Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Letting Patents Move To Linux Firms
mnmlst notes a Wall Street Journal story (picked up at Total Telecom) on the move of some patents originally held by Microsoft to the Open Invention Network, where they will join a portfolio whose purpose is to inoculate open source companies against patent trolls. OIN is near a deal to buy 22 patents from another patent-protective group, Allied Security Trust, whose members include Verizon, Cisco, and HP. AST won the patents in a private auction Microsoft put on earlier. An AST executive says that "Microsoft presented the patents to potential bidders in its auction as relating to Linux." While OIN's acquisition of the patents will act to protect the Linux community, AST, by contrast, exists to protect only its corporate members, not the community as a whole. But by selling the patents to OIN, they are cooperating in the protection of Linux. And by allowing the patents to go to AST in the first place, Microsoft may (the article implies) be signaling at least their lack of active intent to disrupt the Linux marketplace.
why isn't microsoft doing everything possible to destroy linux? Is this a "saved apple" moment all over again??
This is a really expensive way to dodge a tiny part of the software patent problem, and it involves paying Microsoft millions. And for every such trick we win, how many did we lose?
The upcoming Bilski review is the first time in 28 years that the Supreme Court in the USA will review the patentability of software - that's were we can get a real victory. I'm working on an amicus brief which'll have to be submitted within about two weeks. If anyone wants to help, it would be very useful to expand the swpat.org wiki's information about studies which show the harm of software patents:
And to add more info about arguments for abolishing software patents:
This is our big chance and might be the last one for decades.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
All this talk of "defensive patents" that supposedly "protect the community" is just a fraud. To protect the community, take all the documentation of the patent, and put it in the public domain. Then, anyone who wants can implement the tech, without restriction, forever. Keeping it patented retains the power of the patent holder to deny implementation to someone, sometime.
If they were really serious about merely protecting the community, they'd give up the patent control entirely. But it's clear that "the" community just means whoever the patent holder wants to defend from someone else who they exclude. That's entirely against what the Linux way of real open development means: anyone, anytime can join the community by coding and releasing.
These "defensive" patent orgs will bite us in the ass. Otherwise they wouldn't be investing time and money in not just the patent portfolios and all the work to maintain them, but also in conning us into believing it's for our own good.
--
make install -not war
... damme after 10-y the sound-drivers will finally work!
The article states that MS was just divesting some of its acquisitions that it had "no use for". Am I missing something here that states that these holdings were any serious threat for patent litigation against Linux?
again their most valuable asset, FUD.
http://msversus.org/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Oh, I don't know. Stop funding Darl McBride.
That would be a nice start.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
They could care less about getting a few more bucks or less bucks from these patents. The long term goal is to insinuate more patents into linux and boil the frog slowly. They are trying to co-opt linux at every turn.
Something similar just happened with the EXFAT file system, which should have been unpatentable. Instead they patented it but then licensed the patent to some linux software vendor. The end result once enough such deals have taken place is that it will become impossible to ship or use linux without extensive cross-licensing even if the initial terms are quite palatable. They don't turn up the heat til later.
Lighten up, mate. Life's too short to take things so seriously. Microsoft's still evil. Nothing's going to change that -- well, almost nothing.
May be this is Microsoft's way of countering Apple? Support Linux to keep unix-like marketplace from falling entirely into Apple's hands? :)
So paranoid.
Comment of the year
Headline: Microsoft puts Windows source code into public domain!
Slashdot reply: This is just a plot to kill Linux.
Good golly molly. To be sure I see Linux as competition for Windows, but no more so than Apple or Google. Patents are a part of life. But there is no super complicated patent based grand scheme - its just business. From my point of view (I'm not an exec) we'll compete the old fashioned way - build stuff people will happily pay money for, and enable other people to run profitable businesses working with us.
Jibe!
Please contribute to efforts to eliminate software patents, they are a threat to software and business freedom.
Anyone who thinks patents can ever protect gnu/linux, you have been sorely mislead. Where was OIN when M$ was stomping on TomTom and that NAS company? Sitting on their hands, that's where. Patents, as they exist, will always harm small companies who are at the mercy of giant like M$, IBM and other hoarders. Having to beg big companies not to sue you is not software freedom. Even the giants are threatened by patent trolls now.
