretation is wrong, but I interpreted this as him clearly stating that Linux is cheaper than Windows. What ever happened to "Get the Facts?"
"What a ma-ROON!"
-- Bugs Bunny
Nitewing '98
Everything works...in theory.
Can we get LinuxTag to do to MS what they did to SCOX? Basically, get a court ruling that says, "Put up or shut up"?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
This whole software patent thing is beyond my understanding, I wonder if anyone out there really get the idea behind this?
The idea behind this is the same as it has been behind any kind of legally-enforced (though hopefully temporary) monopoly: control over something that has value.
If I have control over something that you want, then you will have to do what I want in order to get it. In most cases, that translates to you giving me money for something you can't get anywhere else. In theory such temporary monopolies stimulate innovation (though there is good reason to believe that changes in the technological and socio/economic landscape have made this not true anymore...but that is a different debate).
Software is valuable. It is even more valuable than the computer that runs it. Computers have become very general-purpose tools, and the software that runs them can transform any computer into an information-processing powerhouse. So, people want it. This means there is a natural incentive to try to take control of it. If you want your computer to do x, you must pay me...you have no other alternative.
The problem is that software is very difficult to control in this way. Its not like a physical product wherein each copy must be individually constructed. Copies can be duplicated at infinitum at zero cost once a single copy is made available. Further, someone else can recreate the software just from a high-level description of its functions, so an original copy is often not needed.
So software patents are odd beasts. All the incentives for old methods of control are in place, but the mechanisms of control don't work well. The end result is the passing of a lot of new laws that rob people of some very basic freedoms (control over their own computers), are notoriously difficult to enforce, and will result in a lot of good people being unjustly harmed for doing reasonable things.
- In breaking news, Ballmer says "We have the IP on drinking water, toilets & TV. Anyone using them will be receiving a court summons in the next few hours"
No, really !
They look like they came from the same litter and now they share the same blustering attitude.
Steve Ballmer.
But at least now they have Novell in their pocket and that is no small coup. Face it, the public side was that this deal was about protecting Novell. It wasn't. It was about protecting Microsoft.
So to Novell, thank you for taking a brief interest in open source and then stabbing it in the back. But be warned that when you sleep with a disease infested crack whore you're going to contract something yourself. You idiots.
Anyone looked at the list of patents Microsoft has and checked them against GNU/Linux (Samba & Freetype being the most likely to infringe).
The reason Ballmer doesn't say anything is simple. If he did, one or more of three things would happen:
* The code would be immediately rewritten.
* The patent would be challenged and they would likely lose it
* Patent wars between Linux supporters and Microsoft would begin, with the end result that either all the patents would be invalidated or no software would be able to ship or patents would be so massively cross-licensed that they would effectively be meaningless.
By playing coy, Ballmer is actually hurting his case. If he's bluffing, he's basically running a protection racket. He's basically saying we know there's a problem but we're not going to tell you what it is because we want to ambush you in the future.
Neither of these two options are looked too kindly by judges.
And since all Linux projects are done out in the open with full disclosure and most have the policy that "if there is a dispute, we'll rewrite the code" (even Mono has this provision), and is often done by volunteers who want to fill a need (e.g. schools, 3rd world, etc), it would be easy to portray Linux in a favourable light to the judge.
Unfortunately, Novell handed them a source of SCO-like FUD that obscures these issues.
So Novell, here's my request to you. Even if you can't get out of the MS deal, could you cut the knees off of the MS FUD by writing a legal document that states categorically that:
1) The deal is not about patents and if Microsoft believes that the deal is, then it now hereby waves any protection from Microsoft
2) That to the best of Novell's knowledge, Linux is not in violation of any patents.
3) That unless Ballmer states what Linux IP is in place, Novell will have no choice but to file a sue Microsoft on Liable and/or extortion charges.
If Novell did this, and followed through on (3) with the help of other Linux distros if Ballmer doesn't shut up, then the Novell-MS deal FUD would vanish and Novell would regain much of it's previous respect.
Here's a question. If Linux was a single company's product like MS Windows is of Microsoft, couldn't legal measures be taken against the convicted monopoly arch-rival from this sort of action? That is, why can't the SCO/MS strategy of FUD without providing evidence be outlawed? Maybe we need a new law to outlaw FUD, especially when it comes from a convicted monopoly. Something to cut through the legal games.
Certainly the totally opaque Novell deal is not clear at all. That journalists and publications who publish such drivel are even respected is also bizarre to me.
It seems that as governments of individual jurisdictions switch more and more to Linux, they will get more tired of FUD and perhaps even lean toward outlawing or defanging such unfounded threats. If so that would mean Balmer's tactics amount to rushing to spread as much FUD as possible before this window closes.
To me, linux is already a key part of the U.S.' national infrastructure. Why can't it do anything to muzzle this crap? FUD is bad for the economy.
The only client I've got currently using windows CE is looking for help migrating away from it. Everyone else is desperate to get their products onto linux as soon as possible. This is a very different situation than the desktop; embedded tools are pretty primitive compared to Dev Studio, there's zero lock-in to any processor, and the code is almost always all custom anyway so nobody cares about legacy.
This pandering to the IP monkies is something that might help deter that, but I don't see how else MS hopes to win on an embedded platform except the courtroom. Even their cheap liscences cost a lot more than free.
