Slashdot Mirror
Why Microsoft Won't List Claimed Patent Violations
BlueOni0n writes "Earlier today, Microsoft announced it will begin actively seeking reparations for claimed patent infringement by Linux and the open source community in general. One opinion on why Microsoft won't reveal these 235 alleged IP infringements to the public is that they're afraid of having the claims debunked or challenged — so instead they're waiting until the OS community comes to the bargaining table. But a more optimistic thought is that Microsoft may be afraid to list these supposed violations because it knows the patents can be worked around by the open source community, leaving Microsoft high and dry without any leverage at all."
Didn't they claim (after they signed the agreement) that Linux did not have any patent issues with Microsoft?
Where is their press release regarding this?
Perhaps, as in the case of SCO, the infringements don't really exist.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
You get the feel there's some sort of end-game being played out here, but it all started well before it became clear Vista was going to be a dog.
The thing is, if Microsoft divulges what the FOSS patent breaches actually are, the community will respond promptly, and that particular bullet will have been fired. Until Microsoft's list is actually available, we don't know how much harm they'll be able to do, but there's not much chance they'll be able to inflict fatal damage to FOSS.
This patent grab is essentially a one-shot hit, and until now, was always more valuable as a FUD threat than an actual tool of coercion. Micah hacks the computer system so Nathan can win. Peter controls the radiation power, and the ending is a cliffhanger into the next and final episode. That Microsoft is choosing to use it now is indicative that they believe it's value as FUD has waned, and I suspect that has more to do with the outcome of their their patent proxy SCO's efforts than with Vista's failure.
Is it just me or does sound like the beginnings of the SCO/IBM fiasco repeating itself?
Microsoft's tactic is pure FUD. Which most tech folk had likely figured out already. In some ways, perhaps the SCO fiasco is good in that PHB may be less likely to buy patent threats against free software now. We can hope! ;)
Hax-fu?
duh
MS likely has as many patent violations in its secret list as McCarthy had Communist names on his.
Sure Microsoft can go after companies with legal threats, but ultimately the patents would have to come out. You can't sue and not be prepared for the information to become public. There was a little software company in Utah that is finding this out. Is this just SCO vs. IBM where SCO has been replaced by a much bigger company that isn't going to run out of money in 5 years?
Translation:
The SCO vs IBM assault (funded by Microsoft) is about to implode.
Therefore, Microsoft is poised to move on to their next strategy of
attacking free software.
Microsoft has the old IBM playbook, and they're going to use it.
Here's my favorite play:
IBM to random corporation: You are violating patents A,B,C,D, and E
Random Corporation: A, B, and C are total BS, and we don't violate D and E
IBM: IBM has patents. You can either license these five, or we can go find ten more that you do violate.
Random Corporation pays up.
Just take a look at the amusing comments on the Office blogs about licensing their Office 2007 user interface IP. It's abundantly clear that some of the bigwigs in management there are not lawyers, and haven't even read about their own company's history in this area with Apple and others in the past. Some of them really do believe that just because they spent a significant amount of time and money researching something, they automatically get perfect monopoly protection of that research under IP laws.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Microsoft wants the OSS community to do its leg-work for them to prove that all the patents are in the public domain, thereby saving them lawyering fees. At $7000 a patent, they are protected. Once they make a small-time claim, OSS proves it is in the public domain, and *poof* MS never has to worry about someone ELSE trying to patent the obvious and using it against MS in a much more costly litigation.
Brilliant, actually.
Joe
Really, what this comes down to it Microsoft, having or claiming to have some rather nice cards, not wanting to show them off.
The first and hopeful reason for this is because most of their patents are pure rubbage. The second and also somewhat hopeful reason is they don't want anyone coming up with a strategy to overcome theirs. The third and less optimistic reason is that they're trying to maximise the amount of damage they can do.
Comedy option number four is that they're afraid of IBM, FOSS patents, and they're simply full of hot air.
What is is all that is. Isn't that obvious?
This is really about knocking back linux's control of the embedded market through a generalized attack.s p
Fuel prices have radically altered the economics, and some of the patents involved will be used in a new invention that will revolutionize the transportation industry.
Details here:
http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.a
When you read that link, remember: False is the new True!
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Shouldn't there be a way to prosecute or charge large fines on a corporation that frivolously files knowingly bad patents and then tries to enforce them for the purpose of disrupting the market into their favor. One would think politicians would at least talk about implementing something like that, there's enough juice in it to make the corps buy them out for extra cash. Taxes plus this, one more thing to protect them from.
Anyway, at least how come the EFF or whoever doesn't campaign for it?
Large snowballing fines should have some effect even if you're a hypocrite corporation.
I might respect Microsoft as a corporation if they had actually innovated anything in the past 15 years. They want to bully their way through their slump and it will not work. The fact is that some motivated programmers accomplished as much as their multi-billion dollar company has, essentially while programming in their spare time. They are just coming across as sore losers at this point.
I know this is Slashdot and everything, but at what point do the Microsoft stories become redundant?
Yesterday there was a link to a story on this issue, followed by lots of discussion as to why Microsoft is doing what they are doing. Today there is an opinion piece regarding the original story, in which someone lays out unsubstantiated brainstorms, all of which were covered yesterday.
I understand that Microsoft stories are huge traffic and comment generators on this website (any MS story is a guaranteed 300+ comments), but often times it seems as though the editors like to fuel the fire.
I don't know. Just thinking out loud...
- Scott
They can't avoid it forever though, and they need to do it before any lawsuits they bring go very far. It's a requirement that a patent holder claiming infringement inform infringers exactly how they are doing that. Refusal to do so is considered a bad faith act on the part of the plaintiff, which is a serious strike against any damages they might want to claim.
And the brethren went away edified.
Sure Microsoft can go after companies with legal threats, but ultimately the patents would have to come out. You can't sue and not be prepared for the information to become public. There was a little software company in Utah that is finding this out.
It's been 4 years since this came out. SCO didn't have any facts to put into the case, and it's still banging around after 4 years. The only thing that will really limit them is their bankroll, which is running out.
MS has a much larger bank roll.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Imagine this, you get pulled over by the cops, they say you've broken 235 traffic laws, but won't tell you exactly what you've infringed. Ridiculous.
When someone points out a mistake I made, I appreciate when they tell me exactly what it was, or tell me where to look if it's in my best interest to learn how to be more diligent with my work. I don't suffer fools, and being a smart-ass doesn't help.
What MS is doing is simply saying "hey you guys, there are 235 things you're doing that's going to get you in trouble, but we won't tell you what it is"
Will it make us go away? It has definitely incensed a bunch of us to either be even more anti-MS in our stance at their sword waving, (hopefully we can do the Indiana Jones thing from Raiders')
HEX offender mugshot ID: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Where is the C&D from the FSF?
If someone is making a dubious claim, slap them with a c&d, and force this thing into court.
... hi bingo
...like wardens love prisoners. The fact that they are trying to bully the end consumers rather than the development company, along with dozens of past examples, demonstrates that Microsoft puts financial leverage far above benefit to customers. Looking at this dickweed expecting payment tells me so much about Microsoft. Seen him before? :)
Hax-fu?
Yep. It seems that this is going to be the final "slow bleed" for Microsoft. People aren't buying Vista (in fact, Dell is reoffering XP on systems just to shut up annoyed users). But hey - they have the lawsuits, and they'll be more than happy to pull a SCO and threaten to sue the pants off of people who don't pay off their protection racket.
Odds are, they'll be smarter about it than SCO - rather then go right for IBM (with tons of dollars to pay lawyers), they'll make "deals" with places like Novell and others so insure that PC tax continues no matter whom the likes of Dell and Gateway and others finally go through.
The sad thing is, there still isn't a great competitor to Windows. Linux is nice and Ubuntu and other distros have come far, but it seems they lack that final step (like "How do I change my screen resolution?" or other bits that only techies would know). Micah hacks the computer system so Nathan can win. Peter controls the radiation power, Locke returns, Tom dies, and Charlie sacrifices himself to save his friends. OS X is my preferred OS as a security analyst, but it only runs on one system (I know - Apple sells hardware, blah, blah, blah, but damn - if they make Leopard for *all* X86 systems, they might take over the desktops - I've met plenty of CIO's who want that).
Either way, Microsoft's plan is to continue to be the "gasoline" of computers: they don't make the computers, but they get paid for every one that's made. Through their threats and strategic lawsuits/threatening of lawsuit, they'll ensure their money for a long time to come.
Unless, of course, there's enough people who stand up and say "No" and pool together *their* money to help companies fight back....
Software patent licensing troubles are resolved in a soft manner, by lawyers Hardware patenting issues, are solved the hard way? help me on this one!
?
IANAL, but I have some small knowledge of the law in this area...
If MS has knowledge that their patents are being violated, yet refuses to tell the violators exactly what patents they are violating and how, aren't the patent claims automatically nullified, since they made no good faith attempt to resolve the situation? If Linus or the OSDL contacts Microsoft and are rebuffed when they formally requests details of the patents in question and how they are being infringed, I would expect they would be laughed out of the courtroom in the best case. At worst, this might be viewed as a thinly diguised extortion attempt.
This is sort of like delivering a copyright infringement notice to a website without telling them what the infringing material is, and demanding the entire site be shut down or pay the claimants whatever they see fit.
My rights don't need management.
I hate Microsoft and refuse to use their products. Still, Slashdot is replete with articulate anti-Microsoft arguments, so I thought I'd play Devil's Advocate.
Microsoft spent billions of dollars, thousands upon thousands of man hours for programmers as well as typographers and visual design specialists, not to mention as untold research and interviews with focus groups on developing their GUIs, only to see them egregiously ripped off by Linux copycats. The "Start" button, Windows taskbar, menu bars, MS Office programs and their associated interfaces, as well other genuine GUI interfaces from Microsoft that did not exist on Mac. At least NeXT, Mac, and then OS X invented their own GUI conventions. These "Free Software" losers stole Microsoft's IP by blatantly ripping off all their GUI ideas. Can the Free Software community afford typographers, GUI design specialists and consumer focus groups? No. So they piggy back off Microsoft's investments in these specialists. GNOME and KDE have come up with ZERO GUI innovations. Switching OK and Cancel? PUH-LEASE!
It's about time Microsoft called a spade a spade. Free Software does nothing more than leach off the hard work of true capitalists.
What's worse is that they have this stupid clause called the GPL that prevents Microsoft and other true capitalists from actually using their code. They steal from Microsoft, and yet they don't let us steal from them? Unacceptable! At least BSD/Apache/Mozilla licensed code is available for Microsoft to use. That's a fair trade. The GPL is a one-way deal and Microsoft can't accept that. That's why Redmond has been forced to use its patent portfolio to defend its investments from this flagrant uncompensated theft.
I'm 100% sure that this is how Ballmer and the rest of Microsoft view GPL software. They can't accept competition. They don't believe in reverse engineering. They don't believe in innovating, only harvesting decades-old investments via the preposterous U.S. patent system.
This space left intentionally blank.
Given SCOTUS's loosening of the obviousness test for patentability, it is entirely possible that MS is terrified that their patent portfolio will get slimmed down considerably in the near future. They are not going to invite any more scrutiny of those patents than they absolutely have to.
Your metaphor doesn't really hold water though.
If Microsoft brings charges against anyone, obviously they will have to divulge what is being infringed upon. Up to now though, it's just some PR sabre-rattling.
Likewise, until an officer lays a charge on you, he also doesn't have to divulge his suspicions.
I honestly believe all of this is just more of a PR blitz to try and create unease within corporate America, and change the minds of anyone considering adopting Linux on a grand scale. After all, no one wants to deploy an OS that might be breaking the law on hundreds of fronts.
Once this idea, right or wrong, permeates the minds of the executives, they go back to shelling out the Windows Tax as "part of doing business".
- Scott
They'll be able to repeat this process as for as many patent violations as they can come up with. Should be able to do a lot of damage.
There a time long past when Microsoft was THE place to work; kinda like Google is now... and they just had to ruin things for themselves, didn't they.
They used to be enviable; now they're just pitiful. Kinda sad it had to come to this.
We all knew this day would probably come, just as soon as the usefulness of the SCO lawsuit ended. Guess this means Microsoft has decided SCO is no longer enough to scare people off.
It also means they have decided the odds of getting Europe to adopt software patents had become too low for it to make sense on holding their fire any longer. Because this will almost certainly put the pro patent forces in the EU on defense while everyone decides that waiting to see how this afair shakes out is the prudent course.
It also means they feel threatened. Now normally that would be sorta good news, but Microsoft is paranoid and fearful as a matter of policy, always afraid of being knocked off their perch. They never choose to wait and 'hope for the best' when attack is an option for dealing with any real of imagined competitive threat. I suspect the only reason they have held their fire for so long was they felt they could use SCO to buy time to come up with a better plan that risking a Patent War that will have unpredictable results.
But SCO is used up and they only came up with the one twist to a plain patent fight, the Novell deal. It a) takes Novell out of the fight and b) offers an escape path for any corporation who decides the risk is too great, just throw Novell money and opt out of the fight. It will probably clear the field of everyone except the principles, which was the plan. Before it is over we will be following, at a minimum, RedHat V Microsoft, probably IBM v Microsoft and since this will probably trigger another anti-trust action we will also get DOJ v Microsoft.
Democrat delenda est
My family has lived life not as faithful to the will of god as I sure you have, and by we know god's will has fallen from grace. But god is merciful and I have willed my life to saving my family.
The last things we have were 235 pieces that are all my family had left and were stolen. I cannot tell anyone what these 235 pices are for they not holy and would discredit my family. But the grace of the lord has lead my to know they were sold on ebay, and may have been sold to you.
I do not wish to impinge you good and wonderful name. I am a good christian and will not judge, but I do wish the pieces back or wish to buy new pieces. It would be unwell to bring outsiders into what is a simple disagreement, or disrupt your ebay store, or in any way endanger your life.
I feel bad to ask, but I must, for the family. Please send $100 for each piece to me to cover my loss of these family trinkets. They are not worth much, except for my family.
Microsoft is Microsoft. The beast we all know. We knew they were coming, we just didn't know how lame it would be until now. So here is the thing, who is going to get screwed the worst out of all of these GPL and Closed source companies? Once the GPL is rewritten to outcast those that pretend to own Linux or GNU, and those who enter deals with violators of the GPL- then I think Novell is in for some deep kinda shit. I hope it doesn't go this way, just because I think choice is good- but it looks like Novell is going to take the brunt of the World's hate once Microsoft holds them up as an icon of indemnification. I got a Jim Croche' song playing in my head right now. Guess which one it is. That's right Leroy. Don't mess around with slim.
