Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft, Sue Me First
corigo writes "Supporters of free and open source solutions have thrown down the gauntlet at Microsoft's feet. Christian Einfeldt of Digital Tipping Point says 'Sue Me First,' and he's not alone. More and more people are signing up and challenging Microsoft to put their lawyers where their mouth is. The open source community is far from running scared. Will Microsoft step up to the plate, or are they just continuing a scare campaign with no real ability to leverage the patents they claim open source is infringing?"
Microsoft: O.K.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
as an open source software user, i back christian einfeldt completely.
sue him first, pls.
fp btw!
He just might eat you.
Dangerous game we are playing, calling their bluff. The stakes are pretty damned high.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
...Open source sues you!
Microsoft sues you! Oh wait ...
But for God's sake, spare me the slashdotting.
A: Will Microsoft step up to the plate...
B: or are they just continuing a scare campaign with no real ability to leverage the patents they claim open source is infringing?
I'll take B for all the money in the world, Bob.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I remember stories about McDonalds and Disney taking aggressive action to defend their exclusive rights even against small-time infringers with the justification that refraining to sue could have been construed as abandoning their trademark. So, if microsoft does not sue these people, would it be tantamount to abandoning their right to sue later, or is it all just a bunch of meaningless hot air?
Start posting Windows serials on your blog.
Trademark != Patent != Copyright.
If MS had strong infringement claims, they would have named them years ago. The fact they're pulling a SCO-esque FUD campaign means that these supposed infringements are questionable at best, and can be challenged, at which point prior art will probably be found. If not, they can be coded around. In all cases, MS is pretty much spent once it's named these supposed infringements, which is why they won't do so publically. Their strategy is a combination of public FUD and private protection-money shakedowns. Calling their bluff is exactly the right thing to do.
(I'm looking at OLTP, because that's a worldwide non-Microsoft venture that could seriously dent Microsoft revenue in growing markets and because it's the biggest event due any time soon. Microsoft's FUD is generally not random but very purposeful and has a specific goal in mind. There simply isn't another goal on a comparable scale on any kind of near-term timeframe.)
There are a few other avenues that Linux could be doing well in, but Microsoft is growing faster in the server market despite inferior performance, reliability or security, and that's the only other area Linux and Microsoft have any serious rivalry at this time. Linux could be doing well on the desktop, but not while it is playing catch-up. It would have to invent a whole new metaphor before it could seriously threaten Microsoft in the home market.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Is there actually a legal way to tell them to "put up or shut up"?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Microsoft doesn't want to step up the plate - they don't want to solidify their claims. They want to create in the midns of existing and potential Microsoft products that Linux and assorted alternatives are too risky to switch towards. Patents this week, usability next week, compatability the week after. This is not a game about patents, this is a game of unobservable quality and obfuscating the quality determination process. "What if there really are problems with Linux? Maybe it isn't the good solution I've heard it is? Best to stick with Microsoft, the lemon/devil I know".
This may sound like a troll, but it really is not: in my opinion, Linux enthusiasts crying, "sue me first!" creates in the mind of traditional business people the idea that such enthusiasts are risk-seeking. Not everyone wants to be associated with a risk-seeker.
"You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
It's fud vs bca (bravery, certainty and assurance). This is about bed patents rather than good trademarks, so you're just a little off base here. These guys are essentially talking big in the hopes that their big brother (FSF) will step in and cover the checks their asses can't cash. It's kinda childish, but Microsoft has that effect on otherwise normal people.
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
...doesn't mean Microsoft won't go through with them, and doesn't mean they won't be a major PITA for whoever ends up being the target. "Sue me first" is cute but an unwise idea. That said, I doubt it'll make any difference, as I'm sure their lawyers will line up whatever targets are strategically optimal (e.g. highest payoff with best chance of success), not random people on blogs who are asking for lawsuits.
Crap! I wasn't the first post after all! I just got schooled in the world wide typing race. Oh well, maybe next article...
IANAL, and you shouldn't rely on this as legal advice, YMMV, etc.:
It might affect their ability to sue the particular people for reasons unrelated to abandonment (statutes of limitations, laches, and various estoppel theories), especially if it can be shown that Microsoft knew about the particular facts that it would allege are violations by the particular users early on and didn't act.
It probably won't affect their ability to sue other people, though.
But trademarks are very different from copyrights, and there is nothing in copyright similar to abandoning a trademark. Trademarks are protected based largely on use, copyrights are not.
Wouldn't it have been pointed out in the Lindows case? I mean if Lindows is stealing patents AND your trademark, wouldn't it be an open and shut case?
"I AM SPARTACUS!!!"
Let's see whether Microsoft runs out of cruciforms first or the Open Source community runs out of people first.
It's on.
sorry, should be "BAD patents". As far as I know none of them are in the bedding industry.
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
if you lose the first one.
My name is Wootzor von Leetenhaxor
Should use the money to buy Sealand , where there is no copyright, trademark or patent law.
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
Patents don't have to be enforced vigorously to be lost. In fact, the ActiveX interactive patent holder has gone on record as saying he will not pursue cases against Mozilla or Opera, only Microsoft.
Copyright is, more or less, the same.
Trademarks, however, are simply a word or two that is up to the company to promote. There's plenty of cases were trademarks have "expired" into the public lexicon, like escalator.