..don't panic
Which is why the difference between Free Software and Open Source Software matters so much. The GPL takes patents into account. Most OSS-but-not-Free licenses don't.
It's also why we need software to be Free, not just "open source". Open Source is easily bastardized ("Shared Source" anyone), while Free is free and not as easily embraced, extended, extinguished.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
that Microsoft funded/used/fronted SCO for a dummy run to see how the world would respond, and what mistakes not to make when MS do their own run against Linux.
Given that the SCO case is still ongoing (just), it seems Microsoft is setting up for the longest legal battle in history. This makes sense as it is just their same old tried-and-tested strategy where they would just basically tie competition up in so much red tape that they went under from excessive legal bills. It seems Microsoft can't innovative in their business or legal strategy as well as their products.
Microsoft can only win against Linux if they fight a war of attrition, because their argument has no real merit but MS do have almost limitless financial/legal resources so any sort of business entity that is in the Linux camp will really need to watch out.
The good thing is that the very nature of Open Source is that millions of individuals contribute, meaning Microsoft has to sue the world (read: including their own customer base) to really win.
I'm tired of GPL. I want just Public Domain. Companies make a profit from GPL source anyway, and there are ways to make pseudo proprietary solutions like Red Hat anyway based on Free Software code.
Not only that, but using the GPL let's all this assholes bother us just like SCO did, and let's all this shit happened.
Just put everything on Public Domain, no accountability, no patent infringement (Maybe, but it's public domain, who are you going to sue?).
Also, no more try to convince people that Free Software is good. People is stupid and they have the shit they asked for. They want to use Windows? Better for us. We already have a huge code base that is free and that everyone can use, and we will continue developing it.
Let's really fuck the big guys. Who is going to profit from using our code to make proprietary products? Some small company like codeweavers?, or even red hat?. Let them do it, that doesn't really affect us.
And while we keep using the GPL, we are part of the market, and we play under their rules. What we have to give them is ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY.
And, about their FUD, should we care? Sometime ago i really wanted companies and individuals to know the benefits of Free Software, to use and contribute to it. Right now? The information is out there. The GNU System is complete, and it's the best operating system ever created. We have a great Kernel for it, a few years ago i would have minded if it was Linux and not something produced by the GNU Project. Right now?, i want the code, and i want it free. I still adhere to the ideals of RMS and the FSF, it's just that i want the rights we fought for only for us. Aristotle said that pity was a sick and dangerous state of mind. Thanks to the work started by RMS more than 20 years ago, we have a full Free Operating System, and lots of applications. They are under a Free License and everyone can use it. Trying to help certain people to understand the benefits of using this software after 20 years of doing it is feeling pity for them. And, as Nietzsche said "The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it."
They are the weak. We should now get out of the middle, be happy using our software, and let them perish. It's the kind of life they have chosen.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
PS. Linux isn't an acronym. :p
Just look for the dusted Linux installation disks in your drawer, and you've copied most of Vista's novelties.
Trust me, I work for the government.
If I remember correctly, its all about integration to reverse engineered protocols such as SMB and storage architecture such as NTFS. Microsoft holds a patent on these, and doesn't want anyone integrating without paying a ridiculous license fee. The argument is because of documentation around the protocols, that much of it wasn't reverse engineered but based on proprietary documentation. At the end of the day, these are valid patents.
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
I've heard that they patented things they didn't invent, knowing that they will not be sued. The best thing business or customer can do is to stay away from VISTA or this expensive XP Service Pack 3. Think different for once. Umbutu is great, OSX can run almost anything securely.
I'm not going to pretend to understand what the hell Ballmer means by all this, but isn't it far more likely that there is Linux/GNU's code in windows than windows code in GNU/Linux, seeing how one has source code public and the other doesn't? And even if they find "the same code" in both, is it still not more likely that this code originated from GNU/Linux, and was subsequently used in Windows? And if anyone is willing to clear this up for me, when he says linux, does he mean the GNU Project + Linux Kernel or just the Linux Kernel, or does he even know what the fuck he is talking about?
Windows is a closed source system. How exactly do you think your intellectual property got into Linux? The Linux kernel on the other hand is open source. If there's code in Windows that is also in the Linux kernel, it would only make sense that your developers put it there by copying it from Linux.
You sir, are an ignorant jackass.
If anyone *REALLY* wants to know what code belongs to M$ is the Linux community. I would feel violated knowing M$ has any of their garbage running on my system.
So PLEASE M$ tell us...... we want to get rid of your viruses--uh code much more than you do.
I think my system is "clean" because everything just works!
I WAS talking about software...
/.'rs have ANY inkling of..
Back in the day (as it were) you COULD NOT take applications from your Univac to an IBM, or a DEC or Sperry or-any-of-a-dozen-other-vendors platforms. There was virtually ZERO cross compatibility. The absolute BEST you could hope for was to port your raw uncompiled application code (assuming you weren`t using Assembler b/c you needed to stretch your 16kb of RAM as far as you absolutely possible) onto one of the other platforms, re-jigger the vendor-specific portions of the language (RPG/RPGII/COBOL/PL-I typically) from YOUR vendor to those of the destination and make sure you're crossing your fingers and touching wood as often as possible along the way.
All that, a team of technicians and consultants and the stars aligning just right and you might get your application ported over in a coupla months.