Since Microsoft has made this nebulous claim would it not severely limit their ability to claim damages since they have failed to act on these supposed acknowledged violations in a timely good-faith manner?
In EU vs. Microsoft, out of 200+ patents, only a few were found meritworthy.
Not only is MS afraid that the patents can be worked around, I think they're equally afraid of simply having the patents invalidated.
People can claim McCarthy, but it might also be being afraid that their bag of gold is actually mica.
If its dead then is there a reason to pursue it for claimed patent infringment?
If this turns into more than just FUD and we see actual legal documents flying around, how will the various major players respond?
Specifically, I wonder how the following organizations will react:
IBM (big in Linux these days)
Dell (Given the timing one has to wonder if the new announcements by Microsoft are designed in part to kill the Dell Ubuntu machines)
RedHat
Sun
Free Software Foundation (have Microsoft made any claims that FSF software infringes on their patents yet)
Motorola, Cisco, Linksys and others who are using linux on embedded devices
The big question is who is going to keel over and stop using linux, who is going to "cut a deal" with Microsoft (IBM for example may just engage in some kind of cross license deal rather than try to fight) and who is going to fight?
Pamela Jones has an interesting take on this story: now that Dell has bought some of the SLES coupons that Microsoft bought from Novell, Microsoft has effectively distributed a GPLed Linux distribution, thereby granting an implied license to any patents it may infringe.
Given the glacial pace of software lawsuits, how exactly is this going to benefit Microsoft in any way? If the "OSS folks" - whoever they are - come to the bargaining table, there's this thing called "discovery" and after that, the OSS community will be happily a-codin' away on solutions, at which point... well, that's where I'm lost. Can they claim past damages? Is ignorance of the patent sufficient defense? How does this play out?
And who, exactly, are they expecting to squeeze money from? Isn't "free software" pretty synonymous with "not making money on the software itself"? And thus also "not making money on the patents"?
I am obviously not a lawyer. Are you? Fill me in.
Notice how it's taken 5 years for the SCO case to get where it is?
Now take that and increase it manyfold. Unlike SCO, Microsoft has lawyers who really do know what they're doing, on top of the financial ability to initiate many independent suits and literally them going for centuries if that were possible.
Worse, unlike SCO, Microsoft has a direct line to the government itself. In essence, as one of the biggest megacorps, Microsoft exerts a great deal of direct control over the government.
So if you think SCO's been making trouble for us, you haven't seen anything.
I fear we won't live long enough to see the end of this. :-(
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
"You're breaking the law, but we're not going to tell you what you did to break the law, because then you'll keep braking it and crumble!"
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Consider the MS FAT file system patent. There is no way you can work around the patent and still provide FAT functionality (required to work with cards from cameras etc.). For such patents there are three choices (i) Keep infringing, (ii) pull support or (iii) challenge the patent and get it overturned. With these types of patent, MS will have to weigh up whether it is worth exposing their patents to challenge, especially since many of the claims are probably quite unlikely to succeed.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
> I hate Microsoft and refuse to use their products. Still, Slashdot is replete with articulate anti-Microsoft arguments, so I thought I'd play Devil's Advocate.
...
> It's about time Microsoft called a spade a spade. Free Software does nothing more than leach off the hard work of true capitalists.
Yeah, by writing their own code which happens to infringe upon those supposedly non-obvious patents the coders have never read?
BTW, a "Devil's Advocate" is supposed to be someone who looks into the life of a prospective saint, to see if they're worthy of canonization. If you want to call a spade a spade (or a troll a troll), I don't think Microsoft qualifies as any kind of prospective saint.
Although, apparently, they plan to follow SCO's little Operation: Foot Bullet with one of their own, but that would be more of a Darwin Award seeker than a martyr
One thing we can do in this case, that we couldn't in SCO's, is simply to attack each and every MS patent methodically. The patent filings themselves are a matter of public record so we can get a list of ALL patents held by MS and proceed to collect prior art, and other evidence to invalidate them. As this data is collected it would need to be placed in public view so that anyone who is attacked by, or planning an attack on MS, in the court system can simply retrieve the data then validate it in a legal manner so it can be used in court. This will do two things. It will help anyone fighting MS in court, and it will have a serious impact on the value of their "IP". The end result is that either MS will want peace or will be unable to use this method to attack OSS. The collateral damage to their IP, while extensive and irreparable, would serve as a warning to anyone else who would attempt this type of attack.
... and tell the world what minor, obvious and insignificant doodles they have patented.
Didn't they patent things like combo-boxes and stuff that had prior-art by others?
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
I've always been concerned with how easy it would be for somebody with an "MS/SCO agenda" to plant patented IP into the Linux kernel and/or open source software! Should all code get a good IP search before being allowed into Linux or any OSS software? I think so!
But a more optimistic thought is that Microsoft may be afraid to list these supposed violations because it knows the patents can be worked around by the open source community, leaving Microsoft high and dry without any leverage at all.
Then why bluster with the threat? It makes them look like SCO and sound like the Iraqi Information Minister. We've got Super Secret IP! We will drive the Linsux invaders into the sea! There are no Linsux soldiers within 150 miles of Redmond! What kind of drugs is Ballmer on?
Not to mention the scrutiny this case would get by the open source community. Nothing like having an army of volunteers. And you know MSFT actually suing someone would vault them into action.
They trained on SCO, they're ready for the Redmond Death Cage Match.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
For such patents there are three choices (i) Keep infringing, (ii) pull support or (iii) challenge the patent and get it overturned
or;
pay licence fee and (cough, cough, ahem ):
iv) MS Profits
Is not this number a part of Fibonacci Sequence ? So i guess that nature is the real guilty here, not Linux.
Microsoft is going to change their exchange listing to "MSCO".
They don't have anything of value and are hoping to scare people into giving them money.
Huh, sounds a lot like bullies... or thugs... or militant governments... funny.
-Tim Louden
Their problem is that they can't just keep braging that there are "238 patent violations in various OSS". The SCO case has proven how much staying vague about the actual violations is useful.
Microsoft, for credibility will have to produce a detailled list of said patent violations (and eventually a list of specific OSS application that they think are infringing).
And this, my friends, is a double edged sword.
On one hand, it will show that Microsoft HAS tangible proof that OSS are inferior because no company can be held responsible for patents infringement, and that patent lawyers will go after the users....BUT...
On another hand, such a list, and maybe a couple of days of work distributed across the whole community is everything needed to circumvent said patent and implement it either with a slightly different approach (see marching cubes vs. tetrahedron in 3D), using more generalised version (arithmetic coding vs. range coding in compression), or simply recycle some very old code in place--Micah hacks the computer system so Nathan can win. Peter controls the radiation power, and the ending is a cliffhanger into the next and final episode--code who's age is a proof of prior art.
And suddenly, all this MS PR stunt is moot.
Just imagine :
This week press titles "Microsoft says OSS dangerous because patent mine field", "New microsoft sponsored studies proves TCO to by higher for OSS because of patent fees", "Microsoft to go after individual users MAFIAA style".
Next week press titles "238 patches and upgrades on Debian and Ubuntu repositories", "OSDL sponsored study proves that OSS has the highest reaction time in terms of patch release", "RMS & Linus to give speech about strengths of OSS development ; Ballmer responds throwing chairs".
Somebody (RedHat, IBM, OSDL, FSF -- whatever) needs to file a "put up or shut up" lawsuit against Microsoft, seeking the following relief:
Either:
List all patents Microsoft believes are being infringed, and explain how they apply to Linux (this clause has to be water-tight to prevent hand-waving and vagueness).
OR:
Shut up and pay damages for libel, unfair competition, restraint of trade, or whatever other laws apply here.
Recall, RedHat did sue SCO for exactly the same reason. It didn't make much of a difference -- that case was stayed pending the resolution of SCO v. IBM and SCO v. Novell, and it doesn't look like there will be anything left for RedHat to sue once Novell and/or IBM are done with SCO. However, it would make a huge difference vs. Microsoft. Until this is done, the FUD will not stop.
We all know that this is bullshit. However, a CTO of a fortune 500 company would likely pay the exto^H^H^H^H ehhh.... "protection" money to cover his ass. I fully expect Microsoft to use the vague patent threats to "win" customers. And this will only get worse until somebody actually fights back. I am surprised no one has done anything about this yet.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
This reminds me of when Atari sued Sega over the 9-pin connector they were using, not long before they went belly-up.
;)
...*fingers-crossed*
BytesTemplar.com
They're not afraid. They're smart. They paid for some legal research looking among their thousands of patents. Why give any specific information away for free when they can wait for the OSS community to incur equivalent research costs? (in time if not in cash).
Does anybody, even microsoft, really think that this is going to accomplish much other than pissing people off? I mean, granted microsoft does have a really GREAT image...so i guess it won't hurt them to piss off the I.T. community a little...so this is okay.
Lets pretend that microsoft wins a lawsuit against F/OSS software. Is it going to become illegal to use linux/bsd? IF that is the case, they should go talk to the MAFRIAA and see how well enforcing policies like that have been going. Are they planning to shut down all of the mirrors out there?
I'm a linux user at heart, but let me tell you something; Active Directory really is great, its easy to set up printers, its easy to manage users, and Group policy is pretty cool, but what else does microsoft have to offer me? Why would i go out and drop a couple of GRAND on microsoft's IIS, when I could do exactly what I did do, and grab an old machine from the garage at home, bring it in to work, and have apache up in running in an HOUR. One of our customers asked us for a data feed in a very specific text format a couple weeks ago, cracked out the perl and it up and running on my linbox in a few hours...complete with FTP. I wouldn't even KNOW where to start doing something like that on windows.
Enough rambling. Windows is just fine for my mom to use, its just great for me to use at my desk, or in active directory. When it comes down to the actually nitty gritty i-need-it-to-work-right-now stuff: Linux 100%.
This lawsuit won't do anything to change that.
NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
microsoft claim +200 useless patents... because they don't want to start patents war with all companies doing business with Linux... all what they can do now is throwing FUDs everywhere... if slashdot spread it by publishing such as stories, then FUD machine is working
please slashdot, stop working for microsoft
"Steve Jobs invented the world" -- Bill W. GATES
It's certainly not a stretch of the imagination to think that several distros could be copying Windows too closely. I mean, they even have XP themes and all that.
How can you say you haven't used Microsoft idea when your OS is designed to look and feel similar to windows as a selling point to steal their customers. It's a joke to think open source distros haven't infringed on at least that many patents.
If you know anything you'd realize that infringing on patents is very easy to do. All you have to do is try to brainstorm new ideas and not have a legal team to verify none of your ideas your thought you came up with are already patented. Considering the design model open source is likely plagued by this problem since it usual runs or at least starts on a shoe-string budget. If patent infringement is alive and anywhere it's in the open source community where the feeling is that we are open source so nobody is paying attention.
It's exceptionally easy to make a distro that infringes on hundreds of patents if not thousands. Consider the number of distros and open souce projects. The number 230 ish sounds pretty low really. Copyright laws are very strict these days and for the most part run by wealthy corporations who have stronger legal teams.
Much of the software *development* comes from people in similar fields - during that time I made a few bug reports for squid, but for the most part the software was already good enough for what I wanted it to do (other's in similar fields had done the development already)...
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
There is always proof positive of a frivolous case (no proof ... no case).
.... I am confident that ... others will eventually tell the USA, EU, UN, WorldBank ...
... such an ....
Without proof and intent to financially damage; well, MS BullShittier like
her incestuous (paid for diseased whore) son Isa SCOrotum is just another
failure, asleep with the Anti-Capitalist Satan, looking for public-funded
welfare handouts from courts and governments.
MS BullShittier incubated her son in a fallacious lies test. The MS SCOrotum
father's attempt to monopolize global software. Now Isa SCOrotum is a zombie.
I suspect, in five to ten years, if MS BullShittier wants to continue this
communist monstrous-abortion assault on free global markets/economies; well
then, MS BullShittier will become the next worthless zombie in the USA economy.
MS BullShittier will not be the first or last corporate-communist to have a
crash&burn suicide party.
GOOD POINT: Globally this may be the straw that breaks the back of the USA
corporatist government strangle hold on IPR, patents
China, Russia, India
and the International Court to go fuck themselves with their dead-battery dildo.
But,it ain't like the USA has been able to figure anything out 12 months or 12
years out. Clueless courts, diplomacy, domestic policy, government
incompetent slime-ball pitiful gang of politicians have not been collected together
in one government since the Mao-China's "Cultural Revolution", Stalin's Purges,
Hitler's Perfect Aryan Religion
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
First Open Source is ignored, then laughed at, then planned against, then accused of stealing, etc...
Its predictable like machinery
Isn't SCO's direction an indication of where MS is heading?
Just tell Microsoft, "How about I give you the finger" *give finger* "and you cram those patents right up your ass."
Now Steve Jobs doesn't like DRM, surely you should be against it to?
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
If Microsoft has been talking to the lawyers at the RIAA. I see the same inane and ultimately useless scare tactics being employed. Except the *IX community is more than willing to fight back.
Going to be interesting to see how this one pans out. I'm betting Microsoft gets nobody playing their game and sulks away rather than actually divulge the patents in question.(The comment about it being a one-shot deal is quite correct - they use it, they lose it.)
Microsoft can look for patent violations in Linux source code, but no-one can look for patent violations in Microsoft's source code. If you have a patent on the way an internal piece of software works you have no way of telling whether MS is breaking it, but they can tell whether Linux is.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
A patent portfolio is a matter of public record.
By saying that the Linux kernel has crossed X patents, and that the GUI has crossed Y patents, Microsoft has told people what, in general, they need to look for.
All it takes is a few industrious lawyers or student lawyers to check out the Microsoft patent portfolio and try to see which patents (if any) they might be talking about.
Then, simply start attacking their entire portfolio on the basis of obviousness. While you may not be able to eliminate ALL Microsoft patents, you can probably kill off enough of them to give their board of directors an aneyurism (and their stock price a hefty kick in the balls).
I'm not skilled in this art myself, but I'm sure there are plenty of slashdotters who will be able to pull it off.
How about it, guys? Feel like kicking uncle Ballmer in the shins?
NO CARRIER
I would assume this is true, I've always wondered why M$ didn't go after the Samba team - I'm sure there are plenty of patents associated with specifics in protocols like SMB/CIFS.
