Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Will Not Sue Over Linux Patents
San Muel writes "In an official statement, Microsoft has said it has no immediate plans to sue after alleging patent infringements by open-source vendors for the time being. The company goes on to say that, essentially, it could have done that any time in the last three years if it wanted to. So what's the purpose of these bold announcements? '[John McCreesh, OpenOffice.org marketing project lead] added that while Microsoft may not have plans to sue, it could be using the threat of litigation to try to encourage corporate customers to move to those open-source product vendors with whom it had signed licensing agreements, such as Novell. "Microsoft has spent time and money accumulating patents. Maybe it has started using that armory to move corporate customers to open-source software that Microsoft approves of."'"
I would say its a trap, but it appears as though our tags are being censored/hidden.
It was amusing seeing the tags, seems bare now.
liqbase
Because Hell just froze.
Dear Brad Smith,
Sue us! C'mon, Brad. That's right. Put it all out there! You tried and failed with your feeble little pawn, SCO. Then the big bad judge ordered them to show the code! Oh my, got called on your bluff, eh?
Now you're too afraid to sue because you think the same thing will happen to you. C'mon, Brad, go ahead? What are you -- chicken?
Because then you'll have to show us the code, and your bluff will called and it will be all over. That's why you're not going to sue, you spineless twit.
Thanks,
Rob Shinn
An Open Source developer.
My blog
I have this strange new feeling of amusement coupled with annoyance
Adjective
microsofty
1. Causing irritation or annoyance; troublesome; making amusing claims; vexatious towards everyone else.
Example: Richard Simmons sure is microsofty.
*yawn* This is getting boring. The minute uncle Bill comes up with some stupid supposed violation, we'll code around it. In the meantime, let's not pay attention to this craphola.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
...just the threat of a lawsuit, especially from a company with the pocket depth of Microsoft, is enough.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Pay the microsoft tax or else!
M$ shakes its fist at Linux and cries infringement but says it's not going to sue. So why did it make the announcement in the first place? It's a corporate intimidation play. M$ wants to convince enterprise that Linux is somehow evil and illegitimate because it knows it doesn't have the goods to shut Linux down, nor can it buy Linux out. The only alternative for a sleazy corporation like M$, which is propped up almost exclusively by inertia, is to defame the competition. I hope most will be savvy enough to see through this transparently evil act.
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
So they're not going to sue you but they'll force corporate customers to license under threat of litigation, even though they won't sue??
At what point does this become illegal? Are you allowed to threaten whoever you like to strong arm customers into buying your product?
There should be a way to make MS go to court or lose the right to sue.
I could have used it upside your head but I choose not to at this moment. But I could.
This is worse than FUD, it's an outright threat. By simply announcing you could sue, challenges large business into accepting risk. To the person in the trenches, they know Microsoft's got nothing. However to the CEO and the CIO, the same people who move a company forward, this is a challenge to their capital expense planning. They see the threat of lawsuit and immedietely classifiy that as risk.
How to mitigate it? Unfortunately you don't. Because it is the idea of lawsuit you cannot work around this risk unless you avoid it altogether. And this is what Microsoft is banking on. And by avoiding Linux for this year and next in capital planning, you avoid implementation of Linux in a corporate environment for at least three years. And by that time, Microsoft is betting that you will have spent so much T&E in their shop that it would be very expensive and time consuming to leave.
"We own software. We own its ideas and every implementation that software provides. We are computing." How arrogant. Hey, M$!! Bring it! but make peace with God before you do...
Power to the Penguin!
The intent, as mentioned, was to get people to move to partners MS had licensing agreements with.
The goal is to make money. MS is not after glory , it's after the Benjamin's.
Lawsuits are like nuclear weapons, it's the option of last resort and pretty much assures either destruction of MASSIVE damage to all sides involved. When lawsuits fly the only winners will be the lawyers.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
I expected no different, Microsoft actually going through with a lawsuit may have created some bad PR. Now maybe some will view Microsoft as having "mercy" or what have you about open source and by doing so move some customers to its new found partner Novell as the article states. All in all from a corporate standpoint, Microsoft is doing the right thing to improve its bottom line. Though I wonder if Microsoft used this patent dispute to strong arm Novell months ago, and to what extent Microsoft has tied itself to Novell?
Possible explanations I can think of:
1. Microsoft was planning to sue everyone and his dog until someone pointed out the various Open Patent movements, and it might be a bad idea to wake up such a sleeping giant.
I doubt it. I don't think it's a sleeping giant as much as a sleeping leprechaun, and Microsoft is pretty careful about what they publicly announce these days.
2. The whole "we've got patents" thing was intended to stir up some nice headlines in magazines like Forbes, with a view to getting some nice op-ed FUD. Basically, a means of encouraging Microsoft-friendly top level CTOs to kill any Linux projects they hear about. It's not like there's going to be anywhere near so many editorials printed next week saying "Further to Microsoft announcing their patents, they've now announced they don't intend to sue" as there were editorials announcing the patents in the first place.
Much more likely. Unlike Microsoft to admit to spreading FUD quite so flagrantly, though.
isn't it legally questionable to "not sue yet" if you have a patent on the technology and you know that the patented technology is widely used in the market? You're actively letting people use and enjoy your patented technologies so that there would be more users when you finally sue. Sounds a lot like "entrapment". I think they should at least forbid people from using them, preferably by telling what exactly they are using. Companies usually sit quietly on their technologies and come out with a bang when they suddenly surface their submarine patents. You don't see many of them brewing FUD on the news.
With the creepy and sneaky moves and double speak and apparent selfish manipulative moves they have been making lately, Microsoft have made enemies of developer circles who were not enemies of Microsoft before.
We will prevent any such intent of microsoft forcing people/corporations to the open source solutions "they approve of".
Any open source movement that falls in to the err of allying themselves with microsoft's such selfish moves should take notice and straighten up themselves in line with the open source philosophy accordingly.
Read radical news here
If you find that your patent has been violated, you have to sue in a timely manner. You can't wait or the court will pitch out your case because of the doctrine of laches. I suppose someone should ask them how they intend to get around that problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)
"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). "
They are trying to move OS companies into a direction where they have to play the whole IP game. They won't kill open-source, but they can try to make money out of it. And that just what they are doing right now.
What they are saying is that they really honestly don't mind when we are using Linux. And it's true, it even is smart.
Just look at it, Dell customers get to use Linux but still pay their share of MS tax, but now for an OS Microsoft doesn't need to develop or support.
You thought having 99.9% marketshare is the ultimate way to make money? Think again.
