Slashdot Mirror
Linus Responds To Microsoft Patent Claims
An anonymous reader writes "Linus Torvalds has a sharp retort to Microsoft executives' statements in a Fortune article that Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents. In an emailed response to InformationWeek's Charlie Babcock, Torvalds writes: 'It's certainly a lot more likely that Microsoft violates patents than Linux does.' He added: 'Basic operating system theory was pretty much done by the end of the 1960s. IBM probably owned thousand of really "fundamental" patents... The fundamental stuff... has long, long since lost any patent protection.'" Torvalds also commented on Microsoft's stated intention not to sue Linux users: "They'd have to name the patents then, and they're probably happier with the FUD than with any lawsuit."
Is it kind of sad that such retorts are necessary? Or is it telling, that M$ is continues to resort to such SCO-like tactics?
u-bend
Please note that this article violates 207 Microsoft patents. Anyone commenting on it will be violating a further 703 patents. Except me.
Can someone please explain to me how software patents "promote science and the useful arts?"
Wouldn't a patent law which does NOT promote science and arts be unconstitutional? Or am I misreading the constitution?
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
I'm not clear how IBM could own thousands of patents back in the 1960s- at that time it was clearly understood that software is a non-patentable "invention". Oh how I wish this common sense would be restored.
"Don't you think that if Microsoft actually had some really foolproof patent, they'd just tell us and go, 'nyaah, nyaah, nyaah!'"
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
It looks like Linus has been reading Slashdot the past couple of days.
09:F9:11:02 - 9D:74:E3:5B - D8:41:56:C5 - 63:56:88:C0
You would be wise to listen to the customers you're threatening to sue - they can leave you, especially if you give them motivation. Remember, they wouldn't be motivated unless your products were somehow missing the mark.
All of which is to say - no amount of fear can stop the rise of free media, or free software (they are the same, after all). The community is vastly more innovative and powerful than a single company. And you will never turn back the clock on elementary school students and developing economies and aid agencies and fledgling universities - or the Fortune 500 - that have found value in the wisdom of the open source community. Open standards and open source software are literally changing the face of the planet - creating opportunity wherever the network can reach.
That's not a genie any litigator I know can put back in a bottle."
Source: http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/what_we_did
The more we post articles about how Microsoft is claiming patent violations, the better it is for Microsoft. This is simply a case of the more your story is in the news, the better the results for you. MS will NEVER sue anybody using Linux because the consequences of MS losing that case would be disastrous. Instead they will simply try and make managers (who in most organizations outside the tech sphere are technologically illiterate) make the following connection:
Linux = Patent Violation = Unreliable
Instead the Linux community should turn the tables on Microsoft and find a patent that MS has broken and feed the media the story that Windows users are going to get sued, hence making getting sued for using any OS a null point.
Technology is most abused by the very people it was created to help
Linus's comments strike me as indistinguishable from the hundreds of comments we've had on Slashdot on this issue in the last 48 hours.
How about we wait until there's some actual news on this story?
"Basic operating system theory was pretty much done by the end of the 1960s. IBM probably owned thousands of really 'fundamental' patents," Torvalds said in a response to questions submitted by InformationWeek. But he doesn't like any form of patent saber rattling. "The fundamental stuff was done about half a century ago and has long, long since lost any patent protection," he wrote.
I worked for IBM developing operating systems during the 1960s. Software patents did not exist at the time and IBM patented no software. However there is a huge amount of unpatented prior art from about 1963 onward that can be used to invalidate any operating system fundamentals patents claimed by Microsoft.
------------------
Steve Stites
From the Novell press release, issued yesterday:
The commentary on Groklaw is interesting as well
Davis http://davis.foulger.net
Just for clarity's sake, it is probably about the time to start using the GNU/Linux nomenclature, not to mention actually differentiating between Linux as an operating system, and X Window running on top of it, with its various window managers.
.. they might actually have those patents. Whether they are enforcable may be a different matter. Especially considering the plethora of prior art. Except for Clippy and Bob, I'm not sure what they've done that is original.
I doubt M$ can claim that GNU is breaking any patents. As Linus as stated, its hard to imagine what internals of Linux that could intruding on a M$ technology, except maybe the Fat32 and NTFS compatability layers.
I remember reading one of the previous reports on this issue, and one of the claims was that user interface designs for things like the web browser and email clients were guilty. I was under the impression, when M$ stole from Apple (or when Apple stole from Xerox) all of this got settled.. It certainly strikes me funny M$ suing another company for stealing the UI. Besides the fact that the original IE looks a lot like Netscape's browser, and I'm pretty sure there were email clients before Outlook. Or the fact that Word looks pretty simlar to that of Wordperfect.
M$ might be right about the infringement
This is an innocent question. If the OSS community is ready to debunk these patents, do we really need Microsoft to reveal which of the 235 patents/infringements they're talking about? Couldn't we start a site/database that organizes all of Microsoft's patents and start documenting prior art and such for each. The patents themselves aren't hidden :
Microsoft's patents (6723 patents)
Microsoft's UI patent (155 patents)
(for example)
Why not start debunking the FUD to prove how spurious their claims are? Is it because this would be too much work? (Admittedly, 6723 >> 235)
that Microsoft actually has a patent on computerized retorts
As much press as this non-story has gotten, it might have one lasting side effect, bringing all the OSS camps together. There's nothing like an external threat to rally a community. I expect RMS will be chiming in soon, so now we'll know that they can agree on some things.
It seems to me that it is just more noise from a blowhard company that is losing steam in the arena of operating systems. Sound and fury signifying nothing. Too bad the general public won't recognize it for what it is.
My humor is probably your flamebait
or loose the rights for your 1 billion dollar suit!
...
also people have repeatable and publicly been requesting that microsoft identify what patents they think are being infringed. M$ should tell them or loose the right to get remedies.
35USC287:
TITLE 35--PATENTS
PART III--PATENTS AND PROTECTION OF PATENT RIGHTS
CHAPTER 29--REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT, AND OTHER ACTIONS
Sec. 287. Limitation on damages and other remedies; marking and notice.
says "(3)(A) In making a determination with respect to the remedy in an
action brought for infringement under section 271(g), the court shall
consider-- (i) the good faith demonstrated by the defendant with respect to
a request for disclosure,
(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the following are evidence of
good faith:
(i) a request for disclosure made by the defendant;
(ii) a response within a reasonable time by the person receiving
the request for disclosure; and
(iii) the submission of the response by the defendant to the
manufacturer, or if the manufacturer is not known, to the supplier,
of the product to be purchased by the defendant, together with a
request for a written statement that the process claimed in any
patent disclosed in the response is not used to produce such
product.