Personal note: I'd be glad to get rid of Samba in Linux - it would be a push in the direction of getting rid of M$ on the client/workstation side, which is a good direction. There are plenty of Linux servers in business, and if M$ made everyone stop using Samba, a lot of business owners would sooner replace the network filesharing protocol to something better like SSHFS, or something similar.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
I like the concept - it's kind of like open source patent issuing. As of a little over a year ago, MS had 5000 patents. Finding those and finding prior art is a reasonable task given the size of the OS community. Now, we just need someone to start it and host it somewhere....any takers?
I don't think the (entire) problem with the SCO case is that the lawyers don't know what they're doing, it's that they don't have anything to work with. Their lawyers are trying every creative stall tactic they can think of, and then trying more, just to get out of having to finally break down and admit that they have absolutely nothing - no evidence, no lines of infringing code, no case.
With 235 possible infringing patents Microsoft has a lot more to work with. I believe that most of the patents will be found invalid and the rest will be worked around, but the process will take time and money.
I wonder if litigation is really in their best interest though. Part of the reason IBM is defending themselves so vigorously against SCO is to defend against the implication that they were behaving unethically; donating someone else's copyrighted code in bad faith to Linux. IBM makes a good deal of money supplying products and consulting services based around Linux. Wouldn't IBM's business be threatened by implications of intellectual property problems? Does Microsoft really want to go up against IBM over patents? Whatever you may think of SCO's legal team, IBM's is frighteningly competent.
"Seek first to understand." - Socrates
Yesterday, you said that JFK said there 200 missles in cuba when there were only 6. Then you followed up saying that MS is like a bad JFK? So, where is the rest of your tripe? here is the speech. to spread light on your FUD and lies.
Also keep in mind that Bush coming to power may well have saved MS's bacon, given that they pretty much got their hand slapped after loosing an antitrust suit. And now who's going to be in power after the 2008 elections? I have a feeling that MS may think they have to make their move (although with the American legal system being what it is nothing much is going to happen until way, way into the next administration. Interesting times... I'm looking forward to this. The fact that their strategy seems pretty much unchanged from the SCO sock-puppet disaster does not bode well for them.
Yes thank you.
There is nothing they can do to stop the progress of Linux. They can try and drive it underground at the very best, but that will just make it more exciting.
The more they threaten legal action with patents, the more they will make an arse of themselves. Driving more people away from them. Not the funky old Microsoft that once played the Rolling Stones music. They can't offer that anymore.
They are coming up to a brick wall with Windows, there is not much more they can do except provide better driver support. And Vista has been a bit of a disaster for them in terms of decent drivers. So they must be dismayed at the moment.
In the long term, they don't have a future, they are just desperately clinging to a monopoly and that is all their business has been based on. And because of this, it is very difficult to turn around into something legitimate. They are just a big hole that is beginning to cave in! And yes, they deserve it, cause they have been too devious for too long and got away with it.
The desktop metaphor is finite and Microsoft probably reached it peak with XP, now Linux is here to provide value for money and freedom!
I also think it is such a shame that such a large company has been directed in such a devious manner over the years. Microsoft could of been so good, but it chose not to. That is not good for it's employees.
From the IBM case, other than the RIAA style tactics of scaring the poor into submission.
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.
HAHA...This story is all hype and ZERO substance...Microsoft does not have a clue and its executives are out spouting off shit to the press when they have NO idea what they are talking about...What a way to run a company.
Eweek: Author of Linux Patent Study Says Ballmer Got It Wrong
NOTICE: The report DOES NOT say X-number of MICROSOFT PATENTS... it says X-number of patents. I bet a huge portion of those that the guys in this study looked at ALSO APPLY to Microsoft Windows if the real owners of those patents wanted to use them against Microsoft.
-- Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventualy invent UNIX.
MS isn't hated for being closed source, they are hated for monopolistic practices and deliberate interferance with interoperability.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
It's always bullshit to say "235" anything and not be able to back it up with a list 235 items long.
... just doesn't want to show it right now.
Ballmer could just as easily have said that Microsoft has perfected the fusion reactor but
Or that he has a gun in his pocket you better do what he says. No, really. He really, really does.
Or that the next version of Windows is coming soon and will be really, really good. And people will care, they will really care.
It is clear that Microsoft has "declared war" on Open Source. We must take punishing counter-steps. Start with an MSNBC boycott. No more Ford. Absolutly NO purchases of Microsoft products for the household. Microsoft MUST be disciplined like a spoiled child until they learn to behave themselves in a civilized fashion.
Yes. I do. I justify my employment and pay increment by using and contributing to OSS.
...libel.
IANAL, but I have been sued for libel (everyone remember the good old days of usenet?). And I believe this was one of the exact acts the judge pointed out I had not committed, specifically...
"...making a vague and highly damaging comment in a public forum."
By making the claim, but not releasing the details, the developers, businesses, organizations and individuals effected by it's negative intent cannot truly retort.
Just my take on things, but it would seem to be an open and close case for any Linux based businesses to sue MS for damages. At this point, even if they release the infringing patent list, the damage has been done and compensation to the aggrieved would seem to be due.
-John
we're doomed...
Apparently MS has given up all hope of re-gaining respect from a large portion of the user community (I'm not just talking Linux and OS X users).
Based on headlines from the last few days alone I think they are going to prove themselves as a company and in the case of a few front facing individuals, bigger bungholes that even detractors like me thought possible. These things don't even go over well with Windows users I know as they too are often users of various Open Source programs (like Firefox) that could be directly or indirectly affected.
I can hardly wait.
Up until now I was expecting that when Dell rolls out their PCs with Linux pre-loaded later this month, the price for the same system with Windows would only be about $30 more. And for that little difference, I thought, of course you might as well buy Windows just-in-case, and dual boot linux.
But if paying Microsoft means that I would be contributing to the death-by-lawsuit of free software, forget it. I'll buy the Ubuntu-only pre-load from Dell, and donate the difference to the Software Freedom Law Center or the The Linux Foundation's Linux Legal Defense Fund.
Microsoft should compete with free software on the merits, not on the threat of their legal department or the FUD of their marketing department.
Yes. All of a sudden, it will be really easy to convince about 90% of the population that buying a computer with Microsoft inside is evil...
But a plug-in for IE and Firefox that blocks all banners to or from a Microsoft-owned site would be loads of fun.
Even more fun if it's bundled in a self-propagating Windows rootkit.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.
Yes.
So do a number of me friends and associates and a much wider group of acquantances have jobs as systems managers for systems built from free and open source software.
Next question.
Quit linking to Forbes, and probably all the other PC mags out there, this
is only a headline grabber.
If M$ had anything, they wouldn't be saying anything, they'd be doing something.
They'd show up at IBM HQ and ask for $5billion, they'd show up at Sun and ask
for $1billion, they show up at Exxon/Mobile and ask for a nickle for every gallon
of gas sold.
If they go to the weaker press, like Forbes and the PC mags and wave their arms
claiming that 'evil Linux is infringing on our IP and we're gonna sue' wow!
they get all the press. So to a know nothing IT director, who only reads
headlines, he/she says, "well, we don't want to get sued, we better buy that
microsoft crap again, even though it isn't worth what they charge us".
It is barely even FUD. It is weak FUD at best. Most folks know the SCO thing
imploded (or is imploding). M$ is looking for the next bunch of headlines to
keep their biggest customers in their pocket.
As far as *nix working like windows, remember that Unix is at least 20 years
older than Windows, they do many of the same things. It may be a coincidence
that they do, but more likely the way windows does things, was probably based
on work already in Unix.
Look and feel issues it could be that windows does something this way or that,
and one of the window managers (in *nix the window manager is a separate program)
may have features that look like MSWindows, but M$ didn't invent many of those
features, they were taken from Apple, Xerox, Sun or some other organization. Look
and Feel lawsuits keep getting taken out of court, it'll be tough to make anyone
believe that M$ has a patent on something that is not eye-candy.
As far as open office, or any other productivity programs go. It'll be hard
to say that M$ has a patent on some fundamental feature. Eye candy, or maybe
some non critical feature maybe, but most of that was around long before M$
ever started selling Word. Dedicated word processors from the 70s did amazing
page layout and spell and grammar checking, for having no memory or anything.
Relax folks, there is nothing to prove or disprove. M$ doesn't have patents on
Linux.
Microsoft lost to Netscape and as a consequence had to reveal the inner workings of the windows system so that new browsers could have the same advantage as Internet Explorer. Open source has no such restriction and while it may appear to produce the same results as windows is the source code the same? How many variations are available in OSs : popup menus are available in many different systems ; can anyone really have a patent on them? It is time for the US justice system to show the world they can lead the way. Patents on software should have their own seperate laws so that ideas are not confused : software and other intellectual property patents are not the same as electric toaster patents and the distinction should be made. In that same area patents need to be reconsidered when the corporation concerned no longer supports the software.
We can't all be heroes - somebody has to stand and clap as they go by.
As long as we decide to keep Windows desktops around, we might as well keep the compatibility code (Samba). For this reason, Microsoft probably thinks the Samba team did them a favor.
:)
Hell, has Microsoft ever written/released unix code? "Microsoft Compatibility Server for Linux"? They might actually stoop that low in the coming years
More easy to convince people that MS is evil because it is now more easy to see. But they have picked on the wrong people this time. Most Open Source folks are do-gooders: they have little cash interest and do not give up. Besides, Open Source has some very powerful friends.
Isn't it be possible to get some sort of declaratory judgement from a court? Say you're RedHat (or any other Linux distributor), who happens to sell Linux and related services - in light of MS's statements, wouldn't you be entitled to know which patents are involved? MS's statements have a direct impact on your business.
And if MS refused to tell you then couldn't you get a declaration from a court that your product doesn't infringe? IIRC, this is similar to what RedHat is pursuing in its case against SCO (which is on hold while SCO v IBM drags on).
Maybe a small Linux distributor with no assets and not much to lose could pursue a case like this against MS.
Sure. I've worked in outsourcing and for an ISP. We use free software all the time. Sometimes the software doesn't do what we want it to do so either we code the feature in ourselves and give it back to the community, or outsource the work to another company to do it for us. We're not in the business of selling software per se, only the service.... and we stand on the shoulders of giants to do this, adding features and bug reports where we can to adapt these tools to our and everyone else's advantage, in order to serve our customers.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
validity of the patents? not really.
Money MS has available? Nope.
the tenacity of Ballmer? Ha.
The real reason to worry is that the big thing the US still exports is...IP. We don't export televisions, computers, cds, dvds, toys, or anything else. We export how to make those things, what music and movies to put on the cds and dvds, etc. That is our largest remaining industry (since food is too cheap to make money off of really anymore).
Part of me, therefore, worries that the feds will come HARD to the rescue of MS, because to do otherwise would be to give up a large part of the US IP. Not that MS is, by itself, such a thing...but it is certainly a figurehead for software patents, and the fall of MS would domino many other falls, all dramatically hurting the long-term export portfolio of the US.
The title pretty much says it all. WHY is MS doing this? No, "they're dumb as dog shit" and "Bill Gates is the antichrist come to bring tribulation upon the righteous [OSS people]" aren't valid answers. I could imagine that they're greedy, and perhaps even scared by open source. But WHAT rational reason does MS have to take this action? If they reveal the list, they better have one or two really good ones, because most will be either easily invalidated or quickly patched by the many, many Linux nerds worldwide (and Gord help them if IBM or some of the other giants step into the ring). If they don't reveal the claims, well, that'll make it impossible to sue (and IANAL, but some of the other comments suggested that some could call MS' bluff and put a stop to the spreading of FUD).
At least MS getting SCO to pull a stunt like that (I have no comment on whether I think that's true) would make sense, as it wouldn't be any harm to MS; but time has shown the harm it's done to SCO, and I can't imagine MS would want to get into a losing fight like that, directly. Is there some way they could actually come out on top by this? I have a hard time believing people do things without a rational reason; now what is it?
You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
I fairly certain most work on the Linux kernel is paid work. Somebody went and analyzed this a couple of months ago. It was also posted to slashdot.
Now that they have made a legal claim, and are asking for $ cant we demand 'legal discovery' and force them to reveal their grounds for asking?
Nothing else, file a quick lawsuit and then demand it. It cant be legal for them to demand payment from 90% of the civilized world ' just beacuse we say so '.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You missed a few. Here we go:
Quit linking to Forbe$, and probably all the other PC mag$ out there, thi$
i$ only a headline grabber.
If MS had anything, they wouldn't be $aying anything, they'd be doing $omething.
They'd $how up at IBM HQ and a$k for $5billion, they'd $how up at $un and a$k
for $1billion, they $how up at Exxon/Mobile and a$k for a nickle for every gallon
of ga$ $old.
If they go to the weaker pre$$, like Forbe$ and the PC mag$ and wave their arm$
claiming that 'evil Linux i$ infringing on our IP and we're gonna $ue' wow!
they get all the pre$$. $o to a know nothing IT director, who only read$
headline$, he/$he $ay$, "well, we don't want to get $ued, we better buy that
micro$oft crap again, even though it i$n't worth what they charge u$".
It i$ barely even FUD. It i$ weak FUD at be$t. Mo$t folk$ know the $CO thing
imploded (or i$ imploding). MS i$ looking for the next bunch of headline$ to
keep their bigge$t cu$tomer$ in their pocket.
A$ far a$ *nix working like window$, remember that Unix i$ at lea$t 20 year$
older than Window$, they do many of the $ame thing$. It may be a coincidence
that they do, but more likely the way window$ doe$ thing$, wa$ probably ba$ed
on work already in Unix.
Look and feel i$$ue$ it could be that window$ doe$ $omething thi$ way or that,
and one of the window manager$ (in *nix the window manager i$ a $eparate program)
may have feature$ that look like M$Window$, but MS didn't invent many of tho$e
feature$, they were taken from Apple, Xerox, $un or $ome other organization. Look
and Feel law$uit$ keep getting taken out of court, it'll be tough to make anyone
believe that MS ha$ a patent on $omething that i$ not eye-candy.
A$ far a$ open office, or any other productivity program$ go. It'll be hard
to $ay that MS ha$ a patent on $ome fundamental feature. Eye candy, or maybe
$ome non critical feature maybe, but mo$t of that wa$ around long before MS
ever $tarted $elling Word. Dedicated word proce$$or$ from the 70$ did amazing
page layout and $pell and grammar checking, for having no memory or anything.
Relax folk$, there i$ nothing to prove or di$prove. MS doe$n't have patent$ on
Linux.
I suppose we could expect any court proceedings to happen in East Texas?