If the infringement is real, how comes they did not already "fu***'n kill Google" ? But if M$ manages to use the patent threat to fool people into signing licence agreements then those people will put the rope around their own neck. They will pay M$ for software M$ dos not own and did not even bohter to sell them, and by the time they wake up the agreement will still be in place. Yes, many people have said that the M$ coupons have no expiration date. And Eben Moglen has already debunked their "be very afraid" tour on Groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200705170 83516872
I think nobody thought that Microsoft would really be going to Sue Linux. It is just another of its FUD strategies.
Web Design Marbella Paginas Web
It is highly probable that most (if not all) of the patents are invalid because of prior art, or are obvious. Any valid ones could be worked around in a short time. If Microsoft DID sue they would probably end up with a useless patent portfolio. This way they can use the threat of suing to steer customers away from open source without having to reveal what its patents are, and hence have them challenged or avoided.
IBM, SUN, AAPL and others too have patents. And MSFT might be infringing on some of them. Will MSFT be sued? Will it be forced to acknowledge it and code around it?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
"That sure is a nice operating system you've got there. Sure would be a shame if something bad happened to it."
I wonder if the Microsoft attorneys approved of this comment that they could have sued 3 years ago. IANAL, but there's a legal defense called Doctrine of Laches - basically you can avoid liability if the patent holder delays too long before commencing litigation. It's traditionally 6 years, but I'm pretty sure recent cases have argued timeframes of 4 years. For that reason it doesn't seem smart to admit publically that you are aware of infringement unless you are ready to go to court. It seems even worse to admit you've known about it for 3 years.
I'm not interested in M$ won't sue.
I'm only interested in M$ can't sue.
Why? because as stated by many posters better informed by me it would start the mother of all legal wars as the big Linux backers would promptly retaliate with their own patent arsenals.
There is another word for this whole sorry escapade...... FUD. By injecting doubt into Linux in the eyes of the big corporations, they attract them towards their own offering. Yet another example of M$ cleverly using FUD as advertising and marketing.
See, that's why it is called FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt) , if someone ( You ) is peeing his pants because of M$ "pocket money" which helped so much in the SCO against IBM or SCO against Novell litigation...
That isn't informative and whoever modded you insightful, is either paid by pocket money, our hasn't finish school yet...
"People who are willing to sacrifice essential freedoms for security deserve neither freedom nor security."
B F
IANALNDIATBO (I am not a lawer nor do I aspire to become one)
If Microsoft is found "sleeping on its rights" could that not be used under the laches doctrine
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity) ) to somehow invalidate their claims ?
PS: IMO This is neither news (for nerds or anyone else), nor stuff that matters; unless, of course, slashdot treats FUD and derivates as news - yeah, I must be new here...
M$ pounds their chest saying Linux is infringing. Then they go after enterprise customers asking them to pay for protection against litigation. Then they say they won't sue (????).
I think this is called "Racketeering" isn't it. Like the mob asking businesses to pay for protection money so "nothing happens to them". I think this just crossed M$ over line in to illigal actions here.
If you work for a company M$ has approached with one of these offers I -encourage you- to ask your company to call M$'s bluff - and tell them you consider this move an illigal one and that your company will be contacting the States Attorney Genral. If enough companies do this it might scare the living hell out of M$. But first and formost - actually contact the States Attorney General - don't threaten to do it - DO IT!
Heck maybe not just companies should do this but individuals as well. I think there are enough links to statements by M$ that the States Attonrney General's could have something to go on - right?
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Over at groklaw they discuss some recent statements in Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz's blog about ms now suing. Even Mark Shuttleworth says a few words about Microsoft and patents. Jonathan doesn't say they will not sue but makes some comments about it and Mark says he doesn't think they will.
In a gesture of goodwill, I hereby announce that I will reciprocate by not suing Microsoft over Linux patents.
Thankyou.
I thought I'd never hear that phrase. In fact, didn't Ballmer say something completely to the contrary?
Follow me
How much pirated BSD/*Nix code & design are in the Windows platform?
I find it hard to believe that it is all 100% original work.
"Show me your code Horseman and I will show you mine"
Am I wrong?
It's FUD.
They CAN'T sue, the whole point to to cast veiled threats against customers. To try to dissuade them from switching from Microsoft. If they sued the poker game would be up and they'd have to show their losing hand.
Here
What the researcher is saying is the with 235 potential patent violations
Linux scores lower then most proprietary software he has looked at.
Incidently nowhere does he say who owns the 235 patents so given the amount of
Operating System related patents filed they are more likly to belong to IBM or HP
(DEC VAX, Tandem Non Stop etc. etc. ) than microsoft.
Pure FUD!
Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.
Microsoft isn't going to sue because it doesn't have a leg to stand on. They just saw what IBM did to SCO and they'd rather not get that beating.
The long and the short of it is that Microsoft has realized they can't compete in the market based on value alone. They initally laughed off Linux but now have come to realize it was a critical miscalcuation. Their first option was to dazzle the world with um, Vista... yeah we've seen how that lead lined life preserver worked. So they've opted for tactic number two which is to claim that their competitors stole all their technology...
If Linux stole all this nifty technology from Microsoft... Why is Vista so shitty???
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Microsoft has realized that Linux has a killer feature they can't compete with - it's free (as in both freedom and gratis). Since they can't rise up to Linux' level, the whole idea behind all of this saber-rattling and FUD is to bring Linux down to their level (or at least closer to it). They're trying to scare everyone into doing one of the following:
1) Stay far away from Linux. (And continue to pay the MS-tax directly.)
2) Enter into some kind of licensing agreement, which will either undermine the freedom-part of Linux, the gratis-part or both. (And continue to pay the MS-tax indirectly.)
From TFA:
"Microsoft is trying to play nice with the open-source community, but it has to do the Republican stance for its shareholders. There's a massive tension between the two positions." What an enormous load of BS! It's never been a question about playing nice (or even wanting to). It's always been a question about how to f*** F/LOSS over horribly, (preferably) without invoking another anti-trust lawsuit.The headline says they won't sue, but the article says they have no immediate plans to do so. Those are not the same thing.
At the bottom of the
Note to self....if M$ comes to me saying something about suing me, TELL THE TRUTH!! Ain't it amazing how when once the gauntlet was thrown down, they backed the fuck down?!?!?!
"My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
They have already done what they intended to do. Any [business] person sitting on the fence about whether to start using Linux or not has been swayed in the non-use direction. That was the only purpose...creating doubt.
Error reading device 'Signature'. (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
put up or shut up. sue IBM and other Penguinistas all the way down to the guy with a cell phone at the bus stop, or just admit you're whining because 100% of any market is not enough for you.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Yes, I know the coffee will be cold by the time you're back, now lift that butt and get moving!