This is why hardly ANYONE changed their platforms until the merger mania of the 70's (which, ironically, drove almost everyone to IBM).
After that, we had the "micro-burst" starting around 1977:
Suddenly we there were (just by way of example) TRS-80's (I,II,III,CoCo), Commodore's (Pet, Vic20, c64, Amiga), Apple's (I/II, Mac, Lisa), Atari's (400,800,ST) and a host of other new platforms which were (wait for it) COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY un-interoperable! Sometimes even computers produced by the same company were essentially incompatibly, even when they were based on similiar (or THE EXACT SAME) CPUs!
So in the "goldrush", everyone bought something, and unsurprisingly, for a little while, virtually nobody worked with anyone who didn't own the same platform (which was sort of okay b/c that had been the mentality in all the years prior anyway). Then, around 1980-82 the IBM PC and PC/MS-DOS started changing the world and bringing everyone together onto a uniform platform with (near)universal interoperability and compatibility what happened next? Everyone saw how much BETTER it was when a program could be written and everyone else could just USE IT, no porting, no re-compiling, in fact, you didn't even need to KNOW what a compiler was to make use of all the software being produced by every/any -one else around the world. When this realisation sunk in, PC's exploded into the mainstream.
Now we're back to the present and this cause which is championed most prominently by two groups:
* IBM who has the dual-vision of returning to their pre-1990 "heydey" business model AND of sticking it to MS (whom they despise for unseating them in the first place)
* a global melange of "I-just-gotta-be-me", anti-establishment, pseudo-wannabe-anarchists; the bulk of whom were born at-or-after the emergence of the IBM PC.
I'm simply demonstrating, however, that if you substitute "BSD", "SuSe", "RHeL", "Ubunto", "Debian", "Mandriva", and "Gentoo" in place of "TRS-DOS", AppleDOS", "PetBASIC", "MacOS", "OS/400(CPF)", "AmigaOS" and "VMS", it is patently clear that the future you invision is simply an alternate return to that (horrible, horrible) past....
The axiom is that "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it", and EVERYTHING I see about the Linux/FOSS movement today does nothing more that bear out the truth of it. The vast amount of my opposition to Linux as it now stands comes from my memories of the pains from the past, which it is VERY CLEARLY OBVIOUS few
Microsoft, please take note of the SCO law suit attempts, then leave the open source community alone. IF you kill Linux you will screw over the consumer once and for all and I don't think that will help your public image much. How about you try creating products that people actually want to use (instead of forcing them to buy your products) and we'll continue to do our own thing.
Relocating to San Francisco / Palo Alto... Hire me?
From TFA: "We are higher priced, but we bring greater value," Ballmer added."
From my windows server systeminfo:
OS Name: Microsoft(R) Windows(R) Server 2003, Standard Edition
OS Version: 5.2.3790 Service Pack 1 Build 3790
System Up Time: 13 Days, 17 Hours, 46 Minutes, 39 Seconds
Linux server 1:
$ uptime
16:23:45 up 162 days, 18:58, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.01
Linux server 2:
$ uptime
16:23:21 up 162 days, 19:01, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
The windows server is for active directory and acts as a file and printer server. The linux servers are web, database, mail, and file servers. The windows server cost over $3,000 for hardware and software. The more powerful and versatile linux servers were $400 specials. Tell me where the value is, Steve-o.
Oh, and the reason the linux server uptime is 162 days is because something blew up at the local power substation and we had no power for a day.
On other words, "We paid money to Novell, therefore there is value in what we paid for."
I feel the same way. I paid a guy on the street $800 for a pair of old moldy basketball shoes. The guy assured me it was the first pair Michael Jordan wore when he played for the Bulls. This proves that there is clear value in moldy old basketball shoes. At least, for the guy who sold 'em to me. ;-)
Ballmer once again misses the mark by a mile. There IS and has always been value in intellectual property in the open source world. Open source licenses RELY on copyright law, in fact. Merely because MS paid money to Novell doesn't mean that the intellectual property they paid for was Novell's to give out in the first place, or that it has any real value. I can sell you the broadcast rights to a short story I wrote in the 3rd grade, but that doesn't mean it is worth anything.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Coming from the chairman of a company which is:
1) being sued for including mp3 software without a full patent license
2) being sued by AT&T by shipping development work overseas to avoid US patents
3) got succesfully sued by Eolas for the browser plugins patent infringement
4) is currently being sued by a company called Visto for mobile email and data patent infringements
5) got successfully sued by Timeline for patent infringement in SQL Server
6) is being sued by a company called VirnetX for patent infringement in VPN
the list goes on...
* First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
o describing the stages of establishment resistance to a winning strategy of nonviolent activism
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi
Hmm.. we've almost gotten to step 3 in 16 years... step 4 complete by 2013?
This is exactly what's been going, IMHO, since the first time reps from Novell and MS ever sat down to talk turkey. The people truly "in the know" at Microsoft (if this includes Gates is another question) know that their business model is dying. In order to survive, they simply must have some sort of commercial investment into open source. Why? Because its the only software that doesn't go away! Microsoft has consistantly changed everything about "computing" just about every time they release a new OS or software suite. Every time they do this, a giant swath of people who have invested their lives into learning MS technology suddenly find themselves filling out job applications at Kinkos. People will not long tolerate their life's work being thrown away by executive decision.