"I have here in my hand a list of 205--235--a list of names that were made known to the Richard Stallman as patents infringed by the GNU/Linux and are nevertheless are still used in the GNU/Linux..."
Show us the patents McCarthy, show us the patents.
The vast majority of software developers simply do not compete with OSS. They're busy writing one-off bits of software for client businesses, or writing niche applications that are only ever going to be sold to a few hundred clients. They aren't writing desktop applications, they aren't writing operating systems, they aren't writing tools for other software developers, and so on.
I make a living developing software that heavily uses open-source software. Mostly websites, and web services. Linux, Apache (or lighttpd), PHP (often, but not always), and a database server (MySQL or PostgreSQL) on the back-end. Making use of open-source PHP frameworks, or complete CMS systems which can be customized or extended on behalf of a client for a fraction of the cost of developing it from scratch. HTML and JavaScript for the front-end, using open-source tools for development (Firefox, Quanta), open-source JavaScript libraries (stuff like Prototype, Dojo, MooTools, Yahoo's UI library), and on occasion using Firefox / XUL for user interfaces.
I simply could not do what I do using proprietary software, Microsoft or otherwise. Everything would take longer, and unless I wanted to write everything myself from scratch, I'd have to pay some insane fees for pretty much every component I use. My clients could not afford that, so they would either end up cutting the project scope back dramatically (and being very unhappy with the result), or they'd go with someone else who can give them better value for money.
I would have to be an idiot not to leverage all the available free software wherever I can.
These tactics, if they can be proven as intentional (another halloween memo out there?), should be indication of their abuse of the patent system. Is it reasonable to expect every coder to search the entire patent system database for possible infringement before release to the public? I don't think so given the enormity of the database as it exists today. So their refusal to inform which patents are allegedly offending amounts to an abuse of the system ... by a monopoly power no less.
Frankly, they shouldn't be allowed to continue their predatory and intimidating ways because they are a convicted monopolist. Where's the oversight?
All of us at the same time.
Wa da ya say Mr. Gates, your house for the meet?
Since a lot of recent storage devices for small business are really linux file servers with samba there is a major opportunity to move to something better with just a decent windows driver and an update on the things. While NFS is vastly superior to SMB/CIFS it's pretty old, the windows drivers even more so and there must be better options with decent windows drivers and less complication than iSCSI. What do people see as the future in the MS windows office wiht a *nix back end?
Bite me.
In my view, open source software shifts the market in favour of the local developer - and customers. The MS ecosystem is (currently) larger, but MS gets most of the money - a few developers also make a living, but if they make too much, MS buys them out or brings out a competing product that kills them. Most customers have to use off-the-shelf MS software, because they can't change it and it costs too much to get custom applications written from scratch.
In the smaller OSS ecosystem, the OS and tools (web servers, databases etc.) are a commodity that cost little if anything. Customers pay less, and can get local developers to provide exactly what they want. Local developers get most of the money.
I prefer the OSS ecosystem. My customers can afford applications customised to how they think and work, and I actually DO make a good living developing my own code. And it's far more fulfilling than earning a margin on MS software that I've shoe-horned the customer's requirements into.
Do as you would be done to.
And then, if unpaid open-source development starts to dry up, that creates an incentive for *paid* open source development.
The open source community raised €200k to open source the blender code. If PHP or MySQL said, "sorry folks, we can't do it any more, gotta pay the bills", the open source community would whip up cash in sort order. "Gee Boss, we can either migrate our whole system to Windows, or send $30 to the PHP development team." I personally would pay them myself, since I'm an independent contractor.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
If MS really had this big patent portfolio on which Linux was infringing, then Novell would have been in a very weak bargaining position.
Both parties are in awkward positions, if pro-Free-software legal experts are correct in their interpretation of the MS-Novell agreement and the GPL.
Increasingly it looks like the agreement will be in conflict with GPL3, and as software included in SLES migrates towards using GPL3 Novell will either have to freeze SLES at the last version of code relesed under GPL2 or somehow find their way out of the agreement to stay current.
MS is in an awkward position because in their end of the deal they are obligated to sell SLES certificates. Technically they are now a Linux distributor. To sell a distribution you MUST abide by the GPL--even under GPL2 when you distribute GPL software you MUST make the source code available without restriction. It does not matter if the code implements a patented invention, MS could not charge a royalty/licensing fee to restrict use of the application or its source code without violating GPL. If MS is serious about trying to enforce its patents it must immediately terminate its agreement with Novell. GPL3 would not make the above situation any different for these existing patents from what I understand--what GPL3 does is keep authors of GPLed code from creating NEW patents based on the functionality of that GPLed code (could a lawyer out there tell me if that is a valid interpretation?).
I'm not convinced MS will get very far with this latest cage-rattling. I suspect many of the involved patents are pretty dubious in nature--and some may be very old and could be close to expiration by the time litigation has finally reached a conclusion (another reason why they wouldn't pull a SCO and head into an embarrassing, protracted legal battle over IP). I also suspect that the Linux kernel itself violates few if any patents at all given how architecturally different it is from the Windows kernel. Microsoft would most likely go after the more outer layers of the OS onion--those involving interoperability with Windows. That is, after all, the stated focus of the MS-Novell deal.
I think we'd first see action against Samba for example. Mono would've been a target as well, but the Novell agreement took care of that. Frontpage interoperability with Apache is another likely Free software target (I realise not all of their targets are GPL, though that is their prime concern). ODBC drivers that let Linux talk to Microsoft databases might be in the crosshairs. This strategy could be part of the "if you can't beat them, join them" plan: If Vista and the corresponding to-be-released server OS prove to be disappointments over the long term the Windows platform as it exists today may be allowed to wither and die on the vine, to be replaced with something more Linux-like (or perhaps BSD-like).
If it does indeed "pull an Apple" and underpin its OS with such Free content it'll need a differentiator--and they intend that to be backwards compatibility with what will be "legacy Windows", which will also allow them to maintain their vendor lock-in. That key piece of the puzzle cannot be Free under the MSFT business model so the goal of more aggressively enforcing patents is likely to explore the feasibility of taking the "MSFT/Linux" or "BSD Windows" route whilst maintaining the leverage they enjoy as a monopoly.
Their investment in "open source research" as of late has provided them with some ammunition, however I think they are still too clumsy with the gun and will only be able to shoot themselves in the foot with such a clumsy strategy. MS is resilient though, so I hope defenders of Free software can keep them off balance before they recover.
Unfortunately, you've made a grave (and surprisingly common) entry-level job market error in assuming that all software is either open-source or closed source. This is incorrect. In this day and age, there is a huge top-level market for application integration which can be based off of both closed source and open source software. In addition, a lot of in house software design cannot be categorized as open source or closed source simply because it will never ever make it to the public. Think of the in-house market as an event-horizon: you don't know what's there, thus it cannot be measured or quantified (or classified as open/closed). This is analogous to the so-called "hidden job-market" in which (they say) 75% of all jobs can be found (they are not advertised, but rather spread by word-of-mouth).
A very small minority of programming jobs are in companies that produce software. The largest number of jobs are in corporations developing in house applications. The one I work for uses a fair amount of free software. We have quite a bit of Microsoft too, unfortunately.
Personally I would rather earn a modest living working with and supporting open source software than work for a company producing closed source. But that's just me, and there's nothing wrong with taking the best job you can get, open source or closed.
"Seek first to understand." - Socrates
don't wage a war against a movement!
DUDE! You suck! why would you tell us that!? Did we eat your children or something..... not kewl -Seething pile of Man-Anger
> I'm sorry, but open-source software doesn't pay the bills.
I've got news for you pal. You can charge money for writing software!
It doesn't matter what the license is. Open source, you write a new program for each client. Closed, you write one program for one client and then try to scam it off on the others.
Selling a closed-source software "product" sounds more difficult to me, because everyone just wants to steal it. Meanwhile, you have to devote constant effort to fixing bugs that only affect a few users at a time.
It's much easier to fork your own toolkit, add custom code, charge full-price and voila, it's done. With custom code, the client pays to fix his own bugs, because he's buying your time and the "bugs" are often miniature feature requests.
"I'm sorry, but open-source software doesn't pay the bills. Sure, there are some who are paid by RedHat, Novell, etc., but really, you can't make a living with open-source software."
What are you smoking?
Even better, what were the MODS smoking when they pushed this up?
"Has anyone ever seriously died from water intoxication? I mean, I heard of that one woman, and some other people, but really, you can't die from too much water."
Thats right, the majority of jobs are in corporations developing closed-source, in-house applications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Desktop_Enviro nment
Sorry to burst your devil's bubble, but most, if not all the MS patents are probably junk and they know it.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
This whole move by Microsoft confuses me. Surely they would know that the Open source community would basically hit back with "Show us the code", "Your patents won't hold up in court" and "Whatever you have, we will work around it". My guess is that either: Steve Ballmer really is an idiot and doesn't understand what is happening, or that there is some other end game in this. I refuse to believe that such an idiot at least wouldn't be stopped by someone else in Microsoft's camp with a simple "Just think about it first", so my guess is that there is another end game.
e nt-violations/ that basically, MS's won't reveal the infringing source code because it will get traced back to MS agents. Either way though, it doesn't explain this.
Yes, this is bad publicity for open source through mainstream media (as, like it or not, most people don't get their tech news from people that can program), and yes, this will scare some companies into buying MS software in their next cycle, but really... what is the end game?
I saw an interesting comment here: http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/microsoft-linux-pat
Like it or not, Microsoft, as a company, are as smart as they are evil. There is something else behind this.
MS bought SMB from IBM - sorry. BTW, MS bought the Outlook/Exchange protocol from the OpenGroup, so that won't do it either.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
You make good sense and I agree with you. But big monopolies support big R&D efforts (think Bell Labs). Since I'm involved in research, clearly my view is biased!!
95% of the patents that are actually valid among those 2XX patents, are almost certainly in everything thats trying to be carbon copies of Microsoft products. So not really in Linux, KDE, whatever, but more, indeed, in things like Samba, Mono (thats the big one), ReactOS, etc.
Mono is certainly playing with the flames. C# and most of the core framework are definately up for the grab. Visual Basic and ASP.NET, Winform, etc, most definately NOT. Yet they go and play there anyway... So really, anything thats not purposely trying to copy something, is probably safe. Linux for example, surely is touching a patent or two (and not necessarly one of the ones MS is using in its claim, but they have so many...), but thats a non-factor. Clones however... especially a clone of one of MS' main product...thats big ouch.
I earn my living using software, just as some people earn a living using the telephone. I kinda like it how real powerful stuff doesn't cost a lot of money, and every year it gets better. Frankly I'm every bit as concerned about how software developers will make their next dollar to the degree they're concerned about architects making their next dollar. Have you hired an AIA architect to redesign your kitchen, lately? What? You want architecture to disappear?
sshfs is a neat hack, but I wouldn't want to have several hundred users hanging off it. SSH trades performance for security. That's appropriate in many situations, but a lot of fileserving configurations have no need for that level of protection and would rather shuck the security for performance.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Tonight we dine... IN HELL!
who MS bought Excel from. According to him, MS hasn't actually developed anything at all and I tend to agree with him...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
for a patent defendant such as Microsoft, it doesn't always pay to become a plaintiff. They may win a battle but lose a war -- you do not want to create precedent that can be used against you by others.
BS.
Are you kidding?
First there are all of the linux distributions which, by the way, contribute a lot to free and open source software: Redhat, Novell, Mandriva, Ubuntu, etc... Then there are the MySQL, Apache, Samba, and Openoffice.org projects which have a lot of paid developers. Speaking of Openoffice.org, did you know Java and Solaris are now open source? Ok, let's see, there is CUPS, Xen, Cedega, and the QT toolkit. That's just off the top of my head. Yes, a lot of this is commercial software, or has a commercial offering, or is incorporated in some way into a commercial product...and yet it is still open source. Seriously, where have you been? Sure, there is a lot of closed source software, and there always will be, but a lot of companies incorporate open source software into their business models, pay developers, and make money off of it (granted in the latter case they aren't usually selling the software itself).
There are also organizations like OSDL that fund open source projects, like the Linux kernel. OpenBSD gets external funding to support sub-projects like OpenSSH. Many of the major Gnome developers are sponsored by companies. In the case of Redhat and Sun, they are paying for development of the desktop they use in their products, but there are other players as well. And there are companies like Dreamworks and Pixar that contribute developers to open source software because they actively use it to produce the product they actually sell, in their case movies.
In short, can you develop open source software and pay the bills? Yes. You may have to look around a little, but there are plenty of opportunities available. Not everybody wants to, so they don't seek those jobs, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
There are plenty of reasons why MS wouldn't be able to stall as long as SCO, and I'm sure MS knows that. That's why they've been using SCO so far, instead of doing it all directly.
Think about it. If MS were to actually start suing Linux users, it would make the front page of most newspapers in the US. The last time Microsoft was that involved in legal disputes in the US, it took a presidential impeachment to distract the public and the press. Microsoft would be under far more scrutiny than SCO, and the truth about their baseless claims would come out. By the time the dust settled and the judges dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's, precedents would have been established that would destroy Microsoft's core business practices. And because of the importance of the case(s), all the Fortune 500 companies would be demanding a speedy trial so that they could get on with running a business.
The more MS stalls, the more solid the case against them will be. If they come up with an excuse, it will be analyzed and probably debunked quickly, leaving them with fewer options. If they don't dig up every technicality they can think of, then they will lose sooner. The only option they have now to avoid inevitable humiliation in court is to stay out of court. Unfortunately for them, their FUD alone might provide enough grounds for somebody else to sue them, thus setting up the showdown they can't afford to have happen.
One thing is certain: once MS gets into court about these issues, they won't get to decide when they leave (just like SCO cannot drop charges and walk away). That makes it a huge risk for them to ever get near a court with their FUD.
And then, there is always the fact that IBM's Nazgul could beat the shit out of Microsoft with their all-encompassing Patent Portfolio. That might actually be the best delaying tactic: get into long fights with IBM, and make sure the real cases can't proceed until they are settled.
To all who would post anonymously, I offer wonderful gems like the above as reason that so many people ignore ACs.
Baseless accusations and false patriotism... any other laughable BS you want to throw in?
Balmer's recent threats that anyone using a version of Linux that hasn't signed up with Microsoft an "undisclosed balance sheet liability" sums up Microsofts attitude nicely. Why wouldn't it? The DOJ has been muzzled and Microsoft have been able to do anything they damned well want to, but by the end of this year there will be someone else in the Whitehouse. Maybe it'll be same-as-usual. Maybe not. I hope not :-)
PS. Microsoft Astroturfers respond to NUL: pls
So...How many developers have contributed to X software? If the FOSS group play their cards right, M$ could run out of money just trying to figure out who the fuck to sue!!!!