The failure to perform any acts described in the preceding sentence is
evidence of absence of good faith unless there are mitigating
circumstances. Mitigating circumstances include the case in which, due
to the nature of the product, the number of sources for the product, or
like commercial circumstances, a request for disclosure is not necessary
or practicable to avoid infringement.
(4)(A) For purposes of this subsection, a ``request for disclosure''
means a written request made to a person then engaged in the manufacture
of a product to identify all process patents owned by or licensed to
that person, as of the time of the request, that the person then
reasonably believes could be asserted to be infringed under section
271(g) if that product were imported into, or sold, offered for sale, or
used in, the United States by an unauthorized person. A request for
disclosure is further limited to a request--
(i) which is made by a person regularly engaged in the United
States in the sale of the same type of products as those
manufactured by the person to whom the request is directed, or which
includes facts showing that the person making the request plans to
engage in the sale of such products in the United States;
(ii) which is made by such person before the person's first
importation, use, offer for sale, or sale of units of the product
produced by an infringing process and before the person had notice
of infringement with respect to the product; and
(iii) which includes a representation by the person making the
request that such person will promptly submit the patents identified
pursuant to the request to the manufacturer, or if the manufacturer
is not known, to the supplier, of the product to be purchased by the
person making the req
If they had patents that could kill linux, what would Microsoft do? Would they hem and haw and bluster about unspecified patents, or would they drop everything and file suit so they could get restraining orders against all the distributors of this "cancer"?
Microsoft's duty to their shareholders is to maximize value and exploit their IP. Of course they must choose the latter.
Therefore, they ain't got diddly or the blabbing would be done and the lawsuits begun.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Calm down Steve, go take it out on a chair or something!
Microsoft is indeed likely to be in violation of a number of patents. After all, they have a long history of having lost a number of court cases for patent violations.
Linux, on the other hand has absolutely none.
The number is probably pulled from their ass. If we look through all MS patents, then any we haven't filled in when MS want to actually take us to court will be the ones they claim on.
We'll have done their homework for them.
PS as those patents aren't worded very well (they either cover so much they are invalidated by prior art or they are so narrow they cover nothing) we need to know what MS *meant* to patent when they patented it.
Assuming MS really does have valid patents, how could just rewriting the code prevent Microsoft from seeking royalties for past infringement? Why does Linus think that Microsoft can't have patented anything that might be in the Linux kernel now just because basic operating system theory was done in the 1960s? Surely Linux 2.6.x is more modern than 1960s technology, right?
Microsoft will shortly have to expose the patents they believe are violated. That will be their undoing.
If they sue, it will be against major distro makers that aren't otherwise indemnified (like Novell, it's believed). If they sue end users, they will rue the day, and it will become like the RIAA except that there'll be alternatives to software, where there is a monopoly on music distribution.
Who will suffer? Microsoft. They're already in trouble with sliding OS sales because they can't make a quality product because of decisions made more than a decade ago that are architectural in nature. Would a Linux user be sued? Hardly. A distro maker? Sure. And how much money are they going to get? Not very damn much-- that's the interesting part. It'll be like SCOx vs IBM all over again. Watch the smoke, watch the mirrors.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Algorithms were VERY patentable. After all it is just math. But simple software was not. IBM has many patents that are relevant. In fact, I would almost like to see MS go after a IBM customer who is running Linux. I suspect that this would be the same game that has been played with SCO, except that IBM WOULD go after MS for 10's of billions of dollars.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Sorry, nice try. But that would be saying like guns only belong in militias, because militias are mentioned in the context of the Second Amendment. And while some people try to make that idea fly, it's still a brick, no matter how pretty you wrap it. Like militias in the Second Amendment, promoting science and the arts is the reason we need a patent system, but not the only things that can be patented with it.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If the government ever really wants to address Microsoft as a monopoly, they should realize that the underlying monopolies are granted by the government. The 95 year software publishing monopoly is granted by the government. The 20 year software design/algorithm monopoly is granted by the government. If these monopolies were reduced to reasonable terms, the tight control given to these large companies by these monopolies would be lessened.
...that Micro$oft doesn't have to do anything. The FUD is already spreading, so sit back and watch the corporate CTO's and CIO's squirm
under the pressure of having to (possibly) justify to their boards why they changed to a Linux environment and risk exposure or worse, rather
than pay the usual license fees, and be safe by staying with an all-Windows environment.
Another telltale sign of this is that all of these threads on here and elsewhere are getting zero answers or rebukes from anyone even remotely
associated with Redmond, as they probably all are under strict orders not to do so....
It is plain as day that M$ would probably not dare actual lawsuits, but yet these tactics indicate increasingly desperate attempts at solving
what many at the helm there have identified as a deeper and more pressing crisis:
As we read every day, Linux is gaining a hefty amount of traction worldwide, and this may yet be the safest course for slowling down
what they perceive as the ineluctable spread of a killer virus, and which in the OSS camp others view as nothing less than the long-awaited
liberation from the dark embrace of proprietary software's biggest monopolist.
Make no mistakes!... The M$ ship is finally flying its true colors.
It will be easy to dismiss these tactics, yet Redmond is full of very cunning and determined people who will 'fight to the death' to retain their
cushy jobs, $tock options and have grown accustomed to a way of life where they decide everything.
This was only the first salvo. Brace for more of the same tactics, only uglier.
Z.
Is it possible for an organization like IBM (who pay to keep the Linux kernel in development) to sue Microsoft because they spread misinformation on purpose about GNU/Linux which is bad for it's reputation?
I think it is possible to sue someone (at least in Canada) who act to make your reputation go dirty.
Is there a law for that?
Waaaa, Waaaa. Look at me, I'm Microsoft, our newest OS isn't selling as well as we expected, even after a multi million dollar marketing blitz. Oh no, what are we going to do now? It's not our fault, lets blame someone else and start sueing. Waaaah.
Cry me a fucking river M$. All you ever do is create "me too" products, or buy out competitors when you can't compete.
Your own lack of innovation is what's killing you, not open-source. Take a hike. I hope your law suits blow up in your face.
People are starting to wake up and realize they don't have to be your bitch anymore.