Actually, I think this is great. People standing up and telling Microsoft to shove it.
For too long Microsoft has bullied and intimidated. They have monopolized, stolen code (remember the Stacker lawsuit?), and tried to dominate the entire world. Sadly, they did pretty well at it.
But now, Linux is, IMHO, ready for the general user and the common desktop. It doesn't require the skills that it once did thanks to Gnome and KDE. For most people, web browsing, reading e-mail, and processing word documents, spreadsheets, and presentations, Linux looks and feels pretty damn close to Windows - but has added enhancements, has better security, and is far cheaper to own.
I'm sure these latest developments, with Dell offering Ubuntu, Vista being bad-mouthed by gamers and office users alike, and open sourcers far and wide mocking Microsoft and it's chair-throwing flunkie, Bill and company are just a wee tad worried.
First anybody is going to do something like this, learn to write. Any CxO reading that is going to think we're all semi-literate morons and it's hard to out-moron the CxO crowd.
Secondly, I'm sure nobody asked this fool to poke the tiger on their behalf. If any individual wants to pick a fight they can't win alone, go to a freeway and pick a fight with a speeding truck instead of risking the hard work and livelihoods of others.
The open source community should call Microsoft's bluff and file a pre-emptive class action lawsuit. The lawsuit would basically challenge the court to decide whether or not Linux and other open source projects violate Microsoft's patents. This has been done before when a company is under threat of lawsuit, they preemptively ask the court to decide if what they are doing is legal. This removes the cloud of a potential lawsuit so that the threatened company can conduct business. Of course you would want to file the lawsuit in Federal court in San Francisco.
Digitaltippingpoint - Hmmm, appropriately named.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
You mean rewrite or drop infringing projects? Sounds like cleaning house to me. Someone said something about the likelihood that Samba would hit in this and how that would actually be beneficial. I'm kind of seeing these developments like that now myself. Samba is awesome because it lets us play with our Windows systems nicer. But the Windows technology we are trying to play with is pretty crumby really, maybe Linux *and* Windows users would benefit from someone getting an itch to scratch?
What I think is a little funny is how close on the heels of the SCO debacle this is. I mean, they bankrolled that, personally I'd at least wait a year or something.
Quack, quack.
Seems the site is a bit swamped...must be all the people signing up to be sued...
And eventually, no network conection to the rest of the world.
They CAN be cut off. So unless you actually live there, the lack of IP 'rights' wont mean much.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
MS is just jealous that IBM's stock price almost caught up to MS's. Those evil people at IBM, turning OpenSource into a business model! The Battle Royale will be MS vs. IBM. The good news is that IBM is good at this game and has already played it with SCO. Hmmmm.. what shape SCO is in these days.... can you say "DELISTED"? I knew that you could... :)
You do not lose patents by not enforcing them , that's trademarkls. Really, how difficult is it to educate yourself a little bit about intellectual property, even just a little bit? Most of the stupid stories and subsequent comments would cease to exist if this would occur. Until then, please do us all a favor and stop posting on these stories until you've become more familiar with the issue. You can do your small part to make the dream of intelligent Slashmoneky posts a reality.
from digg.. Much has been written about Microsoft's allegation of patent infringements in Linux (by which I'm sure they mean GNU/Linux ;-) ). I don't think Microsoft is the real threat, and in fact, I think Microsoft and the Linux community will actually end up fighting on the same side of this issue. ....
And I'm pretty certain that, within a few years, Microsoft themselves will be strong advocates against software patents. Why? Because Microsoft is irrevocably committed to shipping new software every year, and software patents represent landmines in their roadmap which they are going to step on, like it or not, with increasing regularity. They can't sit on the sidelines of the software game - they actually have to ship new products. And every time they do that, they risk stepping on a patent landmine.
They are a perfect target - they have deep pockets, and they have no option but to negotiate a settlement, or go to court, when confronted with a patent suit...
Read the rest here.
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/118
It was Ken Olsen of Digital Equipment who back in my day said 512kb (I think he said 512) was more memory than would ever be needed, to parahprase. Bill Gates was never noted as saying any such thing as far as I recall. I'm shocked the article author didn't know this as it's pretty well known.
"Most of the stupid stories and subsequent comments would cease to exist if this would occur."
As would all the ad impressions. Your id# suggests you've been around a while; you still havent figured out what slashdot is all about?
Slashdot now moderates tags? and gets rid of tags like: whocares, yes, no, flaimbait ?
While admiring the spirit of opposition to MSFT, it's worth remembering that MSFT' s strategy is to go to the end user and cut a deal involving royalties. By sowing enough fear in the minds of corporate consumers of FOSS, MSFT will get them to come to the table. The producers of open source code are not the target -- they don't buy much, if anything, of what MSFT has to sell. But, such producers would react very similarly to MSFT if someone violated the GPL. Would that not be copyright enforcement?