"My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
Sounds just like Senator John Iselin's list of 57 communists in the Manchurian Candidate.
They used to make a version of Internet Explorer for UNIX (SunOS and HP-UX) a while back. Also, the last two versions of Office for Mac were for OS X and thus at least somewhat Unixy.
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
At the risk of being modded a troll (again), I will now make my case for why big corporate monopolies are good for research and innovation. The greatest monopoly of them all-- AT&T-- had the extra money to fund Bell Labs. What do we get? We get the ideas of Unix (Linux wouldn't exist if Unix didn't come first). We get C. We get C++. We get the transistor. How about the monopoly of Xerox?? We get the laser printer. We get GUIs. Need more examples? There are plenty.
Microsoft Research is the new Bell Labs.
Where are the open-source companies that hire PhDs to conduct research?
If Microsoft won't list the breaches, then there may be none. If they list them, then the issue can be resolved without recourse to the courts.
A breach not listed is a breach non-existant.
Querying the USPTO Patent Database returns 37,131 patents with Microsoft's name on them. So, with 235 alleged infringements, Linux allegedly infringes on less than 1% of Microsoft's patents. The way they make out that FLOSS programmers are thieves running rough-shod over their intellectual property, I would have expected more than that.
Querying for IBM, turns up 91,006 patents with IBM's name on them. My guess is that Microsoft probably infringes on more than 1% of IBM's patents. Oracle has 5,584 with their name on them (I threw that one in as a bonus just for reading this far!).
So, for Microsoft, it's either tell what patents are infringed on to allow the alleged infringing parties to mitigate Microsoft's damages and have them proved obvious, prior-art'ed or simply worked around OR don't tell and have them invalidated for failure to protect them. Hmm, nothing works very well. Also, this activity will generate a lot of negative press. But, they have to protect the value of their IP as embodied by US patents or risk lawsuits by their shareholders. What a shame... Live by the sword, die by the sword, huh?
Thats how I like my women, nice and loose.
Since you'll probably be suing IBM good luck going against their patent portfolio.
I'm under the belief that a monopoly cannot ever sustain itself. Ever. At least not with some ACTIVE help from the government (see ATT). In this case, I saw the collapse of Microsoft coming in the year 2008, some six or seven years ago. I saw what Linux was back in its infancy, in the late 90s, and saw it steadily improve.
I may have been a little later to jump on the Linux bandwagon back then, but I've been onboard since 99 or 00, and by the time 02 or 03 came around, I saw the writing on the wall. This whole thing was magnified by the ME disaster, BOB, and Clippy. These failures are key to understanding WHY Microsoft is doomed to failure.
ME, BOB, and Clippy are all UI designs, not core components. Microsoft has stopped making core improvements to the OS for some time. And by CORE improvements I mean innovations to the underlying OS. By now, Windows should have been FULLY virtualized and abstracted away from the underlying hardware. Microsoft has made the error of tying itself to x86 architecture to much, and that is now limiting its ability to add true functionality (like virtualization), something that is vastly needed, especially in the server market, where each service almost needs its own host.
Along comes Linux, which ISN'T tied to a piece of hardware, and has abstacted various layers so that it doesn't need to be tied to specific hardware, and it is leading into virtualized hosted environment. I suspect the next revolution in OS is going to be complete abstraction of the core OS from the underlying HW via vitualization, which will break the bonds from x86 architecture.
So, by NOT interfering (protecting MS), the US Government is actually helping Microsoft CRUSH itself by trying to maintain a codebase that is incomprehensible because it has never had to change architecture. If the US government tried to break up Microsoft all those years ago, Windows and the core application and server products might have been improved to the point that the monopoly would still exist, only in three parts.
As it looks right now, MS is a beached Whale, and the tide is still moving out. The mighty leviathan is being crushed under its own weight in an environment that is changing faster than it can. Be warned, Microsoft (or whatever happens to it) will still have remains, but it will not be the powerhouse it once was.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
hard to believe this issue of theonion is 9 years old, heh
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29130
In the beginning:
When this linux-child was born, like all Spartans, he was inspected.
For the strength of the code lies only in its openness.
---oOo---
The Threat:
Microsoft Messenger:
Choose your next words carefully, Leon-ix-idas. They may be your last as king.
Linux:
You bring the skulls and crowns of conquered corporations to my desktop, you insult my queen, and you threaten my people with lawsuits and FUD! Oh, I've chosen my words carefully, Microsoft. Perhaps you should have done the same! *kick*
---oOo---
The preliminary skirmishes :
Microsoft :
Send in the SCOuts to test the strength of these Spartan defences.
Linux :
Our Unix ancestors built this wall. Using ancient stones from the bosom of Greece herself.
And with a little Spartan help, your Microsoft-sponsored SCOuts supplied the mortar.
---oOo---
The battle:
Microsoft :
A thousand lawyers of the Microsoft empire descend upon you. Our patents will blot out the sun!
Linux :
Then we will code in the shade !
---oOo---
The aftermath:
Narrator:
The world will know that freemen stood against a tyrant, that few stood against many,
and that before this battle is done, that even a god king can bleed.
Microsoft:
WTF happened ? Who threw that chair ?
MS is doing a lot of FUD right now. Current law says that patents are for things that are new and not obvious.
If MS describe the patent and how something in Linux infinges the patent, two things can happen.
1) patent occurs after functionality was implemented in Linux. Kinda hard for MS to say that the patent was for something new.
2) patent occurs before functionality was implemented in Linux. Kinda hard for MS to make case that the patent was for something that was not obvious unless the linux developer had a chance to copy the MS implementation and even then, since more of the new functionality occurs when the hardware evolves, it is unlikely that MS corporation could implement something new before a linux developer.
My guess is that MS can sputter about having IP, but until they buy out the government it does them no good. Watch congress for developments on this issue.
My understanding is that IBM has more patents than any other company, whats the chances of them telling Microsoft to back off or face a nasty patent war?
If MSFT gets into a patent war with IBM, they will lose, and it will be remembered as Ballmer's greatest fuck-up of all time: even worst than the Longhorn debacle. IBM's patent portfolio is sufficient to completely drain MSFT's entire operating profit, if they charged all the royalties that they're legally entitled to.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
"Among the patents infringed upon are 45 that apply to OpenOffice and 83 that apply to FOSS applications that are not part of the Linux kernel or its commonly associated graphical interface.
This isn't just an attack on Linux, it's an attack on open source development in general. That is a spectacularly bad idea for Microsoft to pursue."
Microsoft's Unwinnable War on Linux and Open Source
>This seems like a pretty obvious fishing expedition.
Microsoft's insiders in business and government will leap at the opportunity to cut them a check for _absolutely nothing_ again. After all, don't they pay for XP Pro on a machine they're going to image over with their separately licensed XP? Wasn't doubling the cost for no more benefit what Software Assurance was about?
Oh, yeah, did we forget that some people have been paying 1/3 of the price of an OS each year for 5 years waiting for the dog that Vista is, and now they have to wait again but still pay and pay.
Thinking people just rationally made these poor buying decisions on the merits of information available at the time is a mistake. Microsoft can milk their infiltrators for nearly unlimited cash until the trump of doom, and they will. If your organization wants to stop the bleeding you have to root them out.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Don't forget that the little company from Utah has most likely just been a front for MS. So this is just a continuation of a previously existing strategy. Nothing new to see here.
I continue to be amazed that anyone is taking this seriously. There are ZERO MS patents violated by free software. If MS says otherwise, SHOW US THE PATENTS. If you won't do that, shut up and go home.
The only answer to anyone making such outrageous claims is to ask them, "Which patents?"
Imagine the following conversation:
Company: "You have 112 unpaid invoices."
Human being: "What are the invoice numbers?"
Company: "We won't tell you."
Human being: "Then how am I supposed to pay them?"
Company: "You aren't. We're just going to threaten you with them until we do what we want."
Human being: "...?"
That is exactly what MS are saying: you owe us, but we won't tell you why or how much. Now pay up.
As a Linux user, I'm wondering if I should contact MS demanding to be notified of exactly what patents are violated by software in the Ubuntu 7.01 and Slackware 11.0 distros. As a concerned citizen I am most desirous that I not use any violating software, but unless I know a) what the software in question is and b) what the patent it violates it is, I have no way of independently verifying that it is infringing. Therefore, unless they can provide me with evidence NOW that the software I am using is infringing, I will consider them estopped from ever enforcing their patents.
I'm not a lawyer and not sure if the doctrine of estopel applies, but I'm pretty sure if we all send registered letters to MS asking for immediate notification as to a) what software is violating MS patents and b) what specific patents each specific piece of software is violating that we can all plausibly claim, in the absence of an answer, that MS has no further claim on us with regard to this.
Anyone know the address of the MS legal department?
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
But using open source tools and technologies to develop the software. I think "closed source" is a little disingenuous in this context because the source is not meant to be distributed.
"Seek first to understand." - Socrates
The difference is that a police officer can't try to fine you before bringing charges.
If Microsoft collects money via patent licenses, it will never need to give details of the alleged infringements.
To extend the analogy, it's as if the police officer says "We have evidence that you may have broken 235 traffic laws, so we might have to arrest you... but for a small fee, we can forget the whole thing."
If you all Google Slashdot, will it Slashdot Google?
According TO the GPL by declaring parts of Linux and other programs in violation of patents whatever - Aren't they then supposed to stop using the offending applications/kernel themselves (or seek permission from the copyright holders for the "non-infringing" parts)? -
No testing/integration/benchmarking servers or embedded routing stuff.. etc etc..
??
...partisans in the past couple of days on zdnet, cnet, and various other blogs sympathetic to MSFT is:
:)
Adopting GPLv3 will be suicide for the FOSS community.
Take heed.
...Even more fun if it's bundled in a self-propagating Windows rootkit. Fun but nasty. Let's beat Microsoft, but let's hold on to the ethical high ground while we do it.Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Here's what I don't understand: Why not just search through Microsoft's patent portfolio and find the patents they are talking about?
How many patents can Microsoft possibly have? 1000? 5000?
There's a lot of money in Linux. Surely someone would pay folks for this search. It wouldn't be fun, but it could be done.
Or if it were a community effort, it seems like it could easily be done. Everyone pick a Microsoft patent and write a short report on why Linux doesn't infringe it. If there's any doubt, flag it for someone with more expertise. Most of them could be eliminated a short time.
Perhaps, as in the case of SCO, MSFT would rather not have PJ at Groklaw dissect their claims...
Worthy claims can stand up to review. Worthy software can stand up to competition. Once again, M$ has nothing but judicial extortion. Their failure is at hand.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
As an Open Source Developer, I know there are elements of patents awarded to large companies which were actually developed first by the Open Source community. Unfortunately, the OSS community rarely pursues patents on their inventions for 2 key reasons:
a d_name=DE8717C8-ADB3-11D7-9461-003065B1243E%40mac. com&forum_name=fire-core)
1) The nature of Open Source is contrary to the protectionism awarded by patents, and so there is a philosophical aversion to pursuit of Patents on OSS inventions.
2) Pursuit of Patents requires a large investment in time and money, and most OSS developers are short of both.
I honestly believe that a large number of software patents awarded to companies like Microsoft, may actually have an OSS implementation which pre-dates their "invention", but was not pursued.
So, let's put our collective wisdom together to provide evidence to void as many of these patents as possible..
Let's start with patent application # 20030125927, (Method and system for translating instant messages )
The application "Fire" released this functionality to the public prior to the filing date for the Microsoft Application.
(See our mailing list discussion on this patent at: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thre
Those "thousands of lines of Unix intellectual property" that SCO claimed were in the Linux kernel. Hmmmm... :-)
My bicyles
it will be really easy to convince about 90% of the population that buying a computer with Microsoft inside is evil...
90% of the population wants nothing to do with Vista already. M$ is breaking XP, and a nice live CD like Mepis can seal the deal.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Seriously, Microsoft is getting ready to pull off their kid gloves, now. ... Get ready for the fight of your lives - this will make SCO look like yesterday's donuts.
They never wore kid gloves and have poured as much FUD as hard as they can from the very beginning. This is really their last ditch. When it fails, and it will, they have nothing left.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Either Microsoft puts up or shuts up.
If they decide to point out what systems the open source community infringes on, then we will work around them.
Microsoft will get nothing.
If they decide to fight, and sue literally the entire far east, lots of thier customers and millions of open source users in the USA, the response will be the acceleration in reducing Microsoft software poo all around.
In short they lose, we win.
I guess silly things like better medical care, child care assistance, tuition reimbursement and training from the cost savings of Open Source are those things companies like CISCO and Microsoft don't think you need.
-Hackus
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Fortunately, It looks like they have another presidential impeachment to use as a distraction....
Yesterday there was a link to a story on this issue, followed by lots of discussion as to why Microsoft is doing what they are doing. Today there is an opinion piece regarding the original story, in which someone lays out unsubstantiated brainstorms, all of which were covered yesterday.
Microsoft won't reveal it's supposed patents. That's a fact worth searing a Slashdot summary. A casual reader may have missed it. The Fortune article was long and will dissapear but the astroturfers can not deny the fact while the article is up. This story will preserve that fact for people who may later not believe that such a company as M$ existed and could be so brazen.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
So is anyone here going out to buy an XBox 360 any time soon?
Anyone?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
And the fact that we, as the BSD crowd, can see nothing wrong with that, and believe that that is the way the entire world should be, nicely demonstrates the difference between us and the Linux zealots. We believe that having to rewrite code that is already available, for any reason (Apart from "I can do this better", of course), is a criminal waste of resources. Even more so if it is because of the legal restrictions. I demand the freedom to be able to choose how I release my code. Therefore, I BSD. I believe that anyone using my code should have the same freedoms I do. Therefore, I BSD.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
This is the NEW slashdot. Only bad car analogies allowed. Please rephrase.
Nothing is inexplicable; only unexplained -Tom Baker, Doctor Who
Try 50,000, or 100,000. Or more.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
Wal Mart is a major Linux customer. That would put big hitters like Wal Mart in a war with MicroSoft.
Oh, happy day!