Hence, open source software is the only software. And Microsoft knows this. What we get is the death throws of a failed business model, and a giant salvo of unfounded IP threats.
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
If Microsoft truly thought they had the best product available on the market, they wouldn't need to issue threats like these. If Windows Vista was truly revolutionary, if Windows Server 2003 was in fact the best server software to load everything onto (web, database, file servers and so on) then they could comfortably sit back and watch while Linux distros raced around trying to show that their products were truly better, when in fact they weren't. Sadly for Microsoft, they are honestly started to lose marketshare (on a whole) and are beginning to freak out. That's why Steve Ballmer throws chairs, that's why they give gross discounts to governments who consider switching to open source software, that's why Microsoft tells Linux vendors to "respect their intellectual property" or risk being sued. And the reality is that Microsoft has a ridiculous amount of money, so they could bury many Linux/open source vendors with paper and simply watch that target close it's doors.
"If we brought back deliberate binary incompatibility, but in a controlled way (i.e., enforced source compatibility; well-packaged source tarballs build anywhere and ones that don't are badly packaged), and insisted for compiling an application to require a deliberate act on the part of the user, there would be no more malware."
This is Slashdot, so there are lots of techie-wannabes here who shoot their mouth off about things they do not understand.
Modern malware just requires SOME compatibility - not binary compatibility. WTF do you think Macro Viruses are? They will happily work on different O/S - they just need the application to interpret the macro in the same way. And there are certainly research multi-environment viruses - just read Dave Ferbrache's research work.
Incidentally, Microsoft wrote and released the first Macro virus, but don't get me started on that!
If the bloated corporations abusing intellectual property law started suing each other into bankrupcy, the downside would be... what, exactly?
Is he? Who says he isn't already doing this? Perhaps he gets paid, therefore it never goes to court, and we never hear about it - like this Slashdot story implies, based on a comment by Jeremy Allison?
If I remember correctly, Google uses a large number of Linux servers. A half million of them is the number one typically hears. SCO tried to extort them and got nothing. If MS got a real patent infringement case, how comes they did not already sue Google into non-existence ?
That Business Method Patents hinder innovation. How is it that one can patent isNot ("allows a comparison of two variables to determine if the two point to the same location in memory"), a one click shopping experience, and other Patently Absurd (tm) business logic ideas that there is almost NO WAY to circumvent and acheive the same result? One can patent a major idea and anyone else that infringes must pay. This is why companies build up huge portfolios of absurd, non novel concepts... Just so they can cross-license patents to even compete...
You make a program at home that solves some simple issue, and guess what... Probability is that you just violated someones bus method patent... How can such a system survive??? How can anyone survive with their own startup business?
I've read Slashdot for the last 5 years, and now I start posting... Go figure
If your having a hard time parsing this, consider that M$ finds itself in the awkward position of having to sell the global consumer on the following two propositions:
a hunnert bucks is cheaper than free;
cubefarm druggery is sexy.
Their flagship product is named *office*, FFS. For the Beast of Redmond, every marketing program is covert ops.
illegitimii non ingravare
Bring it, Monkey Boy.
It was a huge mistake trying to tarnish the open source community by financing the SCO fiasco. All that did is get them angry and organized. Now they know how to respond to vague IP threats. If there was anything remotely indecent about the code in Linux, it would have already turned up. Instead SCO provides a Linux code proof set, public record to back it up and a convenient online repository for all the case documentation.
If this is Microsoft threatening Linux, then they're doing it will all the skill and clarity they demonstrated developing Zune.
Maybe if you'd shut up and build an operating system worth a crap and stop treating your customers like criminals, Linux wouldn't be nearly so much competition. But that's too much like real work. Isn't that right, fat boy?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Ballmer can wave his arms and throw chairs, but I'd take Linux over Windows any day in a fine-tooth IP examination of the source code. There are more than a few skeletons in the MS closet waiting to be discovered. -nand
We need a new icon for these. Perhaps one of Ballmer throwing a chair at Tux?
If Microsoft had intellectual ownership of Linux (which is plainly ridiculous) they'd be selling it already and we wouldn't be in the situation we're in today. So anyway you look at it, the man is making himself look at best deluded, at worse a liar.
Why doesn't IBM or Redhat take MSFT to court and tell them to either substantiate their FUD or pay damages.
Because this is not a copyright battle. It is concepts and many things that open source didn't think were patentable, has been patented at about the same time as prior art, or before.
Remember the MS and Apple fight over a trash can. MS code for a trash can was not copied from Apple. MS lost because the trash can itself was patented. MS managed to slide by using a recycle bin as something that is not a trash can. They were sucessfull in noting a recycle bin is NOT a trashcan.
Linux can be attacked on this front and defending it and then changing it and cross licensing it would be very expensive.
The first shot over the bow has been fired.
The truth shall set you free!
Microsoft's chief executive said the company's partnership with Novell, which it signed in November 2006, "demonstrated clearly the value of intellectual property, even in the open-source world."
Does that mean that Ballmer is giving away $240M to anybody who agrees to receive a free license from Microsoft for all their patents? I think that's great value for the open-source world. Where can I sign up?
can you actually prove the japanese mass manufactured cheap radios in the 50's ?????? FUD !!!!!
This is exactly what would happen. Ever hear of the Open Invention Network? http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/
Why talk up the threats if they themselves haven't done a little analysis and realised that Linux is in fact superior?