Tell your boss that MS canceled the suit because of the "sue me if you dare" and similar actions from people that KNEW they have nothing to base this suit on! Make sure he understands that they didn't just "be nice" and not sue the li'l guy, but that they have no base for their claims.
The reason is simple: Your boss most likely only knows two things:
MS threatened to sue.
MS called it off.
In his mind, they might have done this not because there's no foundation for their claims, but because there's something "better to do" right now, and that they keep this as an option. And this discourages him from using OSS in your company, because, well, MS might rear its head again.
Go up there and talk with him, now. Before some marketing goon does.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
But we'll still beef up our 235 patent arsenal, just in case we need to retaliate.
Tue 22 May 01:27PM Another Idea: Sue Microsoft's Customers First
It seems to be that when any company begins using patent litigation as a means to generate revenue, that company enters a steady downfall. Companies that use patents defensively succeed because they are actually innovating; companies that must rely on patents for income are simply milking what they have with no real plans for long-term future income.
It seems more and more that I am seeing the latter in Microsoft, rather than the former. This has always been true to a certain extent, but lately I'm seeing that very little is actually coming out of Microsoft itself -- most everything recently is a complete acquisition or partly an acquisition of another company's IP.
Titus Barik
"We can sue you, could ave done so for three years now, but we won't, just to leave you scared" is what I get from reading that article. I say Microsoft needs to be sued under the RICO act, because that's almost exactly how the Mafia works.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
This is nothing else than the good old protection racketing the maffia used to do, then gangs, and now big corps. If you're big enough, or you have the air of being big enough, you don't need to line up all your supposedly available army, just threaten with a big enough voice that you can. Rest assured, there will be enough ordinary people who will instantly pay you up since they fear even the remote possibility of being smacked, even if that army is non-existent. The catch is, if enough of them pays, we'll never ever find out whether that army exists or not. And, after a while, that's not even important anymore.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
No lawsuit today, maybe tomorrow.
Microsoft made a statement in its recent motion for a new trial in Lucent vs. Microsoft, a patent infringement case that it lost back in February to the tune of $1,500,000,000. It argued that a jury in a new trial should have the opportunity to "hear and weigh the evidence" that Microsoft claims makes the Alcatel-Lucent patents invalid, under a new standard of obviousness recently established by the Supreme Court in KSR vs. Teleflex. Microsoft said:
So, given Microsoft's anti-patent assertion in this case where it found itself on the wrong side of someone's patents, it would seem hard for them to ask us to presume that these 200+ patents of their own, issued well before KSR vs. Teleflex, are valid over the prior art that the Linux world will undoubtedly find in abundance once Microsoft finally has to reveal their claims. That is, if it ever actually tries to enforce them rather than blabbing away at its current "my dad can beat up your dad" playground level of discourse.
Obligatory disclaimer: I am a registered patent agent and an independent inventor, but not a lawyer. I don't provide legal advice or services to anyone regarding issued patents. And this wouldn't be legal advice even if I did.
Microsoft pulled a legal "extinguish" on open source.
A united community screamed back SUE.
Microsoft is now exposed to the world.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Fuck you, fuck your products and fuck your tactics you fucks.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
A lot like Senator McCarthy said I have the names of 57 communists in the State Dept. Anyway, that was mighty white of MS not to sue Linux.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Okay, MS has claimed that F/OSS violates some of their patents.
Now, if MS fails to specify what patents are being infringed despite being explicitly asked to, and ignores challenges to sue potential violators, would there be any reasonable basis for them to try any kind of legal action later? I mean, if MS doesn't say what's being violated, don't they (essentially) wave any claims at a later date?
Wouldn't a judge tell MS "If you didn't tell so-and-so what patent he was violating, I can't award you any damages" - and maybe even slap some kind of penalty on MS for being shitheads?
--- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
Chances of Microsoft using other's patents are much bigger then linux infringements Microsoft's patents.
In-fact, if Microsoft really had a points in-which Linux kernel infringements Microsoft's patents, they would have show the exact spots in which the code were using Microsoft's patents.
but, Microsoft's code is closed, and more then probably they are using IBM's or any other standard OS thinking patents and that will be disclosured in the near - future in which Microsoft will have to pay explanations to Linux community and everybody else in the computing area.
Who had lost from all this story? Novell which declared the coward and the Linux community ashamed of doing business with.
Read and Comment at my BLOG
!!!
Doesn't Microsoft wanting to collect royalties from Linux vendors strangely mirror how the RIAA also wants royalties from all these other sources? Both are quite similar, strangleholds on the traditional distribution channels, aka robber barons, who strike out at any alternate form of distribution. Both groups are making gobs of cash, but they're also dependent on that ridiculously huge cash flow to prove sustainability of their models. MS makes insanely huge profits, but if they started to dip, investors would question whether their model was not just a flash in the pan, though a big one, nonetheless. MS's moolas don't neccessarily translate directly into success: it doesn't scale with man-hours cranking out great code, and it doesn't mean the price reflects their product's real value (how many times over have we payed for the same millions of the lines of Windows code?), just that they're really the only option to run Win32 applications.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
Considering that MS paid Novell M$40 for that agreement, I would be very happy to accept similar terms...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
1. occurring or accomplished without delay; instant: an immediate reply.
2. following or preceding without a lapse of time: the immediate future.
3. having no object or space intervening; nearest or next: in the immediate vicinity.
4. of or pertaining to the present time or moment: our immediate plans.
5. without intervening medium or agent; direct: an immediate cause.
6. having a direct bearing: immediate consideration.
7. very close in relationship: my immediate family.
8. Philosophy. directly intuited.
Couldn't they just used the words "Microsoft has said it has no plans to sue after alleging patent infringements by open-source vendors."
How about you guys just license these specific patents to OIN, http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051110-5553 .html , Oh I remember its that whole sharing thing Bill never understood. I personally lay the blame with his grandmother. http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2000/pulpit_200 01123_000672.html
See also Triumph of the Nerds:
Vern Raburn President, The Paul Allen Group I ended up spending Memorial Day Weekend with him out at his grandmother's house on Hood Canal. She turned everything in to a game. It was a very very very competitive environment, and if you spent the weekend there, you were part of the competition, and it didn't matter whether it was hearts or pickleball or swimming to the dock. And you know and there was always a reward for winning and there was always a penalty for losing.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
I propose that we as a community bring our feelings to the attention of the mass media, we can start by writing into the BBC via this submission form: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4995300.stm and tell them about what has been happening etc, hopefully they will print it as they have printed various linux stories in the past etc.