But then that would also either end with
a) the end of all software patents (if the USSC invalidates them)
or
b) the collapse of the tech industry from all the businesses going under due to the iron clad resolution that individual software procedures can be patented and not just whole programs. In essence, MicroSoft might be aware that in this case, it would be the absolute ruler of a dead industry with corporate few players left to buy its software, and throngs of home users simply abandoning computers because Windows is too friggin expensive and it's (in that scenario) the only way to use a computer.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
don't forget that if Microsoft actually finds out that Linux and OSS in general does not violate any MS patents, that they will in turn be sued by everyone who has already paid them for these alleged copyright violations. The amount of law suits that would come back at Microsoft would be a huge mistake on their part, and they are not stupid, thus they won't allow for this. One thing I could easily see them doing however, is researching all the patents they do legally own, and then searching for ways to make open source software look guilty. Also, didn't they recently patent Vista's UAC, which due to how vague it is would mean that sudo and su would be copyright violations? Something needs to be done in this country about patent and intellectual property law, and quickly. The more they allow MS to get away with, the worse off it is for the consumer.
Relocating to San Francisco / Palo Alto... Hire me?
And since Microsoft started the show now - why not start with Microsoft patents?
Begging the question, will George take a dive for Bill?
Imagine they died just like sco. Microsoft...
Having read a few software patents lately, most of them are too obvious. This means that given an operating system problem, an average engineer at Microsoft will come up with a very similar solution as an average engineer working on Linux.
If the Linux kernel holding that idea was first, we have prior art. That's easy. If Microsoft filed for the patent earlier, we're in trouble. If indeed it is the obvious way to do things, it will be hard to debunk ("It is really obvious to a reasonable engineer, your honor"), and it will be hard to work around.
This sounds like a case of harassment. Someone should sue them and compel them to reveal their "patents".
It's odd that you would bring this up in defense of BSD/Expat/MIT vs copyleft, because this is almost exactly the same reasoning behind the Free Software movement: the inability to modify software that is not freely available in source code format leads to us rewriting it. Having done so, we license the resultant works so that we won't have to do so again.
At the end of the day, though, most of us wouldn't care what licenser something is released under so long as we can modify it and combine it with other free works; the unfortunate nature of closed source software is the only reason that the GPL exists... if everyone gave away source code, we would never had left the halcyon days of the dawn of computing.
http://www.donarmstrong.com
On the contrary, Office for Mac is one of the least "Unixy" applications there is on Mac OS X. Office for Mac is a heavily hacked and modified version of Office 2001 for Mac, which, I'm pretty sure was the first version of Mac Office to be carbonized. In fact, it is one of the few Mac OS X applications not to bundle the executable binary in an ".app" package. (I may have used the wrong terminology with that last statement, but I hope you get the meaning of it)
I'm pretty sure this will all be changed in the upcoming Microsoft Office 2008, since they are now forced to code and compile with Apple's XCode. For now, however, Office for Mac is as far from "Unixy" as it gets on Mac OS X without moving into "Classic".
I don't think that this type of argument would stand a chance in any courtroom.
The argument Microsoft is makeing is similar to what the RIAA started doing to college students: Sending them notices saying the "They have been caught downloading songs, but would not specify exactly what was done wrong, and that they won't press charges unless they settle by paying a "Settlement Fee". Of course, by paying a settlement fee, in the way the RIAA structured it, you are essentially admitting guilt and paying a settlement. What Microsoft is doing is pretty much the same thing.
-----
Officer: "You broke the law!"
Me: "What did I do?"
Officer: "We won't tell you until you admit guilt and pay restitution."
Me: "So what do you want me to admit guilt to?"
Officer: "To breaking the law."
Me: "What law do you want me to admit breaking?"
Officer: "We can't tell you that until you admit guilt."
Me: "So you can't tell me what law to admit guilt to breaking until I admit guilt to breaking the law?"
Officer: "Precisely."
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
It is official; Netcraft confirms: Microsoft is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Microsoft corporation when IDC confirmed that Microsoft market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Microsoft has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Microsoft is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Microsoft's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Microsoft faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Microsoft because Microsoft is dying. Things are looking very bad for Microsoft. As many of us are already aware, Microsoft continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
Windows is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Windows developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Microsoft is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Microsoft leader Steve Ballmer states that there are 7000 users of Windows XP. How many users of Vista are there? Let's see. The number of XP versus Vista posts on Slashdot is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Vista users. Windows 98 posts on Slashdot are about half of the volume of Windows Vista posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of Windows 98. A recent article put Windows XP at about 80 percent of the Windows market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 Windows users. This is consistent with the number of Windows XP slashdot posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, Bungie went out of business and was taken over by Microsoft who sell other troubled games. Now Microsoft is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that Microsoft has steadily declined in market share. Microsoft is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Windows is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. Microsoft continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Microsoft is dead.
Fact: Microsoft is dying
* Smiley's resemble a side-ways MS-Bob ":-)"
* When a Linux box crashes (it sometimes happens), it violates MS's BSOD patent.
* They have a patent on sloppy icons that leak colors thru.
* Hilighting of misspelled words in word processors. IBM had it first, but they stick it on the list anyhow hoping IBM won't care.
* When you use any paper-clip, real or virtual...
* The figure "8" on the keyboard looks like MS-Bob's glasses.
* Keyboards shipped with some Linux boxes have the Windows key on the keyboard.
* The Malinda Gates Foundation patented Aids, so Linux users with Aids have to pay up.
* If your Linux box is near land with grassy, rolling hills, you're violating their wallpaper.
* The angle of the envelope in the mail icon is 27.43 degrees, exactly the same as in Windows.
* The parenthesis on the DOS prompt font look too much like angle brackets, so if Linux uses angle brackets, it is violating their parenthesis patent out of association (a complex legal pathway that would take too long to explain to mortals).
* "Linux" has the letter "n" near the middle of the word, just like "Windows". And an "i".
* The mascot Penguin's smile looks just like MS-Bob's smile: smug and stupid.
* Boring packaging is an MS innovation.
* If you mow your lawn and find your car, you know you are a redneck. Oops, wrong list.
Table-ized A.I.
Ironically this makes you just as big a zealot as the rest of the crowd. Rewriting code is a good way to figure out how something works, just look at the myriad of login scripts made in PHP or forums, if everyone went with BB and PEAR not many new programmers would be out there.
I believe that anyone using my code should leave to others the same freedoms I left them. Therefore, I GPL.
And you help companies like MS become rich while providing zilch in return.
No wait, they may sue you.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
They claim 235 patents are infringed by the Open Source Community, but the "Open Source Community" does not exist as a legal entity -- it's not a person, it's not a company, it's not a even group acting under a single, shared motive. Break it down into Open Source and Free Software, and then break those down into companies and volunteers, and then into those who take are professionals vs. those who are just experimenting with a hobby, and you MIGHT have some sort of law suit. Most likely though, you just have FUD. Which is enough for MS, of course --- as long as the average consumer believes they have the one true window, they're happy with their production quality and customer service.
As so many posters have commented, as soon as Microsoft attempts to enforce their patents the Linux community will show that it is non-offending, or the offending code will be changed.
Next story please
Well, many of the patents probably have ample prior art. In addition, almost certainly pretty much all of them can be worked around.
How do we know that they can be worked around? Because the lifetime of patents is about 20 years. What did people use 20 years ago? UNIX workstations with colorful graphical user interfaces. They were doing desktop publishing, WYSIWYG editing, spreadsheet calculations, visual development, diagramming, E-mail, file up/downloads, chatting, VoIP, video conferencing, discussion boards, news reading, and all the other things people do today. There was C, the beginnings of C++, Objective C, several Java-like languages, several scripting languages, and Ingres. There were great IDEs (better than Eclipse or VisualStudio). The biggest changes since then have been the use of HTTP (replacing much of the functionality of NNTP and a few other protocols), the bloating of C++, theming, and window transparency in X11. Oh, and lots more memory, CPU, and bandwidth.
Whatever Microsoft may or may not have invented over the last 20 years, it's clearly not essential to modern desktop computer usage because modern desktop computer usage existed when Microsoft was still doing DOS.
IANAL, but it seems to me that FOSS projects should contact Microsoft's legal department with something like this: "Dear Microsoft, our project takes intellectual property seriously and we have a policy of not infringing patents. You have recently claimed that our project infringes upon some of your patents. We have examined our code and been unable to determine where this infringement occurs and we believe that our software does not infringe. We would appreciate if you could let us know specifically which patents and claims our code infringes according to you so that we can find a solution. Since you have already counted the number of instances, it should be easy for you to generate such a list." Send it with return receipt. I think if they don't respond, if they ever brought a claim, even though they are not strictly speaking required to respond, it would look quite bad for them.
Alternatively, just take Microsoft to court and ask for a declaratory judgement. One doesn't have to take it all the way to the end, just far enough for Microsoft to actually be forced to put their patents on the table. At that point, you look at them, implement the workarounds, and say "you may be right, but it's fixed now".
Then they would have to give proof for this!
Microsoft has helped SCO to be wiped out
Now MS are even helping themselves to be wiped out in a similar fashion.
I think they did some miscalculation (Ballmer should probably do more exercise in throwing chairs, improve something that he is good at, but leading a company, no!)
That's not a quote, that's the entire movie transcript!
But I am wondering... If it is SO difficult for an FSF team to search through M$ patents, then it should be even more more more difficult for M$ employees to do the exact opposite search and come down with the infringing patterns (they should search through millions of FSF LOC AND their own 10e1000 patents), or not? How did they do it after all?
- "I say the whole world must learn of our peaceful ways...by force!!" Bender B. Rodriguez
Microsoft mentioned the Linux kernel proper, the "Linux GUI", and OpenOffice.org as the software in violation of Microsoft patents. None of these are owned by the FSF, and only Gnome (if that is what the "Linux GUI" refers to) is the only GNU project among them.
There are two good reasons why no FSF owned code has been challenged:
1) The FSF is a legal entity, and can actually defend itself. The FUD factor is much higher for the project with no/many owners. Who is going to stand up for them?
2) The FSF is very careful about patents, it is quite common on the GCC list to see comments along the line of "the obvious technique for doing this is patented, but I found an alternative way to do it, so let's implement that". The core GCC developers seems to read patents in order to know what to avoid.
The obvious exception seems to be OpenOffice.org which is owned by Sun, but Microsoft has a cross-license agreement with Sun (like most of the large technological companies has with each other), which may make it difficult for Sun to defend OpenOffice.org. After all, thanks to the cross-license agreement, Microsoft is not accusing Sun of any wrongdoing.
Patents screwed up the first 20 years of airplane development (Wrigh),
patents delayed the development of safe mass production cars (Durea, hydraulic brakes, ignition systems),
patents delayed the widespread availability of hetrodyne radio receivers in the 30's,
patents delayed the widespread availability of copying machines (Xerox),
patents are currently blocking millions of people from cheap drugs for Aids.
The patent game is tightly connected to the merchantile theories of "what do high labor cost highly educated countries create and sell in order to buy what low labor cost countries make? They make "intellectual property", stuff protected by patent an copyright.
So that is the mercantilist clinch that prevents the United States from relaxing patent law. Neither of the major politicial parties can vote against "Keeping America competitive in world trade."
What we need is an economic analysis of the "monopoly costs to the world of unrestrained patent law" and a comparison with the global benefit of "automatic licensing of intellectual property at a sufficiently low user cost that patents enhance the quality and value of all production of the entire world."
The benefits of patents and patent revenue are the dream drug of a capitalist "Ahh, if I have enough patents I will not have any competitive pressures." Xerox rode a bunch of patents for 20 years.
But the reality of patents is the small guy is almost always screwed. The middle sized guys are gobbled up, and the big players play long, slow expensive games tying up entire industries with higher prices and inferior ideas.
Some people here in /. live in a very interesting alternate Universe.
/ 2006pr/aip/related_party/
Check the statistics of your own government:
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release
please tell me which of those industries has anything to do remotely with "IP exports".
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
For example, one of the great benefits it brings in my work and home environments is that by creating network shares for Windows clients, the UNIX/Linux SAMBA server has the ability to access Windows files with shell scripts and OS commands that allow some very powerful automated manipulation of those files - not something that is easy to do in Windows alone.
I also dislike your use of the word "better" in this instance. Sure, SSH(FS) uses encryption and would therefore be deemed more secure than SAMBA. But security is as much about where a tool is deployed as well as how the tool itself functions - if SAMBA is used in a secure environment behind a firewall or two, the risks of unencrypted connections are mitigated to a great degree.
Sure, I'd never recommend using FTP and Telnet servers on the Internet but just about every computer in the world has an FTP and Telnet client on it and, in a secure controlled environment, these can still be useful tools to have.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Not to be left out, Miguel de Icaza has announced that he's working on a Linux version of a platform for delivering patent-threats against the FOSS community. The working name is Suyutu.
The problem is that people using your BSD code can release their extensions in such a way that you have to rewrite the code to have the same functionality. That's the whole purpose of the GPL: no code has to be rewritten because all code has to be made public when the binaries are distributed.
> We believe that having to rewrite code that is already available,
> for any reason (Apart from "I can do this better", of course),
> is a criminal waste of resources.
How about when MS takes your code, closes it, and breaks existing implementations for market advantage? Hey, no problem, just rewrite some code and try to stay compatible. Did you say Samba?
No, the GPL is better because it keeps code available and forces evil companies to play nice.
Legal claims are made in court.
So far they are just spreading FUD, what is their next step is anyone's guess, whatever it is it is ill advised, unnecessary and stupid.
How do I know? Because the shaky base in which any action would be taken.
MS: drop the bullshit and win based on merit. It will hurt but will be good for you in the long term.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Note: My opinion based upon my expereinces are mine and they may or may not, in full or in part, be the same or similar to other peoples experiences and or opinions.
To start:
Hi I am Gay and Christian.. and what you may say has this to do with Ubuntu and Microscoff Fista?
Everything.
See when the Linux community comes to me, it's rather like my boyfriend, with a big smile and a jar of vaseline in his hand - it' warm, loving and affectionate - and it's going to open me up to lots of wonderful new experiences.
When I think of Microsoft, it's like Mr Angry and "makes up stories" Steve Ballme r chasing me around the room with a big pineapple in his hand, telling me that for only a few thousand dollars, he is going to make me like it.
I don't think so.
Now you see I am not a Gnow it all, I just do.
I have been running windows from D0S 6.22 / Win 3.11 - to the present HEX PEE.
And I have been having really honest efforts to change completely over to Linux distributions, mainly because I find that MS's formulation of an OS to be unsavoury at best and dishonest at worst.
I found that I have limited time and brain power and I have lots to do. I like learning but I also like to spend my time getting the job done instead of spending huge amounts of time, learning how to use the things I need to get it done.