I used to be not so anti-microsoft, just a die hard Linux user. Now I'm boycotting Microsoft products. I will never buy another M$ software or hardware product again.
Aaah, my rant is over. I feel better. There's my $0.02.
Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
Pot here, stop calling me black you asshole!
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
That Peanuts guy just told us to FUD-OFF!!!
SOMEONE GIMME A CHAIR!!! COME ON - JUST ONE!!! I promise I'll quit after that.
I once demonstrated to someone how you can raise a numerically-encoded message to some power modulo p (where p is a product of two primes), so that without knowing those two primes, it's very hard to decrypt. Since I was acting as a (paid) tutor, I was doing this for commercial gain.
Does this make me a thought criminal?
I hold the patent on article comments and am going to sue slashdot users unless they all give me their lunch money!
I would be interested in comments from any lawyer-types on whether the duty to mitigate applies now that Microsoft has publicly announced knowledge of alleged patent violations. If they don't pursue specific action now, but defer it to some later time, could a defendant mount a defense based on Microsoft's failure to address the violation in a timely fashion? Or does this not apply in IP law?
For a long time now people have feared that the MS and Novell deal might lead to something like this. Could it not be said that part of the intent of this deal was to make an example out of Novell and basically call their deal a "settlement" shall we say. And then, use that as leverage for lawsuits against other companies and/or people for profit? If that doesn't qualify as "questionable business practices" then I really don't know what does.
or loose the rights for your 1 billion dollar suit!
Surely people just do this on purpose now.
This is the same exercise that was done with SCO. In fact, MS was probably wanting to see a trial run at this, to know what pitfalls they were going to have. Now, they have an idea of what to avoid. SCO's big downfall was having the patents outed. Once that happened, the community went to work on it and has destroyed SCO.
Why not debunk it? Nothing to debunk until they play their cards. They are being told to show cards after a call, and they want more rounds of betting. That is normally a bluff.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
IANAL, but couldnt the statements that M$ employees made about Linux infringing XXX many patents be considered slander? This was obviously done to harm the reputation of Linux, and absolutely no information was given pertaining to the actual patents that Linux violates. Perhaps, it's a different word when this is said about a product rather than an individual, but it seems like damaging the rep of a 'competing' product (with no proof) would have legal ramifications. maybe not?
Wouldn't it be just great if there was a rerun of the Halloween memo, involving a list of 235 patents that linux allegedly involves, which suddenly "dropped" into an appropriate inbox?
Wishful thinking, I know. But it's happened before....
todo - The developer's equivalent of confession: "Forgive me Father, for I have sinned..."
I've messed around with Linux, but it's time I started getting comfortable with it. I want nothing to do with M$ any longer.
The bigger problem is, however, that the law has put total control over software in the hands of those who can afford to navigate the system. Big companies must file software patents because their competition is filing them too. Now the only way to write anything is to strike a deal. This isn't how it was supposed to be. Software is evolutionary. What I write should be protected against piracy, but not against someone else picking up where I left off. The movement to free the PC really needs to get some steam. Everyone who has an interest in this should donate something. Send that money toward saving the PC instead of sending it to Redmond.
wasn't there an article recently about a guy who wrote drivers supporting 235 webcams? ;)
or was it 325 - the article (and summary) was unclear.
still, coincidence, no
Millions of consumer devices have been produced with embedded Linux software, you don't think Sony and the rest of them did their homework on Linux?
Unless you're an idiot CIO who has willingly drunk the Microsoft Cool Aid (or been paid to), then I think you can rest assured that people know exactly what Microsoft is trying to do now and aren't going to automatically believe what they have to say about their competition.
Are they? I don't know what MS are playing at really. Nobody inside the FOSS community is taking any of this seriously because everyone knows it is absolutely baseless. Scare off take-up or funding by professional organisations? Any sensible advisor to these professional organisations will tell them MS infringes as many (if not many many more) patents than OSS does and that for MS to sue them would lead the way to the all time biggest software legal showdown - and we all know MS isn't going to want that to happen as it would likely put them out of business.
This business kind of shows MS up really - they used to go down the "we can and are *better* than OSS - that's why you should choose us" (arguments about whether that statement is true or not can be left for another day). But now they really don't have anything to say on quality of their product - they *know* they are no better than OSS, and in some areas are substantially behind the curve.
To modify a WC quote, this is not the end, but it is the beginning of the end for MS - their days are numbered - I'm sure not in the next year, 5 or possible even 10 - the legacy of their software will exist for a good while - but in the long term they have nothing left in the cupboard - all this patent FUD is clear enough evidence of that.
Google should change their slogan to "Don't be like SCO." just to get at MS.
It's time for Linux contributors to start a class action (defamation) lawsuit. Given the number of contributors, I'd say we're looking at several billion in damages. Maybe then we'd see some details.
I had hoped Linus would have said this, but I guess it's up to me:
Hey Microsoft! BRING IT ON, BITCH!
-- Will program for bandwidth
If Microsoft publicly declares that Linux violates patents but won't disclose those patents it seems Microsoft would be guilty of slander. Clearly they're trying to make businesses think twice about buying into OSS solutions by giving the perception that those OSS solutions could be illegal.
Just raising the threat is enough to swing business into MS's camp. Without a single company to take point and sue MS for slander they'll get away with it.
Kevin Fox
it should be Xerox. Apple stole the GUI from them, and then Microsoft stole it from Apple.
One patented software that could be claimed to be truly novel and non-obvious is the LZW data compression method used in GIF files. The only innovation it promoted was the creation of the PNG format.
I seriously doubt the income Unisys got from licensing the LZW patent did they much good as a company. Apart from CompuServe, whenever they tried to sign licensing contracts with anyone, the other part just started using other data compression methods. I don't think they could keep paying Lempel, Ziv, or Welch for very long if they depended on LZW patent royalties alone.
Copyright: 20 years, renewable for an additional 10
Physical Patents: 10 years
Software Patents: 6 months, and full source code to implement the patent must be released under the BSD license
Microsoft can't even claim that it would be too cumbersome to check--because they have publicy announced that they have already checked.
So, you want to bundle it together with Linux so you can claim that GNU is also violating Microsoft patents? Do you feel envious because Microsoft is ignoring the GNU team?
Don't worry, I'm pretty sure there must be something in GNU applications that is violating some patent. For instance, there are lots of patents about compiler optimization methods, being such a large application, there must be a few patent violations in gcc.