...you would not want anything to happen to it now would you? Little John and Pete here can keep it safe for you against all the neighborhood thugs. Let's discuss the terms...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Great! Big stupid corporations who drink heartily from MS's teets will languish under higher expenses for lower quality software, giving younger nimble companies willing to *risk* (zomg) Linux deployments an edge in the competition! New wine for new wineskins.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
the microsoft/novell deal was just a model for FUD & extortion...
i doubt GNU/Linux & FOSS has any infringing code...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
This could only happen if Microsoft donated some programming time to OSS :-)
reaffirmed thier commitment to stay as far away as they possibly can from Microsoft products.
OK, let's sue Microsoft for not suing us!!!! I want to collect the compensation for the loss of compensation for a failed lawsuit. It's their duty to sue us so we can rightfully claim our compensation.
Isn't there some legal formality that if you don't protect your patent should you find a violation (ie do this in a timely manner) you're case will get dismissed.??
Send it certified mail, return receipt.
In that letter, let M$ know that you are an Open Source developer, and need to know exactly what patents M$ thinks your code infringes, so you can fix any problems. Of course, you do need to specify what you work on, so you can be specific, and demonstrate an actual need to know that information.
Now, if M$ does not or will not tell you what specific patents you may be infringing, they can no longer sue you. Well, they can sue you. But you've got a perfect defense: you tried to work out the problem.
Oh, yeah, make it an open letter, with full-page ads in the WSJ and NY Times. It'll cost some money, but it will really gut this M$ FUD campaign like a dead mackerel.
One hopes Linus and the FSF plan on doing just that...
Microsoft did this for one reason: Scare the Execs. Microsoft made a smart, albeit unverifiable, move and issued a warning to push execs throughout the industry back into the MS-software fold. Most of the execs are baby-boomers that are unfamiliar with technology. The speak one language: budget-speak. In budget-speak, there are dollars and risk. Execs look at open source software and love it since there are zero dollars to spend to obtain the software. However, they are leery of open source because there isn't yet a strong basis to estimate risk. Microsoft recognized their chance and announced "plausible risk" for open source software. Execs read the announcement and quite a few probably told their IT department to start Vista migrations that day. Some folks will read this and bash MS for being "mean". Others will recognize a business opportunity and jump on the support band-wagon. But a handful will read this and then make a decision about which OS to put on their next Cell Phone they are manufacturing. Possibly off topic, but cell phone OS decisions is really what Microsoft cares about in their war rooms.
An actual suit could result in MS having some or all those patents thrown out, at which point they are no longer able to affect a PHB-HMN.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
I will be perfectly honest. I like Microsoft. Windows, while not perfect, is pretty damn good for a lot of stuff. Sure it costs money but I am using it to make money so I see it as a moot point. Providing its costs are proportionate to what I will make from the software I don't mind paying.
Now 10 years ago Microsoft wasn't so great but then neither was Linux (or Mac for that matter) so that is a moot point, plus it is all in the past. Lets move on.
Today Windows XP is a decent, enterprise and home user OS. Server 2003 is a decent enterprise and small business server platform. Windows Vista is similar to XP in that its look is a bit dodgy but its pretty solid under the hood (or at least it will be).
HOWEVER. I really hate all this crap with patents. Everytime I see Microsoft do this I equate it to bullying. They are scared to rather than face up to their problems and realise that OSS isn't the enemy but something that can help them develop better applications and be a stepping stone for smaller businesses to step up from or down to.
They need to realise that they don't appeal to everyone, I know that is hard for them to understand but its the way it is and the sooner they realise this the better. Not realising this won't kill them (I don't much can to be honest) but it won't do them any good either.
For me everytime I see this it makes me more determined to use Linux. It is all bull and anyone who is worth employing as an SA or similar knows this and can explain why IMHO.
My blog
I invite the lawyers for MS kindly to line up and KISS MY A$$.
See the "Sue me first" article... http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/21/22 9219
Their threats are completely empty. Any legal action to assert their patents "rights" would end up with them looking a lot like SCO. IBM has been beating the shit out of SCO, and I'm sure they're up to the challenge of making Microsoft their bitch as well.
One begins to wonder if Microsoft has any idea what the hell they're doing anymore. I'm sure they have some nefarious strategy, but it sure seems like stupid mindless bumbling that's doing nothing but making people hate them more than they already do.
Sure, Microsoft, build yer bridges. I'll be happy to help burn them.
"immediate"
bah!
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
"The company goes on to say that, essentially, it could have done that any time in the last three years if it wanted to." Microsofts dad could beat Linuxs dad up any day, if he wanted to!
They are promoting it over the others to it's customers who insist on using Linux for one purpose and one purpose only. This is to eventually put such a bad taste in their mouths that they'll run from any Linux and back into Microsoft's shards of broken glass call MS Windows. They've used this sort of trick before, and it worked, and it appears they are using it again.
One way it'll play out is like this: They/Microsoft eventually either pull the plug on the Microsoft/Novell deal either by not renewing it with Novell or massively increasing the "licensing" fees to Novell. Either way, Novell is out of the picture and instantly loses most of its customers. Microsoft could then offer licensing directly to those frightened/unlicensed Suse Linux customers at current rates to hook them if they are not already partially tied to Microsoft Windows products, or immediately send them outrageous licensing bills for the Suse Linux software protections scheme with the offer to license them MS Windows based products at far less.
Think about how the BSA works today or how Microsft pulled the rug out from under the Win32-on-UNIX 'partners' and their customers. THAT is just one way Microsoft has operated which could apply to this scenario. But even if it does not operate this way, mark my word, they will never accept customers running anything but Microsoft software while they still have the power to manipulate the market and protect the Microsoft Windows monopoly. Without MS Windows, Microsoft is dead and they know it. IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
I agree with you, it is not racketeering. What about libel? Sure, it is not a statement against a person. But could MSFT be sued (perhaps by FSF) for libel, and claim in the suit that the statement (such as the one of 42 violations in the kernel) is false, to trigger discovery or other processes to find out just what they think is a violation (if in fact they even think that)?
Still, a weak argument could be constructed that Microsoft does not have a basis for such a lawsuit, either because of failure to enforce what they knew about, or because they just didn't have a case to begin with, and that a lawsuit in such a case would in fact be illegal (and they know it), and this could possibly make it fit the definition of racketeering.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
How to mitigate it? Unfortunately you don't. Because it is the idea of lawsuit you cannot work around this risk unless you avoid it altogether.
Can't do anything? Hardly! The easiest thing to do is point out that M$'s own sources think non free software violates more patents than free software does. The evidence is in all the lawsuits that M$ keeps losing, like the MP3 case. You don't see many of those for free software do you? The only way to avoid risk is to move as quickly as possible to free software.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Think about how the BSA works today or how Microsft pulled the rug out from under the Win32-on-UNIX 'partners' and their customers.