The earlier distro's of linux required me to do a crash course in "programming" and I had no tutoring and little time and an awful lot to learn - seemingly beyond my comprehension.
I feel that the Ubuntu 7.04 has given me enough of an edge to get a full operating system up and running, with enough left over to learn more of the indepth stuff, if I really want or need too, after I have the OS fully up and running.
Bingo - this is the magic point where I can get on board and run with it.
I feel that it could go a little bit further and have more clarity and simple step by step explainations - like a first grade reader book..
I kind of like a challenge and learning is fun - and the Ubuntu really ought to have a fully downloadable (on the hard drive) help section, including stuff from the forums..
And it ought to be cataloged - 25 explanations of varying quality and content, and ability to follow are not an efficient way to disseminate the "How-Too's".
Ummmmmmmmmm The great things about this Linux distro -
Well it works.
It's stable and reliable.
I like it.
I can PROGRAM my own OS to do things that I want, the way I want them too.
No more secret lockie - outie crap from MS.
I am finding that Ubuntu is really really good.
Ok now the anti Microscoff slant.
I kind of like / hate MS.
I feel that with people being people - both inside and outside of MS, that it's a challenging issue to get anything up and running and to make an income from it.
OK so some sympathy to MS there.. BUT...
The reason I have solidly made the decision to go with Ubuntu Linux is because:
My C:\ drive after 4 or so years of solid work, was finally dying... the read write error etc...
So I looked up all the MS stuff on the subject of backing up my entire operating system.
The MS website'S, said that MS back up and something or other "shadow technology" (MS's interpretation of disk imaging) would save me in advance from accidentally deleted files and hard drive failures - but there was NOTHING on how to reinstall the backup (or MS's screwball interpretaion of it, onto the NEW hard drive..
Nothing - a complete absence of information....
I then sent a webform email off the the MS site help, and I ended up having a HUGE shit fight through MS's outsourced IQ by rote call center., and the whole tech department over this ONE simple question.
"Ok there is lots of stuff in the MS sites, on backing up with the MS back up and shadow imaging, in case of accidental deletion of files or hard drive failures."
"I plan to back up my entire
Someone paents what your code does and because the BSD doesn't require any quid-pro-quo, you're left defending yourself defending against a rich set of lawyers in court.
And now, because you lost, your code is no longer usable by anyone.
Because the BSD is a lazy kicense not a freeer one.
1. they know 99% of them will be debunked
2. *IF* anything is even remotely valid it will be worked around in a matter of days.
SCO tried this with the copyright bat and lost, which was funded by MS depending on your paranoida, now it appears MS didn't learn anything OR is trying to play the same card of a different suit.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
There were 600 Results from "Google Patents" for "Microsoft" So go thru them and debate or rule out each of the 600 results. Use a community effort to put your thumb in the eye of "the man" and reveal the possible infringements publicly. Since they don't want to reveal the information willingly, do it for them. Then too there dismay let the work to work around begin!
Microsoft won't list the alleged violations for a more straightforward reason: they know the OSS community won't pay.
The OSS community will either debunk the claims, challenge the patents' validity or where the patents are valid, code around them. None of these activities benefits Microsoft. Brad Smith knows this, so he's keeping the list of alleged violations under wraps and using the empty threat of a lawsuit to push risk-conscious suckers in large business to pay up.
If we in the community want to kill this off, here's what we have to do:
1. Ask the key software maintainers to make a pledge to replace any code discovered to infringe a Microsoft patent in a timely manner and for free.
2. Find an insurance company willing to insure big business against liability to Microsoft for patents based on that pledge. Specificly, find one willing to insure them for less money than Microsoft wants.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Excuse me, but you have that backward: Because the BSD license allows hiding the derived code, it actually works against this goal. Worst case if most free software had the BSD license attached is that a number of proprietary solutions would be based on that code, without giving back the changes. Of course the original, BSD licensed code might still be available, but without maintenance it will be obsolete at some point.
Reinventing the wheel indeed is a criminal waste of resources. Using the GPL makes sure that more source is released, which will get closer to the goal (no reinvention) in the long term.
The BSD approach would be viable if all people had the ethical drive to give back for what they got. They haven't...
In essence I like the Artistic and the BSD license better but because humans being what they are, I prefer the GPL to make sure that I am not only giving away my work but that I also get something back.
IANAL too, so please help me out there: based on which legal system do they actually claim IP infrigement, and is this system actually applicable to decentralized OSS, or Linux in this case?
Last time I checked, most of Europe didn't have an aggressive software patent system like the U.S., for instance. So can Linux actually be threatened or judged guilty using the U.S. patent system? (Yeah, I know, Linux isn't an European thing per se, but that brings me back to my original question: under who's laws do Linux components actually operate?
Surely these "infringments" can be requested under the UK's Freedom of information act 2000, as it is in the public interest to know which patents that are infringed upon, and as MS have an office in england surely that makes them subject to UK law.
Seems Linspire has taken the bait and given up linux for MS:
http://www.linspire.com/linspireletter
I wonder how long it will take for the others to follow.
Something on antitrust or invalid program claims must be issued to stop this or else there wont be any free software no more - at least without Microsoft EULA:s.
Isn't it time that the FSF and/or OSDL had a third party examine M$'s code for violations of the GPL? With compiled code, how are we to know what's in it and whether some of it is stolen or not? The U.S. Gov't has the legal right to look at M$'s code: sue them to get them to ensure that the code does not include snippets of GPL'd code on the grounds that they are aware of this violation and hiding it from U.S. taxpayers. Just think of the impact on M$'s case if this were found to be true!
*** Don't be dull.***
The problem with the BSD licence is that it allows other people to take all the hard work you did, then change it a tiny bit -- just enough so that your code no longer works with data that has been through their code -- and lock it up. (Which is precisely what Sun didn't want Microsoft to do to Java again).
Now, maybe you think that's not a problem and you can always write your own code to do the same thing as their closed extensions and then release it as Free Software. But why should you have to? Perhaps it's just me being lazy, but I don't really appreciate the thought that I might have to rewrite from scratch something for which someone else refused to release the Source Code. And weren't they being the lazy ones in the first place, expecting to be allowed to use my hard work which I intended to be for everyone as the basis for something they want to keep caged up?
The BSD licence just says "Sharing is not stealing". The GPL goes a step further and actually says "Not sharing is stealing".
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
We could have a new sticker to put on those computers: Evil Inside.
A DRAFT Open Letter to Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith
Dear Mr. Smith:
My name is ______. I am the maintainer for Linux kernel 2.6. I package its various components for general distribution.
It has come to my attention that that you allege the Linux kernel infringes 42 Microsoft patents. It is my emphatic belief that the Linux 2.6 kernel infringes no intellectual properties, least of all Microsoft's patents. Nevertheless, I will rigorously investigate any bona fide infringement claim and take appropriate remedial action.
Accordingly, I ask that you specify the 42 patents you allege to be infringed. Please include concise technical descriptions of the allegedly infringing components of the Linux kernel and the claims which you believe each component violates. For the sake of everyone's peace of mind, I ask that you do so no later than July 1, 2007.
Until such a time as you have done so, I insist that you refrain from making further potentially slanderous remarks to members of the press regarding the legality of the Linux kernel and thus of my behavior as its maintainer.
Respectfully Yours,
X
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
And what are you going to put on it ? "Grave is empty, because the silly b@stard keeps working ?" Several thousand very talented programmers write/release code just because they *like* doing it. Or they want beer money, an industry that unfortunately hasn't adopted the Open Source model. (So much for free beer) so they charge - well - beer money. Running several applications on my desktop right now, three of which are Open Source, one of which was a pittance compared to it's functions for me. Open Source isn't dead - dispite M$'s most fervent dreams
Squirts is trying to be "aggressive". He consistently talks like a fool.
- transcript.en.html#patents
Here's what Stallman really said, in context:
http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Not a very profound statement when you consider that freedom to license software the way you want is being exercised by virtually everyone who releases software. Observe these other courageous people taking a stand:
FYI.
Supporting Microsoft != Supporting America
Supporting America != Supporting Microsoft
In fact, I'd argue the opposite. Microsoft is an affront to everything good about capitalism.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Know when to fold them,
Know when to walk away,
Know when to run,
You never count your money
when you're sitting at the table,
There'll be time enough for counting,
When the dealing's done.
-- Kenny Rogers
And yes, I think Microsoft is bluffing as to the number of patents, and is acting in bad faith: if indeed there is infringing code, they don't want it fixed, they want to use it as leverage to kill Linux. As we've all suspected would happen, Microsoft has finally come out from behind their hillock.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
I have only followed EU & German law, but the situation is far from resolved:
... However, the struggle is not over
t roversial-copyright-directive-passes-european-parl iament.html
... Writing software to share files with others over a network could be copyright infringement; it's a grey area.
http://www.euro-copyrights.org/index/14/49
However, there is no right to hack, where a user wants to benefit from the limitations to copyright. It is thus not allowed to circumvent the measure, even if the circumvention is done solely for e.g. private copying or citing the protected content.
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/swpat/
The Software Patent Directive was rejected by the European Parliament on the 6th of July 2005,
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070426-con
http://fsfeurope.org/projects/ipred2/
The European Copyright Directive (com(2001)29ec) greatly increased the scope of copyright law. As well as prohibiting unauthorised copying of information, copyright law now restricts how the public can use technology to access or view copyrighted information.
Writing (and then publishing) code that implements p2p transfer is a grey area? I liked my right to ignore EULA-restrictions that could not be upheld in german court (and the fact that this was so obvious that to my knowledge it was never even tried).
Laws are changing and Germany has a few people in government positions that have learned the terror scare mongering tactic far too well, have interests in certain business-related questions themselves and occasionally (after some kid thought killing a bunch of others would be a good idea) generate publicity by proposing to ban this-and-that (Mr. Thompson would be proud).
The acting minister of interior has shown no restrictions to change the constitution (read: remove rights) under the flag of protecting the people;
it will happen again sooner or later. And it will happen to free software (first they come for the encryption & deassmbler guys).
Just because there's a truck in a lake filled with cars doesn't mean you drain the lake to kill the truck. You could be one of the cars.
Perverted old microsoftie has had a lot of time to gaze through the one-way mirror at his sexy Linux neighbour (like the one in those Novell ads) with xray glasses. They don't need a thousand monkeys to go through the linux kernel and openoffice code and so on to locate patent infringements. It just takes a small team and a well developed, searchable own-patent repository and there you are.
However, if the number of patents is 200 or so, then once they are identified, they can be quickly weeded out, I would expect.
The ball is still in MSFT's court, since they have not accused anyone specific of anything specific.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
The proper response is "arrest me -- we'll see what a judge and jury says." And to press charges and sue for extortion as well. This Microsoft tactic is the same as gang thugs breaking business owners' legs because they don't give them a large enough part of the "action."
-b.
That's what forks are for, which are protected by the GPL license. The BSD license and patents do *not* protect you from forks which you happen to duplicate by parallel development, and they don't protect you against patent claims. This is *precisely* why the BSD crowd is more business friendly, and tends to pure code bases managed by individual gurus, and the GPL license actually leads to faster development cycles and broader broader software development.
You, as a member of the BSD license-happy crowd, failed to pay close attention to the Microsoft/MIT Kerberos case. Microsoft took MIT's code base, modified it, broke it by extending, and made it compatible only with other Microsoft servers and clients. Under a BSD style license, this would have bene perfectly reasonable, they could keep the changes secret and proprietary, and even patent the change, and no one else could write a patch to fix it.
Fortunately, the extension wasn't patented, and the patch was easy to write, but there was a rather nasty lawsuit about it and a lot of promised "compatible with Kerberos" functionality didn't happen for a long time after the software release.
Heres what is going to happen, things like NTFS, FAT32, or the SMB protocol perhaps are covered by MS patents, but all that will happen is people will just use the existing code if it's no longer actively developed. We already use code that people claim is illegal, like DeCSS, and it really doesn't matter in any meaningful way, Microsoft's claims have no bearing on the majority of the Linux using world, much of which is not in the US.
The rest of the 'items' that probably don't even fall under their worthless invalid patents, can be easily re-written to avoid whatever routines, processes, methods etc, they think they have a right to "own".
With regards to the Novell deal, if it does turn out that projects cease to be developed, they are the only one who is immune to this monkey-fuck patent crap, so in order for Novell to continue using these things they would have to develop them internally, because I guarantee that after GPLv3 people are not going to develop things FOR Novell in normal community style ala OpenSuSE only to have them turn around and play Microsoft's games.
"Dubious"? I'm sure Linux does infringe on many patents....that's result of having millions of junk/obvious patents in the system.
I'm more bothered by the fact that a year or so ago Microsoft was claiming that all it's patents were "purely defensive" and that it wouldn't be using the legal system to slap people down.
Obviously the bean counters have seen how badly Vista is going so they've changed the internal policy (or something like that).
No sig today...
It seems like there ought to be a rule that say that if a company wants to make this claim then they should be required to tell the other company what they are claiming. In other words, it seems like Red hat/ Suse/ whoever ought to be able to ask them to confidentially list the infringements to them.... otherwise anyone could make any claim at anytime - I could walk up to the open software community and claim that they infringe on 300 of my patents and if I don't have to produce any proof, who's to say they don't?
http://timcol6.freehostia.com/
and i had to spend my last modpoint yesterday, on a post less deserving than this
Granted I don't know anything about patent law, but if Microsoft says they have patents that are being violated by Linux and the OS community, but refuses to say what those patents are and how they are being violated.... why can't we all just totally ignore Microsoft? In the law, if you get pulled over for a traffic violation... the police don't keep it a secret what you did wrong. Or if someone want to sue you... they can't drag you to court without saying what it's for. So why can Microsoft bring Linux "to the table" without first saying why? Sounds like they are bluffing.
When a company has to sue or threaten to sue its customer base then its business model is dead. The giant is falling, it will just take some time for it to hit the ground. Same goes for the *AA.
M$: You are using my IP and I demand money for it.
everyone else: Prove it!
M$: NO!
everyone else: Get stuffed!
But a more optimistic thought is that Microsoft may be afraid to list these supposed violations because it knows the patents can be worked around by the open source community, leaving Microsoft high and dry without any leverage at all."
Isn't that just covering up for Linux's patent infringement? You can't just violate somebody's IP for years, then just stop doing it and saying "ooops my bad, dawg".
But hey, if that's the kind of precedent the anti-MS zealots want to persue, they better not whine when companies flagrantly violate the GPL, but change their code once they get caught.