:-)
Excellent networking - more tools, ssh in built, thoroughly up to date and constantly checked TCP/IP stack
Superior Security model - even if one simply takes user/root seperation as standard in linux as an example
Higher quality code base - peer reviewed I'm thinking here
Freely available applications - Almost anything is one google query away.
About the only things it lacks are decent games and full vendor support, but both those things are getting there.
Add to that the fact that most distributions come complete virtually everything you might need, being as they are 'distributions' rather then just OS, microsoft have a great deal to worry about.
Just let them try to shut down Linux. First off, how could they do it? Second, can you imagine what shit they would be in if they tried?
Hell, Pamala Jones would probably have multiple orgasms over the prospect
Trouble is, in the original PC world, such a system was simply inconceivable. Their business plan for the future was utterly blown apart by its emergance.
SO yes, I imagine they are very worried.
I was thinking instead of having a picture of bill gates, for Ballmer stories let's get a Balmer picture. We can still use the Gates/Borg for Microsoft stuff, just use a Ballmer pic for Ballmer specific stuff. The fact that this article was tagged "chairthrowing" seems evidence enough that Ballmer is an entity unique in the industry, unique enough that I think he should get his own pic. Maybe, a still from "dance monkey boy" or a photoshopped chairthrowing Ballmer.
Let;'s hear some patent numbers from Microsoft. Nobody will pay attention until Microsoft comes up with some specific claims. The SCO case has made that clear.
They are not a government agency. they are a private firm and you can tell them to pound sand when they show up at your door.
Ever seen a BSA raid? Good luck.
Ever read the EULA on MS office? Windows XP? They will be quick to point out that the agreement gives them permission. They also know you are using a copy because a disgruntled employee told them you are using a BSA members software product.
Let's face it. Very few places are 100% BSA members free.
Here is a list of the membership. Please note it when you use NDIS wrappers for the driver your wireless laptop. You may be using a members software. It's not just MS.
http://www.bsa.org/usa/about/BSA-Members.cfm
The truth shall set you free!
I agree, Ballmer is a bully. Ballmer has taken his ignorant behavior to an extreme, in my opinion: He is a prime example of someone who lacks social skills and technical insight, who can only survive in a technical world by being adversarial toward those who would rather not have a fight.
Don't forget: Microsoft's Zune music player is named after Creative's excellent Zen Player. Aside from being morally criminal to infringe on someone else's intellectual property, it's just mean.
If the world were technically knowledgeable enough not to be locked into Microsoft's file formats and virtual OS monopoly, and other adversarial behavior, Microsoft could not make a profit.
Heh, good one
I always wondered how the hell English-speaking people manage to get this wrong. Even to me it looks completely moronic (note my sig, I'm not a native speaker). They are completely different concepts, for Pete's sake!
Oh well.
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!
We,the Linux community,will make you look sillier to the public than SCO.
This will be enhanced,of course,by the physical traits you share with Elmer Fudd.
Bring it on loudmouth,hope your alligator mouth doesn't overload your canary ass!
You're nothing but a lot of talk without your four-eyed boyfriend,Bill,around.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
The downside of Ballmer "crying wolf" like this is that it seriously pisses off developers.
It forces designers like myself to avoid Microsoft technologies and extensions to standards because they attract less support, indeed outright hatred. Exactly the same thing happened when Sun brought out the lawyers, about eight years ago, and as a result killed client-side Java.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
IBM Lawyer [plants flag]: I claim Microsoft for IBM!
Ballmer: You can't claim us, we work here, 76,000 of us!
IBM Lawyer: Do you have a flag?
Ballmer: We don't need a bloody flag! It's our company, you bastards!
IBM Lawyer: No flag, no company, you can't have one! That's the rules that I've just made up, and I'm backing it up with this writ that was lent from the National Bar Association.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I am amazed this has not been done already. Some authority figure in the open source community (be it RMS, Linus, FSF, RedHat -- whatever) must stand up and say "what patents?". They must write an open letter to Ballmer asking him to disclose with specificity what patents he believes apply to Linux, what parts of Linux (file, version, lines of code) he believes infringe on said patents, etc. This is the only way to stop the FUD. If Microsoft replies, we can either remove the allegedly infringing code or debunk their claims. If Microsoft fails to reply, everyone will see that they are full of shit. Either way we come out ahead.
/. till you're blue in the face, but until there is an official response from an open source authority figure the FUD will not stop.
It would be worthwhile to point out that the strategy of vague, unsubstantiated accusations has already failed for Microsoft's minion, SCO, when IBM asked them in legal filings the exact same question and it turned out that SCO was bluffing all along.
You can post here on
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
because every major bit of M$ released code will be targeted for suing M$ for their own patent infringing code
Here is the rub.
Open Source software developers or distributors do not hold patents.
The best that can be hoped for is examples of well documented prior art.
So in other words OSS, has a good defense but little offense
What exactly would Ballmer do? Throw another chair?
His threats a meaningless to Linux community. Ballmer is an idiot that is in charge of a company that uses strong arm tactics and using anything in it's arsenal to make companies bow to them. Unfortunately, Microsoft and Ballmer don't realize that Linux community is made up of people who hate them and would gladly throw a cream pie in his face.