First they came for the Hackers, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Hacker. Then they came for Novell, and I didn't speak up, because I don't use Novell. Then they came for the Linux Users, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Windows user. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
You remember that hamas mickey mouse knockoff video that was making the rounds a few weeks ago? The one with a mickey-mouse like character encouraging kids to kill the jews? Disney knew about it and didn't sue. They said it was to avoid bringing attention to it, but it might be because they hate jews too.
you're just a little confused. Patents don't have that restriction, it's time based. You're thinking of trademarks and calling them copyright. A trademark is a brand, a copyright is something written, and a patent covers an invention. The question is "Is software more invention or more of a written work?". As someone that has written software I believe it is something written or authored.
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
When you play poker, you can have a Full House, bluff or buy the pot.
M$ doesn't have to have a Full House nor do they have to bluff. With their money, you can pay them or the attorneys. Which do you think would be cheaper in the long run?
Until someone can afford to give them a bloody nose, M$ and the rest of the school yard bullies will rule.
Microsoft may well step up but that does not mean they want to. I believe they are intending to scare the open source community, which will in turn (however subconsciously) affect the future open source development. Not insulting the open source community's intelligence in any way, i'm just saying when a developer is working on a new feature they're gonna have this threat in the back of their mind and may choose to make less inovative choices due to this threat, no matter how "fuck you" they think they are. I find this all the more interesting after the article about who really owns linuz trademarks and mozilla's financial success. I mean who really gets sued?
You know, that's both the most insightful and the most disturbing metaphor I've ever heard about this issue thus far.
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
Remember, that in America at least, court cases are generally won by money not truth. On television, people win court cases on merit. Frankly, Micro$oft can throw in a few attorney's to fud things up and confuse the judge, then throw in a bribe or two to close the deal. It really is not relevant if M$ has any patents or not. They have money...like O.J. did.
How many SUSE using Susie's could Microsoft sue If Microsoft could sue SUSE using Susie's who sell sea shells down by the sea shore?
Answer: None. I think.
FAQs are evil.
I was going to post that, but it looks about right to me. Of course, IANAL.
Of course, getting a declaratory judgment may be hard because they later said they wouldn't sue. They're just going to go around to companies and quietly hit them up for cash / make them avoid Linux. Shouldn't be too hard because they'll likely have other deals with them (e.g. volume license agreements) they can rake them over the coals with. The patents themselves are just a scare tactic. If you have a clever enough lawyer, they might very well be able to get you out of all this, especially given that software patents should be a lot weaker thanks to the Teleflex ruling.
That said, suing customers just isn't good business (think SCO) and any competitors they might want to tangle with would be able to fight back thanks to OIN and other patent trusts defending Linux. Yeah, they could tie us up with decades of litigation, but it wouldn't do them much good. If they want to do that for shock value, they'd use intermediaries like SCO, I think. And we know how well that's working out...
At least, that's my take on it, but I can't claim any special knowledge.
Hey, is it just me or did we manage to /. the "Sue me first" site? Their server seems to be curled up fetal on the bottom of the rack right now. Good job guys.
--Tomas
....a slight name change: MicroSCOft.
And Microsoft's claims are about patents, not copyright or trademarks. Remember, the term "intellectual property" is nothing more than a fiction designed to confuse people about the patent/copyright/trademark trio.
would you want to sue an organisation that routinely blows people up?
i'd think its a bloody smart idea to leave dealing with those guys to those with the protection of governement (cops, armed forces etc) if you value your life.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
I'm Sparticus! No, I'm Sparticus!
(OK, so they aren't searching for someone in particular but close enough).
The doctrine of laches says you lose the right to sue if you don't do so promptly. In terms of patents, you can't delay suing just to wait until you can extract maximum damages. You will probably be left with nothing.
"Laches is an equitable defense, or doctrine, in an action at law. The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has "slept on its rights", and that, as a result of this delay, that other party is no longer entitled to its original claim. Put another way, failure to assert one's rights in a timely manner can result in claims being barred by laches. Laches is a form of estoppel for delay. In Latin,
Vigilantibus non dormientibus æquitas subvenit.
Equity aids the vigilant, not the negligent (that is, those who sleep on their rights). "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)
Women
All of open source is a satire of M$ work. The fact that it happens to do the job is secondary to the commentary inherent in the fact that it often does the job better than a multibillion dollar corporation.
Of course, that's copyright fair use... I don't know what the rule is for satirical patent violators...
What he said was true.
The RIAA does it all the time.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
So you are saying that people do not educate themselves and make idiotic comments so that /. gets more ad impressions?
When it comes to patents Ms has an obligation to inform the infringer and give them a chance to either license or work around the problem. They have to duty to try and minimize damage to them.
evil is as evil does
I could be dead wrong about this, but aren't patents a matter of public record? Couldn't someone just look up all the patents held by Microsoft and try to identify which ones are being "infringed" upon?
I suggest that anyone who takes up Microsoft's offer of a patent license, henceforth be labeled a 'Stig', in honor of Stig O'Tracy from Monty Pythons 'Piranha Brothers' Sketch
Presenter Another man who had his head nailed to the floor was Stig O' Tracey.
Cut to another younger more cheerful man on sofa.
Interviewer Stig, I've been told Dinsdale Piranha nailed your head to the floor.
Stig No, no. Never, never. He was a smashing bloke. He used to give his mother flowers and that. He was like a brother to me.
Interviewer But the police have film of Dinsdale actually nailing your head to the floor.
Stig Oh yeah, well - he did that, yeah.
Interviewer Why?