Think about it. If MS were to actually start suing Linux users, it would make the front page of most newspapers in the US. The last time Microsoft was that involved in legal disputes in the US, it took a presidential impeachment to distract the public and the press.
:)
Oh, we definitely need to start distracting the public and the press.
strike
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Well that may be true I believe that their lawyers will only be paid for a win, as their firm is working partially on contingent terms. Sort of makes them want to make sure (however many) years it has been now, that they can make it pay off for them.
I imagine it's looking pretty desperate over there now.
Just more Microsoft propaganda. They're probably looking for a scape goat for this years earning. Vista's going to flop. It's too much of a hog. Personnally, I see no significant improvement over XP. No one in there right mind is going to buy all new computers just for Vista. New computers today run slower on Vista, than computers from 6 months (to a year) ago run on XP. When I look at Vista I see one thing, a bridge b/w XP and Tiger (OS X). That's my 10 cents, my 2 cents is free.
That's not a problem that can't be solved. Just make Linux only officially available for europeans (and host it here). We don't have silly software patents ;-)
http://slashdot.su/
Looking through Microsoft's patent portfolio is a waste of time and money. They are granted patents everyday, and almost all of them should be bogus since they are primarily a software company. Moreover, liability is increased under willful patent infringement, which is what happens if any software writer reads an arbitrary software patent. It's best to just wait for Microsoft to sue, but obviously they won't, because either the patent is trivial or there is a trivial workaround.
I have to agree.
It was the teenager in me who wanted to do that. He is grounded right now.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Let them sue, and then be forced to expose the violations in court. I am sure open source software does not violate any Microsoft patents, because Microsoft software is closed source.
Hmm... Hasn't Netcraft confirmed BSD's death yet?
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
This is what I said in the last article.... hmmm kinda dupish but it's better than copy/paste (did I just infringe?).
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
The solution seems obvious. The OS community should not go to the bargaining table.
Actually, I do. The firm I work for is quite successful developing open source solutions and selling support. These solutions run on Linux and FreeBSD. It usually starts by addressing a pain point which tends to be reliability issues. Once samba and cyrus imap are in place, the responce is usually, "Why isn't everyone doing this?" Until recently we have not attempted deploying open source on the desktop, but we now have several pilot projects with some clients involving desktops, and they are going well. We are evaluating office suites and desktops with them. Gnome & KDE and Gnome office, koffice, and openoffice are being tested. None of our clients give cost as the reason for participating, it is always reliability. Once they are on an open source solution, they inevitably need software, which we develop under the GPL. For modifications to existing systems, we always contribute back to the project we modified from. Admittedly, these solutions are not pactical for all of our clients, but the number is growing.
I think the answer to your question is if a business problem can be resolved with a good value proposition for both the vendor and the client the issue of closed vs open software is moot.
Why is it possible to lodge a patent claim if a defendant requests identification of the patents for the purpose of doing a workaround? It's like "you're stealing our IP" and the defendant says "tell us what, and we'll stop it", but the plaintiff defeats defendant's attempt to go clean?
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Also note that the importance of the US economy is why gold is still traded on the US dollar rather than the Euro.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
A search on http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.ht ml for "microsoft" in the Assignee Name field turns up 6723 hits, which is less than I expected! And many of which are design patents, which probably wouldn't be relevant for this exercise. Reviewing that many patents and looking for prior art shouldn't be difficult for a large distributed team if enough people can be persuaded to read and decipher patents. (What language is it that patents are written in, anyway? It looks kind of English, but seems designed to convey minimal information with maximal obtusity.)
If enough people were willing to launch a pre-emptive strike by documenting prior art behind MSFT's patents, I think I would support the effort. As others have suggested, it might be a more focused use of energy to wait until MSFT makes some claims with real substance behind them... but there's something appealing about the thought of going through each of their patents one by one and dissecting them... :)
It sounds like a joke to me.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
MS are the biggest target for software patent trolls. They're the leading software company in the world and have the deepest pockets. They're ripe for a death of a million flea bites in the form of patent trolls who have patent portfolios but no product which could possibly infringe on MS patents. In addition they're not top dog in terms of patent ownership - they're still upside down in comparison to IBM and probably a few others out there.
Maybe MS analysts have figured out they have an unacceptably high risk exposure in this regard, to the extent that it could really derail their business and/or profitability.
It would follow then that the U.S. patent law environment is hostile to MS in the long run. U.S. patent law seems pretty firmly entrenched, possibly to the extent that they can't buy legislation to change it. So what options are left?
Threaten a possible U.S. business meltdown via a patent war. The cost of that war would effect pretty much every U.S. citizen in the form of higher product prices as nearly everything business in the U.S. would be involved in such a patent war at least indirectly. In addition governmental operating costs go up as the government runs on MS and IBM, which of course would necessitate either program cuts, tax hikes or even more deficit spending in an already over extended situation. Efficiency drops, GDP drops - citizenry gets upset. That's where government feels the heat.
On threat of this, our self interested "representatives" realize this patent thing really isn't working so well the way it's currently running, time to make some changes.
It works (sure there are a few gaps in there, but you can make the connections yourself) only if MS feels the patent system isn't working for them. I don't think it does - they already control their market by their own methods, they don't need patents for that - so what better way to scrap the system than threaten economic mayhem via patent wars?
Just an idea.
95% of programmers write embedded code whose binaries are never released into the real world. The sharing clauses of the GPL don't come into effect if the binaries are never released into the outside world.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
I'd like to believe you, but I can't. Probably comes from being surrounded by the type of idiot that'd say that sort of thing seriously.
Support AMERICA, Use Linux.
This goes without saying. It is the productivity of the hundreds of thousands of corporations that matter, not just the pocketbook of Microsoft that drives this economy. We'd be no where if we had to rely on Microsoft to drive the economy alone.
This has nothing to do with Stallman fanboys. This has everything to do with NOT wanting to violate the IP of Microsoft and asking Microsoft to tell us which IP they believe is being violated. We aren't telling them NO, we won't change. We are telling them YES, tell us which ones and we will change. Microsoft doesn't want anyone to know so the changes aren't made so they can continue to milk larger corporations.
This thread is about discovering why Microsoft won't tell us even though they are publicly accusing us.
And as far as I know, there are no convicted monopolists in the Open Source community.
The GPL roughly states that if you take the code, you change the code, you plant to make money off the code then you give back the changes you made. If you don't want to do that then don't use the code. (This is a rough approximation of what I believe the GPL to mean).
So, it isn't even anti-close proprietary software. It simply says that if you use and you plan to make money off it then you have to give back the changes, otherwise don't use it. What is so hard to understand about that?
So, you have an idea. Your brother asks you if he can use it because he thinks he can improve it and make some money. You tell your brother that if he does you want him to give you rights to the changes otherwise he can go reinvent something else on his own. Your brother can either agree or not use it. It is that simple. Maybe you feel some commitment to your brother. Consider the same scenario with your neighbor. Well, you might think about a neighbor that has lived next to you for 20 years. How about a new neighbor. Would you feel the same way and just give it to them?
What if your neighbor tried to finagle a way out of paying you and just used your idea without your permission, without giving you rights, or without paying you? You'd not be happy and you'd try to recoup.
This is all that the open source community is asking. If they are in violation of Microsoft's IP that Microsoft tell them which ones so that they can be examined, challenged, or removed. If Microsoft isn't entitled to the IP because of prior art or obviousness then they should be challenged. If they are entitled then the open source community should remove them. That's all we want.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
I thought the courts expected litigants to do everything possible to resolve the matter before going to court? Isn't Microsoft obligated to disclose which patents they believe have been violated so that the defendants have an opportunity to remedy the matter?
Yes... but at the moment no-one is going to court. There is a difference between litigating and merely making accusations.
If you all Google Slashdot, will it Slashdot Google?
That doesn't sound like the way I understood it...
MS wrote their own proprietary Kerberos 5 implemention based on the published specifications (RFCs) - code licenses weren't part of it. A lot of random people seem to assume/claim Active Directory used MIT's codebase, but I haven't seen any concrete evidence of that. None of MITs vulnerabilities seem to ever apply to MS and vice versa - although MIT and Hiemdal sometimes share vulnerabilities. MS probably didn't want any of MITs legacy kerberos 4 code anyway.
Those published specifications allowed for extensions of the kind they made, which were extra bits for authenticating Windows PCs on Active Directory. MS Kerberos was still compatible with the specifications, and non MS software could still use an MS KDC just like they could other KDCs so it was still compatible with existing kerberos software. But it is an extension that only really Samba 4 (as it is the only thing attempting to emulate AD) would need to make use of.
Where MS were assholes is that they took so many years to document what their extensions were.
But the MIT/BSD style license on Kerberos isn't at fault for this. MS could've extended Kerberos exactly the same way even if MITs implementation was GPLed. Kerberos isn't a codebase it's a set of protocols defined by RFCs.
I'm a UNIX guy but I also have to manage some Windows based networks that are used to host telephony applications. Lately I've been performing application installs on a dozen or so computers every two or three days and am looking to automate the process.
The install process consists of uploading the voice application, uploading the site-specific configuration files and then configuring the speech server. Fairly straightforward stuff. I initially considered using Expect for this, but quickly decided that it's not a very good solution. Sure, it can drive smbclient and push files to the right places, but how do I execute commands on the Windows server? I could enable telnet, but we don't allow non-encrypted channels to be used for administration. I could setup Cygwin and OpenSSH, but that's additional software to install. All things considered, we're probably better off using the native Windows tools (eg. WSH) than trying to adapt the typical UNIX process (cfengine or shell scripts run through SSH) to that environment.
> Microsoft won't reveal these 235 alleged IP infringements
Microsoft: Put up or shut up.
Anyway, Two can play at this game! let's take the fight to Microsoft. In the vast swath of patents washing around the US these days, there is bound to be many that Microsoft is itself to have violated. Occasionally a company gets one of these and gives Microsoft a bad day in court, after which Microsoft inevitably offers to buy them out. What if Open Software was to get such a patent? Either from a commercial partner, or one granted to an individual who cares more about Open Source than they do about potentially millions of dollars. Rare, but these people do exist.
Now imagine the spectacle of a judge somewhere issuing a court order for Microsoft to cease selling Windows while this is resolved in court. For good measure, why hold back now? We can tell the press that while this is in the courts we will be "going after Microsoft's customers too". You want FUD, Microsoft? All you've got is lame lawyers, sloppy programmers and a few congressmen in your pocket. We've got our anger and there are many more of us. You've got FUD, Balmer? We'll double your. We don't crap and this time you've gone way too far. Let's see how you fight with your crappy VISTA operating system flagging, a full-blown patent assault and a new anti-trust suit by the end of the year.
The Best defense is a Good offense. About time we organize a defense. What candidate patents do we have? Anyone want to break it to the press?
I thought GW Bush got rid of Habeus Corpus recently. Maybe M$ is more on top of things than it appears.
Obvious to a compiler expert is not the same as obvious to a patent examiner.
It's FUD (also stands for eff you delay/dummy) tactic. A marketing trick. Dell is shipping laptops with Ubuntu, and M$ isn't getting a slice of that pie for OEM Vista, and it is in a huff.
Antsy companies and governmental agencies on the verge of switching to crossplatform FOSS (whether servers, OS's, or user friendly file formats) will see lights flashing and hear sirens, and back off until their legal departments can sort this out for the next year, which means M$ gets to continue raking it in for service contracts and forced system upgrades.
Private users don't need to worry about being sued. Huge institutional users do. Even if they were certain they could win in court, they could still wind up in costly court battles just to prove what anyone with sense already knows--that this is M$ FUD.
M$ is certainly looking into the vista of the future, and the vista does not look good for M$. Their global OS empire is turning flaky around the edges and cracking at the core. Their FUDing us now to assure a cash flow in the near term.
In the meantime, wouldn't be entertaining if M$ blew off its OS, embraced a Unix flavor, and hyped service until its collective ears bled brains? Apple did.
Yeah, wishful thinking...
Please review the expert testimony about the "extensions", and the attempts to keep them trade secret or require extremely restrictive licensing agreements before the "extensions" could be directly viewed or analyzed. It was a clear attempt to create a closed fork, licensed so that others could not write or use interoperable software but allowing them to publish it as "Kerberos", a trademark with well-earned respect. Extending the standard was reasonable: but Microsoft extended it in secret and refused to publish the extension, breaking compatibility with MS's Active Directory server with every MIT Kerberos based client, until the lawsuit and the analysis and the patching to MIT's code base to accomodate the secret extension.
And this sort of behavior is allowed, even expected, under the BSD style licenses so that businesses can "enhance" and proprietize the software built on top of the previously open source. The GPL license specifically forbids this: if you're going to stand on the shoulders of software giants, you have to tell the giant what you see from up there and change the light bulbs while you're up there.
You're confusing different issues.
You're mistakenly trying to use Kerberos as an example of why BSD licenses are bad - you'll need to find other examples. Yes MS were assholes with the way the first went about implementing Kerberos and their 'embrace and extend' attitudes - but if MIT used the GPL for their implementation of Kerberos it wouldn't have changed anything as MS didn't base Active Directory off MITs code.
If you have evidence that there is MIT code in Active Directory, I'd love to see it.
But to make that a moot point anyway - if hypothetically MIT had've used the GPL for their Kerberos implementation, that would've guaranteed that MS would write their own implementation from scratch (using the RFCs) and would've done nothing to prevent MS pulling the same bullshit.
I'm fairly neutral on the whole BSD vs GPL argument, I like and use both. I just get a little bewildered at GPL advocates claiming the BSD license is harmful.
You're saying they didn't start from the MIT Kerberos code base? Do you have a user agreement where you can review the code base for that? I admittedly haven't had that kind of license in a few years now.
I strongly suspect that writing Kerberos, from the API's only, without the ocmmunity involvement that crated Kerberos, is beyond the technical skills of Microsoft's current developers. The project would have died or been ousourced to someone who could and would use the Kerberos code.
...otherwise, how could this patent submarining thing be tolerated. if i have something of yours, tell me what it is, so i can give it back or demonstrate that isn't yours. until you give me that opportunity, you have NO business in civil courts, unless you have evidence to support criminal proceedings and have secured a conviction.
It is lost cause...The war against Open source projects is the lost cause...Mr. Gates realize that. see http:///inews.110mb.com/
If a company has patents believed to be infringed they won't list these patents in a public manner. By so doing they run afoul of numerous intellectual property law issues. It is just sound legal practice.
-- I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.