\
Typically that amount of cash would make them an instant take-over target. I wonder why there's no raider willlng to buy them and sell off the parts in order to get their hands on that cash?
The horrific thing about patenting of software, is that you don't need to show any code.
You just need a vaguely described process that you may or may not have implemented, once in a court of law the bets are off, a patent can be so spacious that it can encompass things that have absolutely nothing to do with a real solution in the real world, and this would need to be interpreted by people that are not remotely technicaly proficient. The only thing to would need to be "demonstrated" is that the "infringing" software does something vaguely similar to what is described by the patent. Neither part needs to show their code.
If the SCO fiasco has showed us something, is that no matter if reason is on your side, if a company as smalle as SCO in relative terms, with no merit whatsoecver on their allegations, in a copyright and contract dispute (which are far narrower in scope than patents) can drag a case for years, just imagine what MS could do using all their billions, They could arguably paralize any commercial realeases of any other competing software, then the use by any big companies or institutions. That my friends, would be the end of FOSS as a bussiness model for at least the duration of any trial.
If you guys in the US do not wake up and smell the coffee, you are going to drag us in a wolrd in which only megacorporations are allowed to do any thinking. You may think I am paranoid, but just look at MS, their intentions are all too clear to be ignored.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"I have 3 words: ... this ... company ... sucks ... yyyeeeahhhhh .... who said sit down ... I will kill you I will kill you all ..."
What's with the frecking threats? Can we see the Microsoft source code base please? Surely, some open source routines made it in somewhere.
"We hereby threaten Microsoft with an open source lawsuit, because they're guilty until proven innocent."
I think crybaby Ballmer needs to shut the hell up, unless he comes up with specifics.
Anyway.
Some serious fixing needs to be done:
Priority #1: strip and burn Mono and anything that has anything to do with Mono. Educate companies like Red Hat (Beagle must go).
Priority #2: boycott Novell. Consider them tainted, dirty, disgusting. Barf, woof.
Priority #3: watch what Novell is doing, and immediately create alternative solutions written in Java or something else (and please, NOT low quality crap like Python).
There are uncountable examples /. has brought to you in which companies with no product, but with a patent portfolio, can sue you quite happily and even win.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
As has been mentioned before, without siting specific examples of where IP has been violated, this is nothing more than FUD... From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fud may refer to:
* Fear, uncertainty and doubt, a marketing strategy
* FUD (food) a Mexican brand of cold cuts and hot dogs
* Fud, a Scottish colloquialism for vagina
* Elmer Fudd, a Warner Brothers cartoon character If you consider Elmer Fudd's poorly executed plans of trickery, then this is at least 3 out of the 4...
You can't replace something that is found to be infringing a patent.
A patent (at least in stupid legal systems like the US's) is the description of how to solve a problem, not the exact implementation of the solution.
If Linux is found infringing for "transfering digital images to a magentic device" lets say, then you can't reimplement the gimp or any other similar programs, because all would be doing more less the same.
THe problem with software patents is that they are maliciously broad, so the patent would actually say something like "transfering data to a storage device" so the patent owner blocks as much competition as possible.
Wake up and smell the coffee: software patents are an abomination because they are intending to stop the distribution of ideas (you can write any computer program in plain English. Software should be considered speech for bunnies sakes).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Oops, my bad. You're correct. Thank you for the correction. I don't know where my brain was.
Anything that's been in public use for more than a year before the patent was applied for is a good defense...if you can afford it.
Unfortunately, the USPTO is rather picky about what they recognize as "published". It's not at all clear that puting an application in a downloadable Linux distribution counts. I seem to recall that they've decided that posting on SourceForge doesn't count. (Aren't they nice and honorable and fair? Of course, I could be mis-remembering. They've also got rules that make it inadviseable for a programmer to examine a patent and decide what it covers...so I don't. Reportedly the patents are useless WRT how to program something anyway.)
The only defense, such as it is, is to publish openly. Time-stamps help. None of this is any defense if somebody with money decides to abuse you. But then if they've got enough money, they can always invent SOME excuse, patents just make it easy for them. What SCO has proven is that even having enough money can't buy you justice. (It can, however, limit the damage that can be done to you if used skillfully.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Everyone loses when lawyers get rich gaming the system of laws that they created.
Blar.
then what the hell did they pay Novel M$140 for?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Come on steve ... sue me ... that way everyone will wanna understand why your threatened ... I dare you!
Wow! That's some of the most suspicious, coordinated and aggressive downmodding I've seen in a few months.
You were too slow tho- enough other people repliedto the thread that folks will see it.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
This was posted as Anonymous coward so highlighting it.
h tml
I googled it to check before I highlighted it. Appears to be true.
"ftp.exe copyright california"
http://seclists.org/bugtraq/1999/Aug/0234.html
The most interesting post was here:
http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2005/Mar/0880.
Where they showed how to check it yourself.
>>> post quote
I was curious about this.
on win2k :
C:\WINNT\system32>strings *.exe | grep -i university
C:\WINNT\system32>strings *.exe | grep -i california
C:\WINNT\system32\finger.exe: @(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the
University of California.
C:\WINNT\system32\FTP.EXE: @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the
University of California.
C:\WINNT\system32\NSLOOKUP.EXE: @(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of
the University of California.
C:\WINNT\system32\rcp.exe: @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the
University of California.
C:\WINNT\system32\rsh.exe: @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the
University of California.
