Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Truth Behind the ClearType/OpenSUSE FUD

Posted by kdawson on from the making-it-clear dept.

Kennon writes "Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols over at Linux Watch clears up the FUD around Tuesday's Slashdot discussion concerning OpenSUSE, ClearType, and patent deals with Microsoft."

5 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. Changed Before the Microvell Deal by 10scjed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This change was last summer, pre-microvell, so the news actually would have been if OpenSUSE was enabling it and taking advantage of MS' patent covenant for Novell customers and OpenSUSE contributors while other distros couldn't.

    MS' plan to fragment the community is only effective if Novell has customers and developers supporting them, otherwise the covenant is irrelevant. Boycott Novell, the rest takes care of itself.

    --
    --10scjed IANAL,AFAIK
    1. Re:Changed Before the Microvell Deal by rudegeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if Novell has customers and developers supporting them

      You reap what you sow. Novell exposed themself to any FUD by going to bed with MS. Now everything they do (whatever it will be FOSS friendly or commercial) will be taken into MS deal context. It will just get harder and harder to wash off mud thrown by others.

      Not that I think FUD is a weapon FOSS supporters should use. But a bit of paranoia is healthy. :-P

      --
      Rocksteady, are you ready to ska?
  2. Re:This hurts my head by 10scjed · · Score: 5, Informative
    According to Microsoft's attorney, software patents are invalid in the US as well:

    MR. OLSON [For Microsoft]: The '580 patent is a program, as I understand it, that's married to a computer, has to be married to a computer in order to be patented.
    JUSTICE SCALIA: You can't patent, you know, on-off, on-off code in the abstract, can you? MR. OLSON: That's correct, Justice Scalia.
    JUSTICE SCALIA: There needs to be a device.
    MR. OLSON: An idea or a principle, two plus two equals four can't be patented. It has to be put together with a machine and made into a usable device.
    --
    --10scjed IANAL,AFAIK
  3. Re:Wonderful Practice by lilomar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since when is disagreeing with a companies business decisions not a good reason to stop using their products? That's kinda the only way for the public at large to keep corporations even remotely close to ethical (not that it always works). You may not agree that Novell has done anything worth boycotting them for, but isn't that up to their customers (in this case Linux users) to decide? You make your choice, and even try to make others see it your way, but don't knock the system. It may not be perfect, but it's all we got.

    --
    The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
  4. Microsoft didn't invent this idea. by ACMENEWSLLC · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Microsoft may have a patent on ClearType, but they didn't invent it. We did the same thing in the Commodore 64 days with regards to fonts in graphics. I clearly recall zooming in on text and seeing different colors in the transition from text to background. I've spent many hundred hours doing graphic arts on the Commodore 64 and have been published.

    I guess prior art doesn't apply to patents anymore?

    "Sub-pixel font rendering with Free&Clear - Microsoft says they invented their "ClearType" technology, but I quickly and independently "invented" the same thing . . . as had others who came years before. It is very cool, but rather obvious. "

    http://www.grc.com/ct/cleartype.htm