Stig Well he had to, didn't he? I mean, be fair, there was nothing else he could do. I mean, I had transgressed the unwritten law.
Interviewer What had you done?
Stig Er... Well he never told me that. But he gave me his word that it was the case, and that's good enough for me with old Dinsy. I mean, he didn't want to nail my head to the floor. I had to insist. He wanted to let me off. There's nothing Dinsdale wouldn't do for you.
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
Microsoft doesn't have any interest in suing current Linux users for patent infringement. They are small potatoes. Microsoft just wants to keep current Windows users under their thumb, and they really want to keep the vassals like Dell in line. It's pretty clear that Microsoft has come down from the mountain with the One Commandment for OEMs: 'Thou shall not sell a desktop or notebook system without a Microsoft tax'. Since for Microsoft OEMs, disobeying their lord and master means nearly instant death, they play along. You would think that the USDOJ or Congress might take an interest, but apparently not. Their attitude seems to be "move along, nothing to see here" while Microsoft beats the brains out of anybody that might consider buying from another vendor.
I don't think this is their primary goal. The people they want to scare are their current and potential customers. Follow the money.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Linux: D00D I'm in your base killing your FUD!!!11!!! XD
Microsoft: OHHH SHIT!
Money is the root of all evil?
C:\windows\system32\drivers\etc Bring it on baby...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous
"Frivolous litigation is a legal claim or defense presented even though the party and the party's legal counsel had reason to know that the claim or defense had no merit. A claim or defense may be frivolous because it had no underlying justification in fact, or because it was not presented with an argument for a reasonable extension or reinterpretation of the law."
Calling a lawsuit "frivolous" is not dismissing its possible impact (in fact, as you see my original comment did exactly the opposite). Rather, it is meaning that the claims on which it is based are specious. Of course, poor evidence is nothing a few good lawyers can't fix...
hi, sorry about this. Slashdot has crushed our server. I hope to get it back up soon. My apologies for the inconvenience.
Christian Einfeldt,
Producer, The Digital Tipping Point
More accurately, Trademark != Patent != Copyright != Trademark.
1) Demand the business or government body to disclose copies of the anti virus logs for all of their desktops and laptops.
2) Generate a list of all the malware that
a) was cleaned up post infection ( the malware was actually executed and run ) AND
b) exploited vulnerabilities in Microsoft applications and operating system prior to an update fix being made available by Microsoft.
In comparison to MacOSX or Linux based desktop, Microsoft's desktop operating systems and Microsoft's desktop applications face a disproportionally higher risk of being "infected" with hostile malware. Just relying on third party Antivirus software to prop up a Microsoft flagging security record in no way puts you any closer to the level of security that a switch to another vendors desktop platform can provide. ( Just updating to Vista is no guarantee of better security in comparison to another vendors platform )
A business or government body is not taking due care with the private information they hold on the public if they continue to use Microsoft desktop OS environments or Microsoft desktop applications. That is your credit card data, banking details , health care info and social security information. If switching to Linux or MacOSX based desktops would greatly reduce the risk of further intrusion why should not organizations be "encouraged" to make the move.
If anyone's customers are at greater risk of being sued it is Microsoft's own customers that face the greatest risk.
But wait untill I'm done being Slashdotted, please.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
In legal matters, The Free Software Foundation [[http://www.techliberation.com/archives/041419.ph p doesn't want money; they want compliance]]. Microsoft, on the other hand, doesn't want compliance; they want money. It should be no surprise, then that they are not interested in helping the FOSS community to come back into compliance with their patents; any violation could mean revenue.
Of course, "could" is just a possibility. If they actually ever went to court, software patents might be overturned in general, particular patents could be invalidated specifically, claims made with valid patents could be found non-infringing, the community would likely recode the claims found infringing to steer clear of the patent, AND Microsoft would still have to deal patent infringement countersuits launched in retaliation.
It is far better for them attempt to profit from vague fear than vague fact.
That's fucking gross man! You don't know where those have been!
Software patents are like a virus that attaches itself, in an intellectual property sense, to anything it touches.
Sorry about that folks!
Christian Einfeldt, Producer, The Digital Tipping Point
Yes. Enthusiasts are risk-seeking.
Airplane enthusiasts are risk-seeking. Baseball card enthusiasts are risk-seeking. Stock market enthusiasts are risk-seeking. Insurance enthusiasts.
Enthusiasts, by nature, like to push the envelope. They try to see how far, or in which interesting new directions, they can take their pet.
But that doesn't stop traditional business people from using airplanes or insurance. Traditional business people understand that enthusiasts are enthusiasts. Many business people realize that when enthusiasts for some unheard of something-or-other start showing up in the news a lot, there is likely some new business opportunity opening up.
"Assignee: Sun Microsystems, Inc"
The cited patent doesn't belong to Microsoft.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
That's actually just more specific, not really more accurate. His original post was complete true, but it left no indication as to the relation between copyright & trademark.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
I'M SPARTACUS!!!
http://www.rkmc.com/Lanham_Act_Also_Applies_to_Fal se_Advertising_Claims.htm
...)
The only problem is that patent litigation tends to be expensive and Microsquish has lots of money.
(Oh yeah. IANAL, YMMV, this does not constitue legal advise, check your shorts,
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
God help us all if a lawyer ever learns how to code...