C:\WINNT\system32>
on XP :
C:\WINDOWS\system32>strings *.exe | grep -i university
C:\WINDOWS\system32\finger.exe: @(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of
the University of California.
end quote.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Did Microsoft invent something when we weren't looking?
>P.S. - Vista blows donkey balls.
So much for Vista's "No animal testing" cruelty free status.
Someone should inform PETA.
Small players will always sue a major if they 1. have good patent claims, 2. don't have big products of their own, and 3. think they can afford to. MS is a bit slow on the IP scene, really starting it up in the late 90's, but their actions won't really change the overall ecosystem except perhaps to concetrate it a bit more by knocking out some weaker players. Not ideal, but this is the reality of any industry that is, in many of its products, maturing.
There is no fallout or collateral damage if MS, IBM, CA and SUN have a patent fueled showdown.
If MS disappeared tomorrow many people wouldn't even notice, although MS customers might as they would now no longer be forced to upgrade:)
If the US went away then a lot of people would be unhappy, the worlds money lenders would certainly notice, just like creditcard companies would notice if all the trailerparks went away.
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
1984 would be good. We'd get VAX 11/785s, VAX Cluster, Digital CLI (where all languages could call the same system calls. Do your low-level OS programming in FORTRAN!), an OS that understands batch queues and security, and the Great Orange Wall. And, if you absolutely had to have something other than a VT240 on your desk, you could buy one of those new-fangled Macintoshes, and hook it up to the VAX via serial cable or modem.
If you worked in some off-brand department occupied by Univacs and DataGenerals, my condolences. The world of DEC was pretty hard to beat. (unless you were DEC, in which case you couldn't market eternal life.)
the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
But HOW ever are they DARE going to sue any linux vendor in europe, where european union's varius agencies and various eu member governmental departments are already migrating to linux, and same europe where they have been bashed for bundled media player case and fined to hell ?
Steve Balmer has apparently lost a measure of connection to reality.
We are using open source stuff, on open source linux. Come sue us, so we can raise hell.
Read radical news here
It was the only distro I could find that fully supported WPA-PSK for my laptop "out of the box"... But I've tried Linux Mint since then, and it's great. Coincidentially, Linux Mint 2.2 (Bianca) was released today.
Where have you been? It's always been like this.
At risk of getting flamed, read Atlas Shrugged. Mr. Mouch is the epitome of what you are talking about.
The history of business litigation runs VERY deep in the US. Ask anyone who actually owns a business how concerned they are about litigation and you will (almost) get 100% of them agree that they are concerned. It is, was, and will be a problem for a long time.
The only way to "solve" the problem is to participate in it and manipulate it to your ends. Which is exactly what every business is doing. And also why we are talking about it. Microsoft is not unique in this area.
...and the IP you rode in on.
Deleted
I can easily show you how odd is the story to which you linked, by adding a paragraph that would have to be true for the rest of the story to be as innocent as they describe. Here's my paragraph:
"David Placek, Lexicon's CEO, said, 'Although we have been a professional branding company for years, in this one particular case we did no research about the competition whatsoever. Therefore we didn't know that the name Zune differs from the name used by a famous, large, and very reputable competitor only in the vowels.' "
If my paragraph sounds credible, and if you think Steve Ballmer knew nothing whatsoever about the competition, and no one in Microsoft management knew anything about MP3 players, then fine, there was no morally adversarial intent.
Don't you think it is a bit odd that the naming of a Microsoft product was given a long, convoluted story in sfgate? It looks like a public relations effort to me.
The Zune does not compete with the iPod, it competes with the Zen. Can you imagine anyone saying they would rather have a Zune than an iPod?
I've only reviewed one model of the Zen carefully, but the one I saw is a surprisingly excellent product. Recently a 1 GB model was only $49 after rebate at Fry's. It's great for someone who can survive with a library of only 300 songs.
How about you come clean, tell us what it is, steve and we'll fix the problem - rather than simply threatening us all with lawsuits?
Personally the only thing I can think of that could *possibly* fall into that boat is SAMBA, but even so I reckon there's plenty of prior art in NFS, etc to make any patents in that pretty hard to enforce.
Virtually every other technology in Linux has been around for decades, or was on *Nix before it was available in Windows...
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
IP does not exist.
/not a lawyer.
Patents
Copyrights
Methods and Concepts
Trademarks
Which one?
What file and line number of Linux does he claim infringes?
Without that he is failing to mitigate damages, which is his responsibility.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Nor is Vista, or Java. I hate people who do that.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
NT
Show us some _proof_!
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
>IBM has a big stake in LINUX continuing as it is.
Exactly as it is?
What's to stop IBM from executing a cross-license with Microsoft, and then having IBM Linux be the only kind anyone could distribute without getting sued? They'd lose the advantages of getting free community development, but IBM could afford to compensate by offering salaries to developers of key pieces they really need,
The only thing I could think of myself would be the fat, vfat/fat32 and NTFS support. Even there his case is probably weak though...although he would probably have enough there to get at least the developers of that support under the DMCA.
I haven't found an opensource CAD program yet. Care to explain how Autodesk is dying?
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
You know, I would give Balmer's comments a lot more credence if it hadn't been for Microsoft's past.