Don't forget NTerprise and the other remote access schemes for Windows. Microsoft bought Citrix and they went under.
Pity, NTerprise worked by virtualizing GDI, not by screen scraping, so put WAY less load on the server.
It has no immediate plans to sue because it has no immediate plans to get its ass kicked in court.
If there was much FUD to be had then people would not already be signing up to be sued first
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
"Microsoft has spent time and money accumulating patents. Maybe it has started using that armory to move corporate customers to open-source software that Microsoft approves of."
Should read:
"Microsoft spent time and money accumulating Linux distributions, installing them, and stealing their ideas to accumulate patents. Now it wants to pick up where SCO left off and continue to spread FUD about linux."
Everyone should know by now that non free software violates as many or more than free software. M$ will be forced to act and will lose. GPL3 will prevent them from owning free software by patents, so they will have to go free to be competitive or die under their dog food. This game is close to over.
The threat has already "damaged the brand". We all know they put SCO up to it's failed bid and these threats seal the deal for anyone who was on the sidelines. It's pretty obvious to everyone how M$ operates now and all credibility is going down the drain with Vista. They can't compete with free software, no single company can.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Just look at it, Dell customers get to use Linux but still pay their share of MS tax, but now for an OS Microsoft doesn't need to develop or support.
The Novel deal is their first and last dishonest free software score and it's costing them about $120,000,000. GPL3 eliminates patent threats. If M$ want's to play the free software game they will have to play it like IBM and everyone else. They can make money at it, but the monopoly is over.
2007 is the Year of Linux.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
*ahem*
F*CK YOU.
That is all.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
I claim that, historically, companies that depend on patents and litigation for their income tend to crater. Some classic examples include the Wright patents and the Calotype patent.
Microsoft's PR department is backpedaling against Brad Smith's statements in Fortune. One of two things is going to occur. One, Ballmer or Gates will smack down Brad Smith and all will continue as before. Two, Microsoft's sales problems with Vista will gain political traction for Brad Smith within Microsoft, and Microsoft will turn into a lawsuit juggernaut. If point two comes to pass, Microsoft will bleed slowly, just like all the other companies that have depended on lawsuits for income.
What people are forgetting here is that Linux as a project and as a community is completely immune from any kind of patent-related claims or FUD in practice.
Any legal attack of any kind whatsoever will wash off the penguin's back in mere weeks, because developers will simply not put up with being held to ransom by anyone, and will just take a different tack towards the same goal.
And while the corporates who ride on the back of Linux will suffer a certain amount of sales loss from the FUD and retrospective costs should any court judgements go the wrong way, that'll be only temporary. Even the corporates will benefit from the rapid replacement of any part that is judged to be encumbered by MS patents. There is no patented concept so fundamental that we can't redesign the relevant Linux subsystem to avoid it.
Whatever MS does, it really doesn't matter in the slightest, except in the very short term.
What about libel or misleading product claims. Can Microsoft be sued for making unsubstantiated claims about its product versus another? Such a trial would force them to put up or shut up.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
The thing is, Linux (or rather, Gnome and KDE) DOES infringe on at least one. Microsoft currently carries the patent on double-click customization.
Shhh! Don't give away the whole plan, you putz!
How the fuck is this funny?!? It's 100 % accurate, not "funny".
n =30530&pt=msg&mid=2131179 ...
You probably got modded "funny" by our resident MSFT astroturfers... oh, and Darl McBride can bite my shiny metal ass.
Also, in other news, the saltydog, aka saltydogmn, has no immediate plans to ever spend another dime on Microsoft products, ever again.
I wrote a small blurb here; http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911&m
they probably have 5 or 6 minor patents.
they can't really sue for Linux distros because the judges are already wise to this kind of tactic.
They're using their grammar skills there.
.... maybe for something like slander? Microsoft should make their case, or be sued.
How do we preemptively bring it on against Microsoft, can we get a class action lawsuit going or get EFF on it?
As Sinistar put it best... RUN, COWARD!
Circumcision is child abuse.
Sounds like it may be an attempt to weaken the grounds (reasonable apprehension of suit) for supposed "violators" to file for a declaratory judgement, while keeping the "we could sue somebody someday" FUD alive to scare enterprises away from Linux.
Why can't someone scan through the MicroSoft patents, and look for obvious, prior art, etc. type of things. Then send a note to the patent office reporting their findings. Being helpful government officials, I'm sure they will handle things properly.
Once these patents are gone, we can then ask Microsoft to revise their count, so that we can see how much work is necessary for the next round of patent reversions.
I am not a patent lawyer, but shouldn't there be some simple way to tell the patent office that they aren't doing their job of vetting patents properly? Shouldn't MicroSoft be slapped properly for submitting so many invalid patents?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Yes, GPL3 will keep them from doing what the did with Novell and the whole cross licensing juggling show they put on to make money off it, and subsequently lock Novell into playing along with them.
That is a very good thing, M$ can't act like they own all free software. It was never a legitimate option because software patents are never legitimate. If you care at all about author intent, you will be happy M$ has been stopped.
[this is] not conducive to the acceptance of more OSS integrated with non-OSS.
If anything, this highlights the inferiority of non free software and should encourage migration. There was never a good reason to "integrate" non free software besides the false convenience of vendor lock-in. These days there's not even a technical reason because free software is almost always better than non and there's software in every category. If M$ actually had something, they would not feel the need to "steal" free software. Vista is the best they can do in five years, so it really is over.
M$ is going to do down like SCO did, in a blaze of bullshit and failing sales. The louder they scream, the closer the end is. They will not be missed.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Go back and re-read the court verdict. Bundling the browser was found by the court to be an illegal business tactic. Noone really cares your opinion, or for that matter mine. The one that does matter is the courts and the courts said it's not about 'anti-Microsoft' it's about Microsoft breaking the law.
WTF?! is that one company above all critique?