Second amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Copyright Clause:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
The Second amendment does not state, "To promote security of a free State..."
One is clearly an example to of why, the other a reason why.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Do not forget the cardinal sys admin rule ... all together now:
DOWN NOT ACROSS
The first thing I thought of when I read the story about Microsoft claiming all these patents was that it was probably a move to extort Dell into paying protection on every Linux system they shipped. They could, thereby, effectively raise the price on an installed Linux system high enough to price it substantially higher than Windows. And, with Dell, unlike with IBM or Redhat, they could enforce it by threatening to raise the price they pay for every Windows install. This may be an interesting battle to watch.
Microsoft probably violates more software patents than Linux. Shall we start a web page listing patents that /.-ers believe M$ violates? It might be useful one day, if M$ goes all legal on us.
With enough eyes, all patent violations are visible. Chances are, many large companies that hold patents that MS infringes upon don't even know the infringement is happening. If users were to discover and publicly document a few thousand tidbits such as, "Windows Vista's user-account control database clearly violates IBM's patent 1,559,664 of June 29, 1997," why, companies like IBM would almost be obliged to sue MS for damages.
I like this idea a lot. It's elegant as hell, because it takes advantage of the fact that Microsoft has more to lose than anyone from software patents.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
IANAL, but couldn't companies with a vested interest in FOSS sue Microsoft for libel? Could this force Microsoft to disclose the allegedly infringed upon patents? Any lawyers in the house?
pffft (sound of bottle cap being opened)
GlugGlugGlugGlugGlugGlugGlug (downs entire 12 oz of brewski in 7 glugs)
Buuuurrrrrrrpppppp!!! (his actual, most truthful response to MS's patent tripe)
They're not basing that notice on any actual legal risk, they're just happy that they have found a good excuse not to have to learn something other than Microsoft Word.
CAN YOU SEE I AM SERIOUS?!
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
It's lose, already! Go back to second grade if you don't know the goddamn difference.
Lawyers out there - Can microsoft's acts be considered slander/libel against eg, Redhat, Ubuntu, any company that makes money by distributing open source software?
And if ms claims to have patents that are being violated, do they have any duty (a la contract breach) to mitigate damages by telling the violator what they are doing?
I'm sorry, but I'm sort of tired of this opinion. Slashdot is time-based for most people (not reading and commenting on journals etc.). News get "old" and move down the page until it disappears as yesterday's news. By then the debate is clearly over.
The way to keep a continuous debate is by having news, allthough small and "unpleasant" news, open for everyone to see and discuss, and reiterate.
Who cares what Microsoft's agenda is; we all pretty much agree it is FUD. But it's still interesting to discuss and discuss it we shall! There's no point in keeping silent to "not spread the FUD". Remember, FUD such that produced by SCO strengthened Linux. This will serve the same purpose - cry wolf, and all that.
So, please. Let people talk. If tech managers do make that assumption, let them. Incompetence is nothing we can do anything about on Slashdot - at least not the type concerned in your post.
Fight for your digital freedom, join the EFF *now*: http://www.eff.org/support/
I'm not a MS hater, but honestly this sort of nonsense does absolutely nothing to engender Microsoft with any sort of virtues or positive press. I mean just when you thought it was safe to stop hating them, they pull this bull into the china shop.
No company has a fulltime legal department for legal protection--this is simply another attempt at profiteering with lawyers.
You'd think they'd have the brains to remember just a decade ago when they were being threatened with antimonopolistic practices.
http://www.beanleafpress.com
"I'll wager that Microsoft is eying FAT and NTFS. Still, it's awfully easy to fix that. Just distribute a kernel without those drivers in the source, and just let someone outside the US distribute the patches, compiled modules, as well as compiled kernels."
How would that help? Stopping now wouldn't absolve one of prior acts of patent infringement, would it?
I'm not familiar with the US legal system, but here goes...
1. Can't FOSS or some other Open Source-heavyweight counter-sue M$ for slander in the likely event their allegations can't hold water? We can't sue for lost profits (there isn't any), but instead propose some kind of gag restricting M@ from making likewise allegations again? I mean, lawyers like money, and this seems like stealing candy from a baby (who throws chairs).
2. Why doesn't FOSS-supporters construct websites touting all the patents M$ breaks, or patents that M$ claim as their own although prior art exists? It wouldn't be FUD, it would be stepping up to the table and unveil the shitty patent-practice M$ has. I mean, that's what patent-databases are there for, right?
3. In essence, wouldn't FOSS/The Open Source community be "the bus to get onto" for lawyers? It seems like an infinite generator of easy-to-win lawsuits waiting to happen because no-one steps up to the plate due to the de-centralization of open source. The lawyers would make money, the community would get M$ off their backs, everybody except M$ goes home glad.
IANAL, but gee, If Naomi can do community-service for flinging shit at her maid...
MS would have to actually have to sue someone for that to matter. A bunch of /. posters stabbing at thee from their moms' basements don't count.
If Microsoft knows the patents are being violated, don't they have to prosecute them, or else lose the benefit? (Don't respond that I'm confusing patent and trademark law, I'm not).
As a patriotic Progressive American, I've had much the same issues with the Conservative and Republican base -- they use lies and lawyers to get their way. Sue someone hard enough and pretty soon they run out of money and admit that, indeed, 2+2=5. I havent understood why Democrats dont do this.
/. keep whining about these tactics, M$FT keeps more corporations away from Linux every day this goes on.
/. choir and start making a list of patents Microsoft has violated. Get your pro bono lawyers and start suing large corporations which use these products in violation of IP law. Its pathetic. But it will work, because lawyers run America, and this is how things get done. Create enough buzz about Microsoft's violations and soon M$FT will stop using these tactics. Spread the word. I'm sure M$FT has an army of PR people spreading these Linux stories right now.
I'm sorry to bring politics into this, but this is exactly what Microsoft has done. They have aimed to cloud facts and use legal threats. They will likely succeed, much like SCO did. While nerds on
So what does one do? I suggest you stop preaching to the
Otherwise, the next CIO that is selecting Solaris vs. SuSe for his grid, he's going to go with the safe bet. And that type of "better safe than sorry" is exactly what M$FT wants.
And you thought Windows' 95 was about the year it got out...
Can't a defamation suit put an end to these shenanigans?