Microsoft has consistently been an IP thief! They have stolen whatever they want, whenever they want, and settled in court only when they couldn't browbeat the offense down (Google it, there are myriad examples). Now, damnit, they act like it is somehow immoral to ignore IP.
Fuck 'em! Just fuck 'em. Why in the Hell should I listen to "what they say, NOT what they do"?
Bite me, Balmer!
I think Stevie's problem is that there's nothing remarkable he can do while at the helm of Microsoft. How much more market saturation could Microsoft hope for? Any further increases will be very small. Of course, Stevie wants everyone to think that he made some kind of historic contribution, but there's no way that's going to happen, he has to create the illusion that he actually matters. And how does he do this? By going all Darl on us.
Steve- let me impart some wisdom on your overpaid corporate ass...you're wasting your time.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Ballmer should go back to stealing code quietly. That's the only thing he's good at.
It's a message to that school teacher in some remote Russian village who was charged with piracy. They don't want him to switch to linux, that's all.
Now they've identified Linux as a competitor. And they're embarking on a campaign of FUD to soften their competitor up for crushing. This time it's different, though. Linux isn't a company or a person (not even Linus) - it's a collaborative effort of hundreds or thousands of developers all over the world. Individually they may be "weak" but as Linux they're very, very strong. Strong enough to stand up to Microsoft - and deal that monopolist some real damage.
SCO was a test case; use those fools in Utah to run a feint against a perceived foe. That's not turning out well; their patsy is about to have their hind parts handed to them in court. The resultant smoking crater should be informative to Ballmer & Co., but it's not likely they're sufficiently clueful to walk away from a bad end.
So they'll continue to rattle sabres - and when Ballmer & Co. whip themselves up to a sufficient level of courage to do battle with the Linux beast, they'll get their hind parts handed to them as well. It won't be a pretty battle and many, many outsiders will be called upon to assist the Microsofties in their campaign. Ultimately, it won't make any difference. They're going to set themselves against the vast army of developers and be consumed in the resulting deflagragration.
Watch carefully - Ballmer & Co. are experts in decimating their competition. They've never imagined that they'd come up against an implacable foe much, much larger than themselves. That day is coming very soon and the IT world will never be the same afterward.
There are plenty of open source CAD programs. It's just that none of them are very good.
More computers have been destroyed by coffee spills than by crowbars. Particularly the kind of office coffee that contains chemicals usually used to dissolve gold or corrode neutron stars. (Note: Some early DEC machines were reportedly immune to such warfare and so included self-destruct opcodes to produce the same effect.)
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)
AutoCad probably runs under WINE if you try on a spare machine. Otherwise, things have come quite far with virtualization. VMware is just one of many options which can host legacy operating systems like Windows inside a virtual machine.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
That people get promoted to a level of incomeptance!
I guess Ballmer is a class example of this.
N.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Patents have always been good ammunition when companies engage in a battle. The way to reach agreements is to trade patents and pay money until an equilibrium of power is reached or until one of the two is crushed.
MS has identified Linux as a worthy opponent and is just engaging in its standard procedure. I really do not blame MS -- blame your idiotic patent laws that allow companies like MS (but also others, e.g. IBM) to patent every little trivial function in order to pile up ammunition. In a democracy, laws, and that includes patent laws, should be the result of what people want. Obviously the majority of people want a capitalism where big companies can crush small competitors by playing - among others - the pile of insane patents card.
He who can afford the better lawyers and the bigger number of simultanously ongoing trials wins.
People, you voted for the guys who made these laws.
Ballmer claims some Linux code infringes on Microsoft patents. So prove it. What code? Which patents?
If he's telling the truth, he should be able to identify the code he's talking about and which patents it infringes on. Linux distributors would then be able to excise that code or wait to be sued by Microsoft. Unless Ballmer is completely full of shit, this seems like the course of action that would be in Microsoft's best interest.
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
Remember RIM case...
Ballmer and his Wolfram & Hart Legal Team know full well that they have a pig trough full of patents pending/approved that will allow them to sue numerous Distro Vendors for infringement...
Even though the Patents could/can be overturned, it will take years to go through that process... just about enough time to win the case, based on the "patents" in place, collect damages, or shut them all down. Appeals included at no additional cost.
And Stevie B.will laugh and smile to the public, safe in his total ownership of all things software... and we thought he could dance before!
FUCK that SHITHEAD! Somebody SHOOT that MOTHERFUCKER'S BRAINS OUT!
It is a shame. SuSE is a great OS. We did have it running on 5 machines at the data center. Now there is 1 thanks to this shit. The others are happily running RedHat or OpenSolaris now. The company I work for will not support shit like this.
I suppose illegal alien groundskeepers and contractors make out pretty well, as do the luxury car and boat makers. What's that I feel trickeling down my neck?
Blar.
You're still confusing real machines with personal toys and forgetting that the same problem still exists. It's just that ALL THE INTERESTING COMPETITION DIED. If not for Free Software, we would all be captives to whatever ease-of-use excused backdoors Microsoft wanted to code into it's OS and applications.
A hegemeony is fine when it's actually good stuff (IBM, AT&T). When it's crap like MS it's intolerable and a fate worse than the 70's.
PC Kludge clones have always been a STAGNATING force in the industry.
I'd LOVE to return to that horrible past: cheap alternatives to crappy kludge clones and vendors that engage in genuine innovation and don't get squashed for it.
Bring it on!
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.