Don't know about NTerprise but Citrix didn't go out of business. The market thought they were dead(1996?) when Microsoft threatened to kill them by building their own thin client system into the next version of MS Windows( NT v4 ). I made a nice profit off that since it hammered Citrix stock and made it a cheap buy. For some reason, investors thought Microsoft could actually build a MetaFrame class software system in just a few months and pre-load it into Windows NT. I knew better and made a nice profit off that, but that's another story. Back to Citrix. Citrix MetaFrame thin client required access to the underlying OS and so Citrix needed to license parts Win32 from Microsoft. Remember that 1996 was around the time of the thin client hype so you can see that Microsoft would become quite 'aware' of something which might promote the use of thin clients and could be a threat to MS Windows. Also, WinFrame clients were multi-platform and Citrix was doing quite well with its MetaFrame product. Microsoft wanted to purchase MetaFrame but Citrix wouldn't cave to Microsofts lowball numbers and threatened publicly to build their own system and ship it with WindowsNT. I would imagine that the Windows source code licensing fees were also brought up and used to threaten Citrix. But, eventually, Microsoft and Citrix came an 'agreement'. Microsoft would get MetaFrame source code to include in Windows( renamed MS Windows Terminal Server ) under license for 3 or 5 years and after which time, Microsoft would own the product and source code. You know, the same kind of deal which Microsoft SQL Server from 'partner' Sybase( Sybase SQL Server ).
m icrosoft-crisis-1997-usa-today-article/
I don't know what makes MetaFrame better than Microsoft Terminal Server but something keeps businesses buying and using it. My guess is that the people at Citrix know what they are doing since they originally created the market back in the OS/2 days while Microsoft is primarily a marketing company directing developers based on threats and not "innovation". Ie, they're pretty bad at leading and improving software for customers and better at producing software which isolates technology to their Windows platform. IMO.
I found this article on the Microsoft vs Citrix history. It's pretty long and I've only started to read it so hopefully, my recollection is close to what the article says happened:
http://noncitrix.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/citrix-
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Regardless of Microsoft's claims, I've been a proponent of limits on time to enforce. So, if for instance you own a patent and you don't enforce your patent within a reasonable period of time, then you should lose your ability to ever enforce it.
We should not award patents to people who then resell them without enforcing them or know of violations but don't enforce their rights. Not enforcing your rights amounts to acknowledging free use of your patent and should forefit your rights. At a minimum, to keep your rights, you should be required to issue free use certificates if you want others to have free use of your patent.
[job offer]
It's a trend, believe it, everyone wants to jump the wagon. Everyone wants to spread FUD, be sneaky and double talk.
Join the marketeers of the future where instant FUD2000 is placed upon catapults to be sent to each competitor!
Join NOW! It's the trend ! You must be stupid if you wouldn't join, it's the fastest way to profit!
This stuff is better than Amway and cheesy puffs together!
Forget the old world where truth rules, you should know better lady justice is wearing a blindfold anyways!
[/job offer]
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
The business model of threatening to sue people works if the people are 12-year-olds. It does not work real well if they are the pillars of finance capitalism. So as a party engaged in annual "be very afraid" tours, you're going to start to get pushback by enterprise customers who say, "That's *us* you're threatening."
Now what if you could reduce their sense of being the people who are made afraid? What if you could find a way to give them quiet and peace -- and make a little money on the side -- so that the only people who are left quaking when you did your annual "Be Very Afraid" tour were the developers themselves? Now you would have given yourself a major ecological boost in swinging your patents around and threatening to hurt people.
Deals for patent safety create the possibility of that risk to my clients, the development community. If enterprise thinks that it can go and buy the software my clients make from some party who gives them peace from the adversary in return for purchasing a license from them, then enterprises may think they have made a separate peace, and if they open the business section one morning and it says "Adversary Makes Trouble for Free Software", they can think, "Not my problem. I bought the such-and-such distribution, and I'm OK."
This process of attempting to segregate the enterprise customers, whose insistence on their rights will stop the threatening, from the developers, who are at the end the real object of the threat, is what is wrong with the deals.
I think y'all might have it wrong.. it isn't intimidation, it's a settling of accounts as a prelude to MS buying (or buying a controlling interest in) Novell. Novell holds some of the IP that Linux is based on, don't they? Why wouldn't MS want to own or control that IP?
I'd like to see a provision added to patent law that would effectively make patents similar to trademarks in that if a company chooses not to defend thier patent in court, then they lose their rights to their patent. This would prevent companies like Microsoft from pulling shit like this.... Then again, a class action lawsuit brought forth by open source companies against Microsoft would also be a nice thing to see as well.
Uncertainty is much more effective than seeing how MS is suing people with little or no success.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Biggest. Understatement. Ever.
Don't know about NTerprise but Citrix didn't go out of business.
I see how you misread that... what I meant was "Microsoft bought Citrix and they (NTerprise) went under."
I know ALL TOO MUCH about Citrix, we were using it back when they were working with Tektronix. We ent through all the ups and downs and I was really happy to find a company that DIDN'T use screen scraping.
The problem with the approach Citrix, VNC, and other screen-scrapers is that the server is continually polling to catch updates to the screen and ship the bitmaps over the wire. What made NTerprise so great is that because they were virtualising the GDI calls themselves (like X11, NeWS, and DPS) you had no tearing and no "holidays" in the update, and what you saw on the screen was always in sync with what the application expected to be there.
Microsoft buying out the Citrix technology basically killed them, and with a fundamentally inferior technology.
But that's the way they do things in redmond.
No, not for slander. We (OSS) should sue Microshaft for patent infringement.
There are plenty more OSS patents that undoubtedly are infringed by Microsoft. And if the entire OSS patent holding community (IBM, Sun, FSF, GNU, Redhat, etc.) sue Microsoft with all their patents, Microsoft can't hope to meet them on a cross-licensing deal, unless that deal includes a ceasing of patent hostilities against OSS users. Since they won't do that (and here's where most those companies would back out), it would go all the way to the Supreme Court, which would hopefully throw out software patents since algorithms (mathematical processing) cannot be patented according to US Patent Law.
See, Microshaft, and other software companies who support the existence of software patents, game the system by defining software as an end product that is patentable because it includes the hardware on which it runs (a system and method). This is, in fact, not acceptable, because, regardless of the fact that a computer is doing the processing at an accelerated rate, a human could do that same processing, thus it is a mathematical algorithm and not an end product.
This is why most companies dislike software patents, because software patents are a dishonest end run around patent law that was legislated specifically to prevent patents like this. Most only participate because the few that like software patents will take over the industry if they don't.
Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
At what point does this become illegal? Are you allowed to threaten whoever you like to strong arm customers into buying your product?
Read the quotes in context, not the sensationalized media. No threats were made or even implied.
I can sure agree on that when it comes to compression algorithms. If you wanted to do something interesting or creative with Lempel-Ziv, arithmetic coding, and a few others, as I recall, you would have to account for the patents already held on these. In a course on compression that I took a few years back, part of the mid-term was to actually exectute these algorithms on paper!
It seems like MS has drunk too much of the FUD cool-aid. Linux is used, developed and of vital importance to some of the most powerful and resourceful corporations and nations in the world. Linux OS's play with complete open cards and anyone can download their code to "audit". Who the hell do they think they scare with their software patents?