SCO was Microsoft's sock puppet.
...SCO dies/fades into obscurity, people stop taking it seriously.
a) SCO/Microsoft: "You're infringing, we're suing!!"
b) Microsoft: "You're infringing, we're suing!!"
Different singer, same song.
No sig today...
hi,
I am a lawyer with a very small civil practice in San Francisco. IMHO, t would be possible to file a declaratory relief action. Almost anyone who has been encumbered by a Microsoft patent threat would have standing to do so. I would be willing to participate in such a lawsuit, obviously, since my name is the first on the TFA "Sue me" list.
In order for a declaratory relief lawsuit to work, we would need to have coordinated action by some of the other large stakeholders whose businesses would be impacted by Microsoft's questionable PR patent campaign against FOSS. That takes time, planning, and money, though.
In the meantime, I wanted to take some action now to see if we could at least get a show of hands of people who doubt Microsoft's questionable PR patent campaign. I believe that few in the FOSS community really believe that Microsoft's purported patent claims have merit. So we probably need to shout really loud, so that the rest of the world can see and hear us. We don't want people to believe that a) We in the FOSS community are doing anything that is illegal, because we're not; or b) that we have doubts about whether or not Microsoft's questionable PR patent claims have merit (they don't, IMHO).
IMHO, we really can't allow Microsoft to dominate the airwaves with its questionable patent claims against us.
Christian Einfeldt,
Producer, The Digital Tipping Point
Now as I understand it MS claims to have all of there patients in relation to software and such. Now if they do have all of these patents is it possible to prove legally that all of these patents cause MS to have some sort of monopoly on code? If they have enough patents that it makes it impossible to make new software without infringing one then I feel that falls under the definition of a monopoly: "a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a product or service" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly). Now if the product or service is code or programs, then I think we would have them. Of course this would require them to have a lot of patents. Does anyone see what I am getting at?
All the cool kids today are Napoleon.
Is it possible for a person to nullify MS patents (provided that patents user infringes on are known) in court because MS isn't protecting them without MS suing that person?
No! Wait! Don't everyone rush over there at once! ;-)
Seriously.
Christian Einfeldt,
Producer, The Digital Tipping Point
p.s. Thanks for the interest, folks! Let's hope that old FreeBSD server can hang on!
Mickey Mouse as a trademark has expired. He's now in the public domain.
_ Term_Extension_Act The "Copyright Extension Act" is unofficially known as the "Mickey Mouse Act". How is that for 'corporate sponsorship' gone mad?
No wait... Disney called in a favor from their brown-paper-bag-shills at Congress, who promptly introduced this legislation which kept Mickey from entering the public domain. AFAIAC Disney used Congress to steal it. No wonder Disney grew old and stale: They have no incentive to come up with anything new. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright
Who were the Congressional Shills? Despite the name it wasn't Congressman Sonny Bono, but I can't tell you who did it. This is what sucks about Congress. We get nasty bills passed that take away our rights, but Congressmen are shy to stick their name on it. So while grumbling about this, the DMCA, the Parrot Act, you could be voting for a shill who sponsored it.
How about someone do a web site showing who is a shill and who isn't. Wikipedia doesn't carry this sort of info.
This is exactly what needs to be done. A million lawsuits by a million Open Source Coders asking judges to declare, one way or another, and more importantly, definitively, that their code does not violate patents or copyrights.
This would bring all of MS code out into the open, or force MS to declare the Open Source free and clear.
Additionally, a million small bites later, the elephant has been eaten, by the ants. MS cannot possibly withstand such an attack.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
...nerds
Good catch though, I feel shame.
And that one is working out so well...
Anyone inclined to so 'So sue me' to a company nicknamed M$ or 'Bring it on!' to religious Zealots might be better off recalling Teddy Roosevelt's famous quote, "Speak softly and carry a big stick".
Think global, act loco
That's a terrible analogy. How is something expiring in any way like an escalator? Better would perhaps be "cases where trademarks have expired like so much old milk."
P.S.,
This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.
Actually, being about 60% of the way through law school, I'm quite aware that "intellectual property" is a category of property that is no more a "fiction" than, say, "personal property". Like "personal property" (which includes very different things like "tangible personal property" and "intangible personal property", the latter of which includes "intellectual property" among other things), "intellectual property" includes different components controlled by different specific statutory provisions, but also with commonalities among them that make for a useful analytical category.
The whole "intellectual property is a fiction cooked up to confuse people" idea is one of those self-serving myths served up by people who are more concerned with selling an ideological point of view on the issue than dealing with reality.
If I was Microsoft, I'd wait until they double dog dared me to.
>Take something as simple as 'select and modify' where you highlight a word and change the font, size, etc. And even though today this seems intuitive for a WYSIWYG GUI, the concept orginated from the MS Word team and MS could rip this concept out of every GUI based OS and application out there if it was upheld.
If my memory serves me correctly the Mac I bought in 1984 included MacWrite which allowed me to select and modify words and change their font, size, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacWrite
Prior art? Are you rewriting history? I don't know but surely software patents don't help to foster the software development industry. Isn't the point of patents to foster innovation? It is ludicrous that obvious processes encoded as mathematical algorithms can be patented.