With 6723 patents listed on the USPTO search page you would think that the community could each divy out the various patents and decide which ones could be applicable and then discuss the merits of the patents and hopefully list why they are so god awfully bad. "An animated icon for a portion of the screen", "an icon for a portion of the screen", "An icon for a partial image of a screen", "adding a glow effect to a portion of an image."
Yeah, but you can afford to be a bully at the table when your chip stack is intimidating. Then again, you won't have such a large stack very long if you're constantly bluffing when you have nothing.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
I call BS. I doubt very seriously that any lawyer would be up to date with Microsoft FUD. I would think it more likely that in about 6 months, (when they are googling to figure out what this OpenSource GPL thing is all about) that they will stumble on this *new* information. I think it very possible that a large company would be scared off by this, however, getting an email to remove opensource software is not only incorrect, since this was specifically about Linux, but highly doubtful. Good luck removing all of the opensource code. Especially all the code that sits on your Solaris systems, your HPUX and your AIX systems. And if you *really* work for a financial organization, you have plenty of those systems sitting around.
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
Europe did not go along with this software patent nonsense. That we didn't was a stroke of luck actually. Until now. Actually, M$ did Europe a favor here. Large companies like Philips (oh yuck imagine I used to work there once) who have promoted software patents have argued that software patents were never actually abused to make life difficult of OSS and so we shouldn't be afraid because 'none of the big companies is planning to use it against OSS anyways'. Well they won't be able to use THAT argument any more... Helps a lot in the discussion over here, now the argument is heating up again...
Well... when you guys kick bush out I hope some sanity will be restore at your side also...
Also, M$ is possibly seeking mutual indemnification from theft of property prosecution. If M$ can press the Linux Foundation and FSF-GPL+ to provide such a settlement, then they are safe from being financially raped, forced to release M$ products to F/LOSS-GPL, or destroyed by forcing removal of all OSS-GPL copyrights protected code from M$ products.
.... It is a very good idea to start loading the evidence weapon that will put a through&through hole in M$. I mean we may as well help them commit economic suicide. Work with the Linux Foundation folks ... I will be sending them a couple hundred more $ this year for the TEK-War. I hope I can get a hat that says I supported the F/LOSS troops in battle against the M$techno-fascist.
So, who will be the first to flinch in this obvious game of chicken/standoff. I suspect, that M$ is looking to be another dickless empty SCOrotum.
I ain't good enough with code, but I will continue to put some loss money on the Linux Foundation, FSF-GPL, EFF
!HAVEFUN!
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
and just sue 'em. They are walking dead from now on.
Did he just say oh well we are all stealing each others ideas. Do you think that will be his legal defense also.
...
Cmon, this article just shows Linux has no idea if Linux is or is not infringing on patents. If anything he is admitting that Linux likely infringes on patents, but he uses the excuse that MS does it to. Riiigjht
Well folk this is exactly why Linux still hasn't made it. The people behind the idea of open source have a retarded understanding of how to run a business.
Anything that hurts the competition, is a good idea. It's like you guys are such pussies you can't understand why competition drives the human spirit and hence your complete inability to make any sense when it comes to profitability or reasonable business decisions. If Linus has nothing good to say the man needs to keep his mouth shut because his stupid comments reflect on the entire Linux industry and it's hardly the first time he has made less than graceful statements.
Maybe that's why Bill Gates doesn't actually talk much. But you see, that's the difference. Bill knows not to talk and Linus doesn't because he can hardly even grasp that he hurts the Linux industry when he tries to get personal like this.
What are large corporate customers going to think about that? Linus basically said copyrights don't matter because MS is mean. I mean cmon. If you represent the pinnacle of an industry like Linus does, can't you shut up or think up something a little bit more satisfying to the thousands of companies that have invested into your idea. If he wasn't going to realistically address the situation he shouldn't have bothered saying anything.
Obviously Linux distros are stealing several fundamental ideas from Windows. The sheer fact that you have an interface designed to make 'windows users feel comfortable' pretty much says it all. We all know open source designers didn't start out by first doing tens of thousands of dollars worth of legal research to make sure none of the fundamental ideas in their software might already be copyrighted.
Even billion dollar companies constantly fail to properly interpret or thoroughly search patent information. How could Linus possible say that among the hundreds of current linux distros MS is infringing on more patents. Even if that were true, they aren't patents that Linux owns and that's all we are really talking about.
The fact he brought up IBM seems to suggest he knows little about the claims and wants to generalize or he is pretty sure Linux is infringing on some patents at least and he is launching his own propaganda against MS.
Either case, Linus is NOT being the better man and he can NOT win this game against a master of legal manipulation like MS. If there is even a hint of proof behind MS claims, they will almost certainly win in court. Perhaps the Linux distro should pull together for a joint legal fund against MS's claims. Or just ignore them
I think you guys are just seeing the start of a new MS effort to undermine it's competition. These things go in cycle. MS dumps money into destroy it's competition and then they let them heal for awhile. Just enough to keep the appearance of competition alive, but in the end Vista is the number on OS.. easily. MS probably sells more copies of Vista in a day than most distros sell all year. You can't win just making a cheaper product with crappy software. You can gain a following, but as we've seen it's not really coming along as fast as it should have. Most of the most important projects to Linux's fiscal success have been ignore for the sake of technical prowess, but if you look throughout history that strategy NEVER works. The longest lasting products are always the most profitable. In the end no amount of technical advantage can't be bought. Anything Linux can do, MS can buy and have pushed out to the masses before Linux can mobilize it's market base. Linux users have little incentive to even upgrade many times. They simply don't need most of the options being including in d
"Hi, my name is Linus Torvalds, and I pronounce the 'Microsoft IP violations' in Linux as bullshit!"
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
So, is Microsoft talking about Linux - the kernel - or utilities commonly found in GNU-based operating systems?
U.S. patents mean precious little outside the borders of the U.S. Store the source code for these "questionable" projects on servers located outside of the U.S. Perhaps Red Hat can pack their bags and move their head office to Sweden. What's Microsoft gonna do about that? It seems that Linux distributions are naturally insulated from these things, considering it's distributed model.
They say that imitation is the greatest form of flattery. Microsoft is scared because they're starting to realize that their imitators are better than they are.
Since i was enlightened 5-6 years ago and gave my XP disc the coaster treatment (no more beer rings on this desk!) - i've almost forgot what color it was.
This is a terrible thing to do with an XP disc. By keeping it on your disc, you'll still be able to see it, and its evil will influence you. XP discs should not be used as coasters; they should be broken in half and thrown in the trash.
on another note - maybe theyre jealous that linux runs better than Vista.