Relevant Monthy Python sketch:
Sergeant Two civilian gentlemen to see you ... sir! ... you've got a nice army base here, colonel. ... seven thousand infantry, six hundred artillery, and er, two divisions of paratroops. ... five bob...
Colonel Show them in please, sergeant.
Sergeant Mr Dino Vercotti and Mr Luigi Vercotti.
The Vercotti brothers enter. They wear Mafia suits and dark glasses.
Dino Good morning, colonel.
Colonel Good morning gentlemen. Now what can I do for you.
Luigi (looking round office casually)You've
Colonel Yes.
Luigi We wouldn't want anything to happen to it.
Colonel What?
Dino No, what my brother means is it would be a shame if... (he knocks something off mantel)
Colonel Oh.
Dino Oh sorry, colonel.
Colonel Well don't worry about that. But please do sit down.
Luigi No, we prefer to stand, thank you, colonel.
Colonel All right. All right. But what do you want?
Dino What do we want, ha ha ha.
Luigi Ha ha ha, very good, colonel.
Dino The colonel's a joker, Luigi.
Luigi Explain it to the colonel, Dino.
Dino How many tanks you got, colonel?
Colonel About five hundred altogether.
Luigi Five hundred! Hey!
Dino You ought to be careful, colonel.
Colonel We are careful, extremely careful.
Dino 'Cos things break, don't they?
Colonel Break?
Luigi Well everything breaks, don't it colonel. (he breaks something on desk) Oh dear.
Dino Oh see my brother's clumsy colonel, and when he gets unhappy he breaks things. Like say, he don't feel the army's playing fair by him, he may start breaking things, colonel.
Colonel What is all this about?
Luigi How many men you got here, colonel?
Colonel Oh, er
Luigi Paratroops, Dino.
Dino Be a shame if someone was to set fire to them.
Colonel Set fire to them?
Luigi Fires happen, colonel.
Dino Things burn.
Colonel Look, what is all this about?
Dino My brother and I have got a little proposition for you colonel.
Luigi Could save you a lot of bother.
Dino I mean you're doing all right here aren't you, colonel.
Luigi Well suppose some of your tanks was to get broken and troops started getting lost, er, fights started breaking out during general inspection, like.
Dino It wouldn't be good for business would it, colonel?
Colonel Are you threatening me?
Dino Oh, no, no, no.
Luigi Whatever made you think that, colonel?
Dino The colonel doesn't think we're nice people, Luigi.
Luigi We're your buddies, colonel.
Dino We want to look after you.
Colonel Look after me?
Luigi We can guarantee you that not a single armoured division will get done over for fifteen bob a week.
Colonel No, no, no.
Luigi Twelve and six.
Colonel No, no, no.
Luigi Eight and six
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
By Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
November 19, 2004 And the fact you don't see lawsuits about Linux's use of MP3s is nothing to do with incorrect licensing, because no distro has licensed those patents: Even though MPEG Audio Layer 3 (MP3) is an ISO standard it is not a free and open standard and is covered by numerous patents. It is not legal to distribute unlicensed MP3 Decoders and Encoders in most countries. And if you would ship an mp3 decoder, you can not link it from GPL software, because this would cause a GPL violation (because of it's additional restrictions). From OpenSuse.org
So in fact, the reason that Linux hasn't lost any lawsuits over their MP3 use is because nobody who uses those patents has any money to sue for. The use of MP3s in Linux is still entirely against the law.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
.. until I got landed with Windows Vista Business. I have a Sony VAIO SZ4XWN and it sucks to a degree that outsucks anything else MS has ever done. It is slow, even with the fancy graphics switched off. If it needs to beep it does so a full second later than the event (rather crap with Skype ringing), and then sounds like the resources aren't really available. Worse, if there are a series of beeps it queues them, giving each beep about 1/10th of the time it really needs, spaces with seconds of nothing.
Internet Exploder has never worked on this machine as regular user. No, really, NEVER, not even after a clean restore. The only way to run IE without utilisation going to 100% on both parts of the Intel Duo is to execute it as administrator which, frankly, defeats the point. Thank Godd for Firefox.
When it hibernates, the WiFi goes offline in a way that either makes it essential to restart the box or loses connectivity with any network with a hidden SSID. When it suspends, well, just forget recovery and reboot.
When it goes into pretending it's secure it does so by blanking the screen in a way that makes you expect a BSOD next (which it hasn't done yet, but the state suspend gets it into isn't that different). What the hell was wrong with an account with elevated privileges which you were discouraged to use? Couldn't that incessant nagging be much simpler used for reminding people to run as user unless they were doing admin level tasks? Why does every little gadget and fiddle in the OS insist on plastering warnings across the screen? I'm fed up with having to can all those bloody mesages. Cute the first time, damn, incredibly bloody irritating 5 mins later, but no escape route. This crap MUST be re-used Clippy code..
A lot of software I have I didn't bother installing. I've had so much trouble with code that got upset by the way this authorisation crap works or simply crashes that I stopped trying. Why bother - I'm not going to continue with this.
I could go on but I really haven't got the energy. XP was OK-ish but this box doesn't even have XP drivers so I'm going to back up the data to its recently repaired brother, the SZ1VGN which still runs XP, zap this box and build up a Kubuntu desktop instead. And inside that I may run a VM with XP, but I will never, ever, touch Vista again if I can possibly help it. I've been using Windows from even before Worries for Workgroups, and I think this is the first time MS has come close to producing another debacle like Windows Me. No, scratch that, it's worse because they were at least not pretending so much with Me.
As of tomorrow there will be a formal ban on the deployment of Vista in any of the business I have a responsibility for, because I'm not going to waste the rest of this year clearing problems we shouldn't have in the first place. If we have to go through this pain we may as well cut over to Kubuntu (KDE is enough like Windows to lessen the shock and they're already on OpenOffice, Firefox and Thunderbird anyway).
Vista Business sucks. It sucks on a galactic scale. It sucks to a degree that I'm no longer worried about global warming because Vista provides sufficient sucking force to turn this planet into a black hole.
Did I mention it sucks?
Insert
It's not racketeering, because what Microsoft is threatening to do (sue) is not illegal. Breaking kneecaps is illegal. Bogus patent lawsuits are legal.
Just remember, when the mafia destroys you and all you've worked for, it's condemnable, despicable behavior. When a major multinational company does it, it's just standard business practice.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
It also leaves the door wide open for them to invoke the Darth Vader clause: "I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further."
They can still decide to sue anytime they want. This press release isn't worth the paper it isn't written on.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
I guess their trial balloon got shot down. It's hard being an a**hole when you have such a high profile.