Red Hat was able to pre-emptively sue SCO, asking the court to declare that they are not violating any copyrights owned by SCO, only because SCO revealed enough information that Red Hat could show that they were in danger of being sued by SCO.
For someone to do something similar against Microsoft's threats, Microsoft would first have to reveal exactly which patents they are threatening to sue over. Once Microsoft did that, people who think they may be infringing have the right to file with the patent office to have the patent invalidated.
That is exactly what Microsoft said is the reason that they are not announcing what those 200+ patents are.
That's also a good indication that they are not likely to sue anyone, and that the only purpose of this FUD is FUD.
They can't sue for patent infringement without saying which patents are being infringed. That's why "sue me first" is such a good idea, and why Microsoft can't really take anyone up on it.
Hey, dontcha just love the Microsoft PR machine!!! Here we are on Slashdot, talking about Microsoft's PR prowess, and Microsoft is kind enough to come along and give us a demonstration! On my screen, I am seeing advertisements for a kinder, gentler Microsoft, one that makes a donation to some unknown charity every time you use Microsoft IM. Oh, that's so sweet and cuddly! Just ignore those patent threats, boys and girls! We didn't mean any harm!
8 7/
8 3/
3 8/
4 1/
4 1/
This is exactly my point, and it's why I offered to have Microsoft sue me. Microsoft is doing an excellent job of PR, and we need to draw public attention to two basic facts: 1) Microsoft's patent claims are unmeritorious; and 2) Microsoft is making vague patent threats because self-censorship is cheaper and more powerful than filing patent infringement lawsuits that only work in the US, if they work at all.
If you are not seeing the kinder, gentler IM donations on your screen, you can see them here on the Digital Tipping Point Flickr account, at least until Microsoft buys Yahoo, at which point you will see them only on our Google Picasa account:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49947835@N00/5088135
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49947835@N00/5088135
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49947835@N00/5087770
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49947835@N00/5087826
Note to Microsoft counsel Brad Smith, Esq.: If you need documentary proof for your trial against me that I use Ubuntu GNU Linux, you can use this screenshot, which I am hereby vouching is a true and accurate shot depicting my Edgy Ubuntu desktop which, coincidentally, I am using to produce the Digital Tipping Point film. Among other things, the DTP film will suggest that Microsoft, like RCA and IBM before it, is facing an "innovator's dilemma" that will disrupt its current monopolistic business model. The funny thing is that the same market forces that propelled Microsoft to hammer IBM is now going to help IBM return the favor, this time using GNU Linux and OpenOffice.org. But I guess you knew that already, Sir Brad, because that is why you have been filing patents. You once worked at IBM. You learned well. Here is that proof you will want if you ever do file a case against me:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49947835@N00/5087826
No. Patent law has no requirement that you enforce your patent rights against known "infringers" (or what have you in this case).
And I'm not seeing Linus name there. Lame...
Anyway, I'm pretty sure they're not looking for final users.
I've already lost the count of how much money Microsoft lost to pay for infringing patents. Maybe they're trying to recover this money now.
and you even have a /. acct. :/
I thought there would be OSS litigation of strategic importance. (unlike the RIAA, but similar in evil quotient) That's a fools game. Your action outline is exactly how Microsoft will proceed.
Just like lindows, pay maybe 10-20 million to some people who won't say no because they and their kids won't ever have to work again while Microsoft make 100's of millions maintaining the status quo and keeps OSS away from the family jewels.
Kudos to you sir.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
My favorite instance of McDonalds taking aggressive action is when 60 minutes, a US news program, did a report on McDonalds going through the UK shutting down restaurants using the McDonalds name. The best part was near the end. They showed a beautiful scene of rolling green hills in the country side and then a very nice 5-star restaurant on a hill with a man in the foreground in a kilt. Apparently that restaurant was also called McDonalds. The man addressed the camera and said something like this in his Scottish accent, "My name is John McDonald, head of the clan McDonald. If anyone is going to be changing their name, it's going to be them!"
GPL is more evil than Microsoft on several orders of magnitude. The idea of a viral license like this sickens me to my stomach, and reminds me more of China than America. If this sad imitation of a legal strategy holds up in court, I will seriously have lost all faith in the legal system. If GPL is not stopped before it gains more power, I guarantee we will all regret it (except the lawyers and the creators of the license of course).
Trademark != Patent != Copyright != Trademark
evaluates to:
True != Copyright != Trademark
Error, comparison between bool and string/class/whatever...
You meant:
Trademark != Patent && Patent != Copyright && Trademark != Copyright
Dell would have to lay off half of Round Rock if they stopped shipping windows boxes. Demand for windows has not slowed down unless you are willing to do some really treacherous math.
You know there are signs all over NJ that escalators that are not moving are not to be used as stairs and that it is dangerous? This one mystifies me.
This is what I heard the M$ lawers say:
First they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
The Linux community has been laughing at us and our users for a long time. Now they seem to want to fight us. Just a bit of time and we win, Mr. Balmer.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Mobius Custom Computers
"I'm sure their lawyers will line up whatever targets are strategically optimal"
If that was true they'd already be going after the big fish: Google, Apple, IBM, HP, Sun, you name it.