(clip)
So my conclusion is:
Microsoft is angry with linux because it works.
Definitely not.
MS isn't interested in making software that works well. They could have done that themselves if they wanted to. Microsoft is interested in domination, power, and money. Software is just a means to that end for them. This is why they make mediocre software that's "good enough", but is loaded down with "features" such as closed, proprietary file formats, to keep customers locked-in and afraid to change.
Linux is a threat to that. Notice how much work they put into Vista to help the entertainment industries by entangling the whole system with strong DRM. MS's dream is of a future where they're the only OS supplier, and their systems are gateways to pay-per-view DRMed content (music, movies, etc.). Of course, we've all seen how much of a pain DRM is for the end customer, but if you don't have a choice, too bad. The problem is, Linux gives users a choice. MS doesn't want us to have this choice.
15 USC
1125. False designations of origin and false descriptions forbidden
(a)
Civil action.
(1)
Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which--
(A)
is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B)
in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
(2)
As used in this subsection, the term "any person" includes any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this Act in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
(3)
In a civil action for trade dress infringement under this Act for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional.
Of course, one thing MS gets is the business environment. I've found FUD to get a great argument for IT purchases. In the corporate IT world, FUD rules cause in the end it's all about budgets, TCO, and to some, the self-need to be promoted w/o doing the most work (sounds like the good-ol rat race...).
Software patents, if I remember correctly, came about in the 90s. All the stuff about operating system fundamentals, etc were NEVER patented because you couldn't patent them before. You couldn't patent an algorithm or business method, but the changes in the 90s cause the entire problem we have now.
So the argument that Linus makes that MS infringes on fundamental patents or what-not is bogus because those patents never existed. I'm pretty sure FAT itself isn't patented, but some aspect of FAT was patented.
As to something mentioned about Samba, you can reverse-engineer a protocol, which is what Samba did with the MS-Lan manager stuff. Again, I don't think any of that internal stuff was patented because that was done in the 80s, however, they could be sued for copyright infringement if they stole code, which is why I believe samba was developed in a clean-room type environment.
From TFA
"We're not litigating. If we wanted to we would have done so years ago," said Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft's VP for intellectual property and licensing, in an interview.
Are patents like trademarks, where if you don't actively enforce it you lose it? If they know of violations, but don't point it out to the violators and let it go on for years, do they lose their right to enforce the patent (at least for the violators they knew about)?
OK, so we are violating an unknown subset of your patents. Fair enough. It's possible you are right. If, however, you want to be able to enforce those patents later, you'll need to com e forward right away. Also, you might be needing to prove you didn't wait too long already.
You can't watch a contractor put a new roof on your home and then only afterwards inform him he's at the wrong house. Or, more specifically, you can, but you are paying for a new roof. That's how it works.
If Microsoft intentionally waited until these patents were entrenched and difficult to remove before they acted for the purposes of maximizing their own legal position, then mightn't the doctrine of Estoppel by Silence come into play? Just wondering. I'm no lawyer (though I have been arrested enough times to pass the bar, I think!), but what they are doing seems like it might not be, you know, legal and stuff?
Tom Caudron
http://tom.digitalelite.com/
-Tom
You should tell those lawyers that they are very weak and that they're not thinking in the best interest of your company, are easily scared of a whole lot of nothing, and that thanks to them, your company is missing out on all the good stuff. Your company should fire those lawyers immediately - you can NOT trust your company's decisions to them. If I was an investor in your company, I would immediately worry, because I'd know that your company isn't willing to explore and embrace the best innovation available. It would mean that your company is willing to leave all the innovation to Microsoft. Bad decision, very dumb.
Jail is the worst menace for someone who is a scientist and does not hurt anybody.
Today i made my counts on software piracy.. and voila...
They own me!
Today someone with a Pentium 4 asked me if i could install winxp on his computer
as usual, i said NO, but i used the long explanation
look man, i have twenty dead corpses on my shoulder, i cannot help you,
you decide: Linux or death
i have nothing else to do, no matter if i use free software
i am in a black list.
The Exodus is my future.
?
but I doubt he'd consider what's said here useful.
No, really, what are we supposed to do, sit on our hands while M$NBC, GE, Westinghouse, Disney, Fortune and other big media owners trumpet this bullshit? I don't think so.
In this thread I've learned what Torvalds and Schwartz have to say about these supposed M$ patents. Both think M$ is full of shit, which directly negates the Fortune spin which had the business world lining up behind a real violation. Business outside of M$ is ready for M$ to go away and there is no violation. Once again, M$ is bluffing instead of delivering something their customers want.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Linux uses FAT32 and/or NTFS filestore formats for interoperability with Microsoft products, and for no other reason.
If it weren't for interoperability, there would be no purpose in having them around, whatsoever. After all, not many people would dispute that these formats are extremely poor compared to any native Linux filestores.
This is highly relevant to this latest patent fillibustering by Microsoft, because interoperability is a strongly protected activity, and has been for many decades, with an enormous body of legal precedent.
There is no way in hell that Microsoft could claim (and win) a case of patent infringement when the demonstrated use is not for Linux's native benefit but purely for interoperation with Microsoft's own products.
Software is obsolete in 5-10 years.
No.
There are many examples of non-obsolete 20 year old software running in many many places. Financial software, for example.
(ps: I mostly agree with the premise of your post, however)
Linus is a smart guy, but once again he still doesn't get it with modern hardball business and governments.
There are billions and billions of dollars at stake.
People can and will do *anything* when it comes to that sort of money.
Any. Thing. Use your imagination, now times ten that. That's what billions and billions of dollars mean.
Modern big business owns government. Government is a jobs program, as much sub rosa influence peddling as above board normal politicking. Just as much, and influence wise, the sub rosa part is more important.
Let's revisit billions and billions of dollars again.
Governments get to decide your reality, not you, and not Linus. He is quite naive to think that nothing much will come of this. He could be quite technically correct, but that won't amount to anything important at all.
Billions and Billions of dollars.
And he still thinks GPL3 wasn't/isn't needed and doesn't want to be bothered with politics or "crusades".
In soviet capitalistic amerika, billions of dollars crusade YOU.