Most likely because they suddenly remembered that they didn't invent most of the crap to start with. In fact, Unix and Unix like OS's used many of them before Bill Gates did. So instead of fighting over royalties immunities for prior to copyright usage, they see that it's not worth mentioning ever again, too bad SCO didn't think of that.
Furhtermore, MS patents that do not have prior art can be identified and one can find ways to circumvent those in OS code. This will preactively determine which OS code is safe, or to which level the code is safe, way before any hypothetical case by MS is started, and enlarge trust in its applicability in a commercial environment.
I have an additional question: is this a problem in europe? They still don't have software patents here, as far as I know...
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
I'll happily pay 400% of all money I have spent or made for the Linux code I use. Where do I send my check for $0?
Maybe I should pay for the money I have made supporing Linux and it's products... Ok that would come up to a lot of money... But wait do I also have to pay for supporting Windows which is 100% M$?
Maybe I need to pay for the money that Linux has cost M$? How much is that? Apple, IBM, HP, and SUN all have OS's that have a lot more in common with Linux then Windows does so it's not the majority of the code. So I guess we need to find out what percentage of the code is used in M$ 'injenuity'. 235 is a big number but what does it reperesent.
according to the CNN article:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_arc hive/2007/05/28/100033867/index.htm
Linux kernel - 42
The Linux graphical user interfaces - 65
Open Office suite of programs - 45
E-mail programs - 15
other assorted FOSS programs - 68
Ok time to re-educate M$.
While Linux is FOSS, FOSS is not Linux so the 68 outlandisly vague patents are not in Linux (maybe on a majority of distro disk but AOL comes on the Window Disk). My guess is that we are looking at maybe 4 or 5 per offencing program and in general are little freebes or add-on's for windows so maybe $0.05 per which would come to a whopping $3.40.
E-Mail programs, unless they are talking about the internal mail system Linux uses to send messages I think they are going after programs that have windows binaries out there( as many of the FOSS may fall in that catagory too). If you put those 15 in you may as well charge all windows users who don't use Outlook... (hmm) But again I think we are looking at 4 or 5 per program but MS doesn't charge for Outlook express so equivalent echange would come to $0.00. But some may be exclusice to Outlook and that is a part of MS Office so maybe $0.05 per patent.
Open Office is a nice free office package suite so it does get put on most distro disks especialy since it can open and save MS Office documents, Good chance that these patents will be the strongest ones for a suite if M$ ever decided to sue but they are also great examples of why we need some patent reform. BUT just as MS Office is not Windows (though I know a TON of users who don't know the diffrance between Word and Windows) Open Office is not Linux. However if we had to pay this could get a bit pricy. Office has a retail of around $600. So 45 Patents over the 6 or so parts of Open Office and each has to have at least 100 patantable parts so about $1 per Patent.
Ok the GUI can aguably be considered Linux, in the way that people see Explorer as Windows. However unlike Windows, X and the managers that run on it (like KDE and GNome) are in no way required to use the system. I have heard rumors that most of the 65 are from KDE. This I could see beacuse KDE has a lot of windows like controls but again since it's not really part of the OS and rarely run (if even installed) on servers it can be argued that its little more than a free add-on. However most of the new things that M$ puts in windows are not much more than flash and colors so I can see at least half the cost of windows being from this. So IF you run all the options that M$ thinks that they have valid Patent on and Windows market value of about $600 and the other 1000+ 'patanable' fetures are not owned by M$ then we could be looking at as much at $20.
Now we get to Linux. 42 Patent violations in the Kernel. These are the only ones that I think the Linux communuity is really worried about. All the rest can be easily replaced or switched out on just about any currently running Linux system with little to no impact. I am most interested in seeing what these are. In general the Linux kernel sets the core for a POSIX system which HP and IBM UNIX and even Apples OS X also do. Maybe the new way the Linux Kernel handles driver
with a little tint of rousseau and bastille spirit within.
no sire. robespierre is dead for long a time now. but, he has managed to take a many aristocrat heads with him.
Read radical news here
Corporate and institutional FOSS users can be helped out here by a change in the media environment. We can just call Microsoft's bluff. As of 17:53 pm on 2007-05-22, we have 514 people who have signed up to be "sued" by Microsoft for Microsoft's "patent claims". Wink, wink, nod, nod.
l e=Sue_me_first%2C_Microsoft
If we continue to get a large response to the "Sue me first, Microsoft" list, we have a greater chance of getting media exposure for the fact that Microsoft makes bluffs, and just backs off of those bluffs. We ignored SCO, and so we can ignore Microsoft, too. The place to sign up to challenge Microsoft to sue you is here:
http://digitaltippingpoint.com/wiki/index.php?tit
The story about our "Sue me first, Microsoft" challenge appeared here yesterday on Slashdot. A story appeared here today in Redmond Mag on-line. So we practically have Microsoft surrounded. Heh. Okay, maybe not. But we're getting there.
Christian Einfeldt,
Producer, The Digital Tipping Point
The comedic value on this post is amazing. Ever thought of going into business as a baptist preacher? Lots of money to be made lying and talking loudly about shit that has never and will never come true. You should really consider it. It might beat the hippie lifestyle.
Microsoft has said it has no <rattle class='sabre'><strong>immediate</strong></rattle> plans to <rattle>sue</rattle>.
There, that's better.
I think you should go straight to the Triple Dog Dare
I don't think the FUD was intended to scare off adoption, they and SCO have been FUD'ing for years; adoption continues to accelerate.
I don't think the FUD is even intended to drive businesses to Novell or collect some (frankly nominal compared to their products profit margins) royalty on GNU/Linux.
I think the FUD is intended to cause enterprise customers to put pressure on Redhat to make a patent agreement.
I think MS is all about dividing the community, "approved" from "unapproved", "hobbyist" from "professional, "authorized" from "infringing"
I think they want to break the FOSS virtuous cycle.
This post was written on a home built AMD OpenSolaris workstation. No I will not ever go back to MS.
It's not racketeering, because what Microsoft is threatening to do (sue) is not illegal. Breaking kneecaps is illegal. Bogus patent lawsuits are legal.
Ah, but it is illegal to say you can do something you can't... MS definitely can't sue anyone in the Linux community, who would they target? And they don't have any patents that apply to Linux (prior art, etc), so they're just saying they can do something when they have no chance in hell. Isn't that illegal?
... NOT sue?
As a publicly traded company they have an obligation to maximise shareholder value.
If there's a potential revenue stream to be tapped, how can they justify not doing so?
Unless, of ourse, it's all a lot of bullsh^WFUD...