The fact that they aren't says they know they don't have a case. And as one of the first ten to sign up for "sue me first", I have to say Microsoft is welcome to go through with their lawsuit against me. Do you think all those big fish mentioned above will allow court precedent to be set that using open source software means you've violated a MS patent? No sir.
Microsoft has no case. A decent legal budget (such as the one the FSF is raising for this express cause, let alone what the afore mentioned big fish can offer) will smack their claims down, and the publicity that would cause is plenty of incentive for other companies to step in.
But think, who does this case affect if it wins?
Google, Apple, Sun, IBM, HP, F5 all have interest in this case. They not only use but develop and contribute to tons of open source projects. I'd bet money they'll step up if a case gets filed, because if that case gets ruled in favor of Microsoft, they have to worry about battling against prior rulings.
I just had a good laugh at the expense of the people signed up for this. Either they don't care that their addresses are going to get harvested, or they're working under the delusion that obfuscation techniques like "jim at website dot com" can't be beaten by some very simple Perl.
Folks, the narus 9000 runs on linux. Some federal judge vetted by Alberto Gonzales will have to decide whether to shut down the federal phone tapping program because Microsoft is not amused, or, to shut down Microsoft's Worthless, Meritless, Patent, (WMP), case against Linux. How would you decide if you were a federal judge working for Gonzales? How do you think the great "decider" would want you to decide? I suspect if it goes to court we'll find that Microsoft truely does have Worthless Meritless Patents, (WMP). "It's a slam dunk!" -- ydra
The more people sign up, the more attention this effort gets. The more attention this effort gets, the more likely it gets noticed by courts and businesses.
Sure, Microsoft doesn't care to sue end users... but patent law requires that they sue anyone that infringes their patents (the vigilance clause), so if the site gets enough publicity that its impossible for Microsoft to deny that they knew about it, they're obliged to either sue a bunch of nothings or lose their patent claim. On top of that there's the risk that big companies like Google, Apple, IBM, Sun, HP, etc will jump into the frey.
Yeah, I see your point, but honestly I'd do it anyway. And yes, I realize I could lose everything I have. Meh. When I die I'll have nothing anyways.
You misread the parent post. M$ doesn't necessarily have to disclose its source code. It does however have to identify the allegedly infringing parts of the Linux kernel (and other open source) , and that means identifying code. And no the onus is not on the developers to do that. It's M$ who must point out where the other programs infringe on the software patents.
Furthermore, for any law suits to start, M$ must also identify the specific software patents involved. The value seems to be in the bluff. Even just naming the software patents would let all the steam out of the FUD-storm.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Well, if you want to use them as stairs, the step width/height ratio looks wrong to me (steps too narrow, too high).
I'd think anyone trying to go down them in a hurry might find themselves going down even faster than they wanted...
The lawyers or their mouth...?
Because you knew three years ago that there was an infringement but waited until the fees possible increased to a huge ammount, you can lose the fees you would have gotten in the past by not suing.
This is actually very fair: if you knew there was a license fee, you would either have avoided the patent or increased the cost of the product to cover the license fee. If the license fee is unknown and the fee is greater than the profit margin, you can kill the company with the license fees if they are left to accumulate enough.
..."intellectual property" is a category of property that is no more a "fiction" than, say, "personal property".
Property is theft.
Sue MONO first. That's the real infection in the Linux World.
Get rid of Mono and Linux is safe.
"People who are willing to sacrifice essential freedoms for security deserve neither freedom nor security."
B F
Oh, the ironing..
Is it possible to sue microsoft for slander
Most people are seeing two possible outcomes here:
a) Microsoft whips it out and it does indeed kill open source as we know it by putting a Microsoft tax on everything.
b) The OSS crowd kicks MS in the patented family jewels and continues on it's merry way.
What most aren't considering is that MS is saying it has HUNDREDS of patent infringement claims. Each of which will need to be defeated. Chances are no court is going to do an "all or nothing" which is what OSS would want. They will have individual court cases on each. All MS has to do is pick the person who has the weakest case against a given patent claim and pursue them for JUST THAT ONE in order to give it credence, precedent, and ergo more power for the next person. Lather, rinse, and repeat that process a few hundred times. In the process they find which of their patents can stick and which can't. (If you think none can stick I would like to interest you in some lovely beach front property...and a bridge.)
So in the end what? MS loses 90% of the cases? That still leaves them with say 20-30 valid and legally proven patents. What happens if some of those are in the the cores of the operating systems? What happens if just ONE of those is on a feature that Linux desperately needs to be a viable competitor to windows?
MS is not wielding one big gun here people. They have a machine gun in both hands, and know they can afford to spray bullets into the crowd and only have a small percentage hit.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
It is using a well known sentence to make a completely different point.
At no moment did the poster compare the Holocaust with the situation of people opposing MS's tactics.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I actually did this once. Back in the day, I released an xbox modchip design and basically dared Microsoft to come after me for it in Australia. (Unlike the suckers who Sony took down here in Oz, I wasn't stupid enough to be selling pirate software on the side so I was never in real danger)
Good luck to them all.
-M
# grep slashdot access.log | grep html | sort | uniq | wc -l 2604
I don't tend to be overly litigious but... a professor of mine involved in the Winter Soldier campaign sued a group that claimed he and his fellow veterans hadn't been to Vietnam. In this case, can someone from the open source community sue for libel/slander just so that Microsoft has to reveal what patents it thinks OSS have violated.