I am an attorney, and I don't think that Microsoft has valid patent claims against me personally, and I am using Edgy Ubuntu and Mepis 6.5 and SuSE 10.0 and SuSE 10.2. The Mepis 6.5 SuSE 10.2 I am using in my law practice; and the Edgy and SuSE 10.0 I am using to make a film about Microsoft's anticipated loss of market share due to the growing popularity of FOSS. The film is called the Digital Tipping Point, so you would think that if Microsoft has a desire to shut up anyone, I would be among them. At any rate, I have created a list of people who would like to be sued by Microsoft. Please feel free to sign up. The more the merrier! It's a wiki page. Here is the tinyURL:
l e=Sue_me_first%2C_Microsoft
http://tinyurl.com/2wlemy
Here is the full page:
http://digitaltippingpoint.com/wiki/index.php?tit
Old news, guys. Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeros
DAMMIT! GNU/Linux violates hundreds of Microsoft patents!!!!!!
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Does that mean that those security holes in Windows (you name it), which could have been patched before release were left there so Microsoft could release various patches that allowed them to spy upon all their unsuspecting customers?
If that is true, then I'm switching to Linux for good.
Apple and Microsoft have a patent cross-licensing agreement. They're not going to get involved in this fight.
Besides, they're rapidly turning into a consumer-electronics company anyway.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
This is a non-issue which is getting far too much press right now.
I've talked at length to some friends who work at Red Hat, and they're ignoring it.
For one thing, they claim that Microsoft comes out with this sort of statement about once a year... and never follows up on it. (I can't attest to the correctness of this statement.)
But more importantly, RedHat has a patent portfolio of its own, and they know that Microsoft violates some of their patents. RedHat specifically allows any OSS project to use their patents - but reserves the right to demand a license from any proprietary software vendor.
Google "RedHat Patent Promise" for more info.
Then they pointed out that the larger OSS players have entered into a loose consortium with agreements not to enforce each others' patents *and* to come to the aid of anyone who is attacked by a proprietary vendor. They had an acronym for it "OIG" or something (open information group, something like that). The group includes IBM and Novell.
If Microsoft attempted to actually enforce any patents on open source, two things would happen:
1) The offending software would be immediately changed to be non-infringing
2) Microsoft would be forced deal with its own patent infringements.
Microsoft making anything of this would be the legal equivalent of hitting a beehive with a stick.
Don't worry about this, it's a non-issue.
What business are you in? Your IT department will eventually be filled with braindead pointyclicky guys AND/OR your IT infrastructure costs will be higher than your competitors due to predatory licensing fees.
Actually, you're wrong.
Eminent domain doesn't allow the Government to take property without compensation. There was a war about this, in fact. It was called the Revolution, it happened a while ago, it involved a bunch of guys in wigs and funny hats. Good time was had by all.
Anyway; there's a whole process by which you can sue the government if they infringe a patent, and you can collect damages from them as normal. If they did decide to take a patent by eminent domain, they'd have to do it just like any other property, where they pay you some assessed value.
It's a myth that if the government wants your property, that they just take it and don't have to give you anything; that's not true -- they have to give you something in return, usually the assessed value of the property. Sometimes it's not a lot compared to what you're losing (the current, heavily depressed market value for your three-centuries-old family farm, so that the town can pave it and build a mini-mall for the mayor's cousin or something; that's perfectly legal and also clearly unjust), but they do have to compensate you.
You might want to take a glance at the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
From http://www.out-law.com/page-8052 "The author of a report used by Microsoft as evidence of open source patent infringement has said that his report means the opposite of what Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer said it means." Tim S
SCO's big downfall was having the patents outed. Once that happened, the community went to work on it and has destroyed SCO.
Actually nothing was ever "outed". SCO made wild claims about appropriation of "IP" they claimed to "own" but - as most of us expected - failed to substantiate them. The case is just an excruciating charade, plodding on to this fatal conclusion despite a catalogue of delay tactics.
you had me at #!
Microsoft have made a terrifying mistake to attempt this - they are meddling with forces that they cannot possibly control and will be destroyed in the laboratory of their own contrivance.
The purpose of existence is to make money.
However, the issue at hand is one of software patents not copyright. So the origin of the code does not come into the equation for even a second. It doesn't matter where the code came from either, that's copyright, too. What matters with software patents is only what the user is doing with the code.
There are other ways to know that M$ is out after Samba. First off, if M$ had obeyed any of the court decisions and published info on CIFS, then Samba would have been completed long ago. Following that, Samba has had a lot of work to figure out how the protocol works, and work is much harder for version 2 since M$ engineers were told to " fuck with Samba ". That's a quote from the interview, so pardon my French. IIRC the quote's about 40 minutes or so into the interview. There's a lot of unfortunate banter, but otherwise an interesting interview.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
I am not using Windows, and I have a question as to US law when it comes to the requirement to actively protect ones patents.
If Microsoft threatens to sue based on its software patents (or claims to want to do cross license deals where the patents would have to be shown), is there not some law in the US that takes away their right to sue for those patents if they do not then go ahead with the legal action?
In Europe MIcrosoft's threats to sue while not really doing so would be classed as slander at best, I think, or extortion at worst.
I think Microsoft is in for a possible world of pain here in Europe if they carry on the way they currently are.
But then again, it is expensive to do so so we won't actually be invalidating these patents. If we just document the flaws in the patent then MS, when they come to defend it, will say "ah, that isn't prior art because of X we intended in our patent claims". If we haven't done the checking for them, MS will have to make it up on the spot. While we work to invalidate the patent on more evidence and show how this narrowing removes Linux/FOSS from the patent infringed.
MS will be talking about 235 patents. If they can't come up with 235 themselves, we save a shedload of work. If we pre-stage the work, MS will be using it to avoid traps.
So this is only good if we're going to actually go to the USPTO and remove their patent portfolio.
"Mitigating circumstances include the case in which, due
to the nature of the product, the number of sources for the
product, or like commercial circumstances, a request for disclosure is not
necessary or practicable to avoid infringement."
Does this not mean, that Microsoft can refuse to disclose the infractions,
because there are so many contributors to GNU/Linux. Microsoft can claim
that they will only disclose the infringements to those contributors
if/when they(MS) decide to sue?
G++
I don't think we're doing Microsoft's publicity work. Their claims are clearly BS, and it is our duty to expose them. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Software is math. Patents on software are just patenting integer numbers (or sets of integers numbers, if you wish).
So NO, software patents have no sense, no matter the use you or anyone else give to those sets of numbers (encription, compression or whaterever you wish).
What's in a sig?