It's not exactly a solution I feel comfortable with--just curious what others think.
Speaking of which, I'm pretty sure it was a joke.
not allowed to knowingly allow patent violations to build up over time just so there will be more people to sue. If
you are aware of someone willfully violating your patent you need to sue in a timely fashion. Not sure what the limit
is but I'm pretty sure running around trying to make your case in the press instead of court will end up working
against you if you do finally litigate.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
I really don't see that as being a problem for quite a while. Currently there is no software being released under GPLv3 as it hasn't been finalised yet. Therefore Novell's current SUSE distribution won't be in violation. Novell's choice here would be to either carry on using only the GPLv2 versions of the software (forking them if necessary) or just to only provide the latest distribution that does not contain any GPLv3 code in it when the voucher's get redeemed. Maybe Novell might want to exchange GPLv3 software for these vouchers in order to screw Microsoft over, but maybe that will leave Novell also in violation or perhaps liable for any losses Microsoft incurs so I wouldn't expect them to do that.
I have a feeling that at least some of Microsoft's 250 patent claims would hold up (you've seen the ridiculous patents that have been upheld in court; do you really think that zero of Microsoft's 250 claims are valid?). Even if you guys "code around" the patents (which might not even be possible in some cases), you'd still have to pay punitive damages for past infringement.
Now, Microsoft doesn't want to sue anyone. It'd be bad PR. They just want to make cross-licensing agreements, just as they and others do as a normal business practice. Microsoft, in particular, has made such deals with Apple, Sun, IBM, etc in the past. They want to hold up the big OSS companies (i.e. Red Hat) to the same standards.
They really couldn't care less about some hobbiest, or even some small company. Many of those small companies admit to violating patents, but pass that responsibility on to the user. For example, VideoLan admits that VLC violates MPEGLA patents, but say on their website that since they're an OSS non-profit developer, it's up to the users themselves to pay the MPEGLA license fees, in effect daring MPEGLA to sue VLC's users in order to get the fees. But Red Hat can't make the claim that they're a non-profit company, and would further receive horrible PR if they explicitly told their users to pay license fees themselves.
As I said, Microsoft doesn't want to sue, not because the patents are invalid, but because of the bad PR. But if you FORCE a suit, then the bad PR is on you, and you'll likely lose at least some of the 250 claims.
Here's an idea - let the big OSS companies act like grown ups, and license the patents in question. Problem solved.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
IM SPARTICUS!
Well, lets assume Linus gets along with GPLv3 and other Kernel developer too and put the Kernel under GPLv3. or Xorg, or (put any vital part of a distribution here). Than either Novell is using it and that would put the GPLv3 into the game or they fork and exclude anything that is under GPLv3. Very rapidly (GPLv3 is supposed to be out end of June) Novell will be left behind or they have to put a lot of manpower (maybe even with help from M$) into coding around whatever is released under GPLv3.
No matter what they do, once there is a snippet of code in their distribution that has been released under GPLv3, there are screwed.
"People who are willing to sacrifice essential freedoms for security deserve neither freedom nor security."
B F
I'm Sparticus and so's my wife!
Ice Cream has no bones.
I see your point but fail to understand why you think MS would go after end-users; or why you think it is a good idea for end-users to challenge them.
You certainly have a far better understanding of (your local) laws and the risks involved; and I applaud you for standing up for what you (seem to) feel is 'the right thing to do' and I don't see much of risk of you (collectively) getting sued and thus 'granting' MS a dangerous precedent...
but until someone actually involved in software development (kernel, samba, mozilla), the EFF or preferably a joint venture of larger companies (IBM, Sun, RedHat) reacts to the MS-FUD the whole effort looks like a publicity stunt (done badly, if I may say so).
Finally I don't claim to know what the 'FOSS community' believes or not, the law (even outside the US) recognizes software patents; thus writing and distributing software that includes patented 'innovations' without a license _is_ illegal. The way to change that is to try and change copyright/patent law. For that you need a) big money or b) a public outcry. A few 'friends of Linux' (GNU or otherwise) simply won't cut it.
In my opinion the 'Fair(y) Use Tale' stands a much better chance of creating b); considering a)... wait for it, the Nazgul will walk again.
I, too, support unreasonably huge subsidies to the brain slug planet.
Being pedantic on Slashdot is just as much a tradition as being immature on digg. I just enjoy the former more than the latter.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
You know, I was thinking the lawyers... but on second thought... there have been a lot of feet in that mouth... Hrm. Good question.
I think this is a great idea and hope it works. But there was another good idea that kind of fizzled. What happened there? Remember "Show us the Code?" It had a lot of momentum too and went nowhere, even before the deadline. Here's a video about what did (didn't) happen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9SlW1dxM70 I'm honestly curious why the buzz around it just suddenly vanished, especially since the topic is obviously not going away.
If you put yourself on the list, respond here!!!
Dr. Brackish Okun, Independence Day [1996]: “The last twenty-four hours have been real exciting.”
I am now #845 on the list, and awaiting my turn.
We're declaring independence from the Church of Windows. Now, who's got some stones?
This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.