Companies like Microsoft and IBM often sign cross-licensing deals to cover patent infringements. It's quite a standard practice actually. IBM loves Linux but they also love fat profits, AIX, and mainframes so I don't think they'll come fighting on the side of Linux. What we are seeing here might be the start of an extraordinary situation in legal history. Usually we'd have expected Microsoft to have been thoroughly hounded for its monopoly and then broken up and that's the end of it. If this case carries on it may open up so many other issues related to the entire issue of copyright, DRM, etc, and Microsoft may end up paradoxically putting up a good case in the defense of an individual's right to what they create with far reaching implications. We see in the music world that many artists that we love are not being compensated enough for their creations. We see the same thing in online video. Now, we all love Linus. Linux is in no small part a success because of his leadership. John Carmack and Linus are my top coding heroes and I often peruse my copy of Linus's book or the excellent bio of Carmack/Romero by David Kushner. In this case, though, I wish Linus would hire a lawyer quickly and not resort to communication via the public media. A lot could be at stake here and the issue deserves proper attention on his part with the aid of professional lawyers.
I understand that "Big-Boy" Ballmer has a patent on
"Throwing chairs at employees"
Venezuela doesn't have patent issues... Put a mirror on Venezuela with all the stuff that violates Microsoft patents and it's done :)
OMG, I should be president!
ghostbar page.
the answer to everything, not for everything...
"we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
MS is seen with suspicion in many high places now.
Pepople are starting to smell the coffee, MS is underestimating the level of resentment that is out there. To their peril.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
In all likelyhood much bigger than yours.
We are going nowhere in regards to Free Software and Linux.
Microsoft = Lies = Tainted.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... what was the rationale behind such asinine agreement?
....
As we all know, there are no violations, what was the commercial sense of enter in an agreement with somebody that has absolutely no serious claim?
No exxuses frankly, too little, too late, and to wrap it all up people will have to disintangle the Mono based stuff that is creeping in
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
According to this article MS doesn't have a case:o t-a-component/
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/05/15/software-is-n
Microsoft's lawyer has agreed that there should be a device in order for a patent to be valid.
Since Linux/OSS is not "married to a device" (as the lawyer names it) patents do not apply according to the theory of MS lawyer MR Olson.
What are you talking about, I never threw a chair in my life.
3 2432,00.htm
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,392
Please pardon my patent law ignorance, but why doesn't M$'s choice to not pursue monetary damages for the patent infringements not represent a legal abandonment of those patents? The defense of a patent is the sole responsibility of a holder to defend. Consequently, M$ has a legal responsibility to pursue due diligence. M$ should not be allowed to knowingly let an amount of time to pass while resulting damages pile up in their favor, effectively allowing the infringing company to do their work for them for free or at a penalty. Going one step further, why doesn't M$ choice not to identify the specific infringed patents not represent an abandonment of all M$ owned patents? No where in the constitution does it state that congress's ability to encourage science and useful art can be used as a tool for discrimination. Quite the opposite, the language of the constitution strongly suggests that the patent protection is done not for the sole good of the inventor or developer; but rather, for the good of the country as a whole. Consequently, how is shutting down competitors done for the good of the country? (Especially since the patent holder already holds such a significant market share) Discrimination in this case is committed by the big company by effectively not allowing smaller businesses with much fewer resources to compete through patent enforcement. Finally, how can vague patent wording be legitimately concluded to infringe upon a specific implementation? Patent wording should be interpreted as it is written; meaning that if the patent holder could not or did not foresee the specific implementation, then the patent should not be infringed by the specific implementation. Translation: If a patent can possibly be interpreted as not being infringed upon by a specific implementation, then it should be interpreted as not infringing. Patent holders should not benefit from vague wording where they may "accidentally" benefit from that wording. Analogy: I am pretty sure that if a bank truck full of cash crashed into your yard that you would not have any claim to the money inside.
These right click and say (c) Microsoft but within there are the following texts
"The Regents of the University of California" also mentioned in C:\WINDOWS\system32\finger.exe, rcp.exe, rsh.exe
"Copyright Insignia Solutions Inc" in C:\WINDOWS\system32\ntvdm.exe
"Phar Lap Software, Inc. Copyright (C) Rational Systems" in the ntkernal C:\WINDOWS\system32\ntkrnlpa.exe, (ntkrnlmp.exe, ntkrpamp)
dunno if this is meaningfull....
No, it just means they didn't give a damn about security until it started to look like it might hurt their bottom line. At which point they discovered that adding good security to an architectural mess is quite hard.
A good enough reason to switch to linux anyway, IMHO.
Could a shareholder (or several) demand that MS take action, and thus expose the Patents claimed?
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
Okay, so you can't get them for the punitive damages associated with patent infringement, but you can sue them for the value of the "unauthorized use" that they committed.
That's basically an extension of what I said above; they can take the patent (like any other piece of property) by eminent domain, but they have to compensate you for it. What 28 USC 1498 is doing, is saying that if/when they do this, you can't use the normal willful-infringement statues to hammer them in the same way that you could a private individual.
So I was a little incorrect to say that you could go after them for "infringement," but I still maintain that you're incorrect to say that they can do it uncompensated -- by law they have to compensate you, probably based on whatever rates the patent is generally licensed out at, or whatever the lost business is worth to you. If would be up to you to argue in court what's "just," but I'm sure there's a lot of caselaw on it, and on defining the value of a patent generally.
Basically the effect of these laws is to guarantee that the government gets -- or can get, anyway -- pretty much the best deal available in the market on a patented invention or product; if a patentee tries to screw the government (which would make sense -- I mean, the government by definition has the deepest pockets of all, mostly because they've got their hands elbow-deep in everyone else's), the government can just take the patent and only have to pay (probably) the prevailing licensing cost, since that would be the obvious "compensation."
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The fact that Microsoft isn't producing an accurate list of these supposed "patents" that the Open Source community is "infringing" upon underlines how meaningless these allegations are to begin with. One could also point out the staggering level of hypocrisy on the part of Microsoft, who has a long standing reputation for total disregard for patents and copyright infringement.
These allegations are Microsoft's dismal attempts at playing the inept schoolyard bully, nothing more. If infringements have been discovered and there is any merit to these allegations, let Microsoft furnish full, accurate, and correct proof of these patent violations for the world to see. Otherwise, Microsoft should just climb back into their hole of mediocrity in Redmond and keep their collective mouths shut.