Business method patents are not capitalism, it's government protected business monopolies. This is something the US founding fathers hated with a passion. Things are even worse than the king's fiat because government has been less than competent about establishing the winners and losers besides themselves. 20 years ago, people would have called it Communism and pointed to failures in the USSR. Biski can not eliminate softare and business method patents soon enough.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It's not paranoid when they actually are out to get you.
And really -- I know you're often pro-Microsoft, borderline fanboy, but even you should be able to see that Steve "FUCKING KILL GOOGLE" Ballmer would love a chance to cut Linux off at the knees.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I was wondering how the FOSS zealots would spin this, thanks.
UNIX is bigger than US patents. It is a culture that became an OS that became a culture. Linux gave the poor man a way to run a UNIX-like OS without having to shell out big bucks to Sun, HP, AT&T, SCO, or another UNIX vendor. Linux has become a culture in its own right. If MS were smart, they'd drop the "we hate all things UNIX" attitude and develop their own OSX-style distro that could be run on cheap PC hardware which would put them in position to actually take back some of the market Apple has claimed, and Google is about to claim. Besides, copying Apple is what they do best.
If they were really serious about merely protecting the community, they'd give up...
and "...you can't help those who don't want to be helped."
Approve or Decline
There is nothing to FEAR but NOTHING itself; and I fear there is a whole lot of nothing going on. --scorpivs
You're right, the Microsoft plot to kill Linux (be it by patents or any other means) isn't very secret. :p
So deluded.
It's business alright. You're wrong however. The fact that Linux just keeps growing and growing, but always costs the same, troubles Microsoft, and they'll do what it takes to keep their business model working. They'll do anything they can to cause troubles for Linux at any given opportunity, as long as it doesn't hurt number 1. That's how business and competition works. So yes, there is a great complicated scheme to tarnish Linux, and patents are the biggest guns in this game. They will be used, guaranteed.
For every good thing MS does it makes sure to do some evil.
See:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/09/ms_linux_pitch/
It's not paranoid when they actually are out to get you.
Allow me to point to Occam's Razor.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
A chair with wings would be a better icon for MS stories.
How is it NOT relevant? You think Ballmer is the kinder, gentler Bill Gates?
Really? In the client space? Come on. Linux has always been free. Windows has always cost money. Even then, Linux still only has an almost immeasurably small percentage of the client computing market. Even in sever - where I completely agree it is technically competitive - it doesn't have a commanding market share.
If Linux was as awesome as the Linux fan boys thought it was, then for free it should be utterly dominating Windows. It clearly is not.
A good proof point is Apple - they have a product that costs real money and they have a real, sustained market share. Said another way - they are competitive. On the desktop Linux simply is not competitive. Never has been, and is a long way from being so.
Proof is in the pudding so to speak. In this case it is the numbers.
The netbook was supposed to be the big opening for desktop Linux. No material success for Linux there - people want Windows on netbooks as well.
Here is another way to look at it: A few OEM's sell some systems with Linux, but no OEM is making a major or committed business out of selling Linux based PCs.
Note â" none of this is because of technical limitations in the core Linux bits (like the kernel, networking stack, etc.) My personal opinion is that technically, core Linux is pretty groovy. But there is no organization that is prepared to ship Linux to millions of customers, let alone 10's or 100's of millions of customers. Even the best Linux client distributions donâ(TM)t deal with full consumer and enterprise end to end scenarios well. Microsoft (who I work for) has been doing this for years, and years. So has Apple.
The Linux community needs to figure out how to do that before Linux can be even moderately successful on the desktop.
Jibe!
Since being a pundit doesn't actually require any specific training or certification it's a better activity for PJ than pretending to be an expert in law.
Since Ballmer isn't the face in the Borg icon, what's your point?
They didn't do this. They sold patents to patent trolls (not to the Open Innovation Network) and one of those trolls sold them to OIN.
Which goes something like this: "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better." (form Wikipedia).
As you have noticed, "being paranoid" and "they are out to get you" make two completely different conclusions - in one case you are wasting your time and nerves, in other - you are going to die. Thus, the principle cannot be applied.
Or was there a different reason why we had to remember the Occam's Razor?
Linux and open source in general are a theoretically infinite competition to Microsoft. After a big spike in proprietary models, the trend of all software industries is now towards more open standards, more open software and smaller companies offering small sets of products that together solve big problems. This is exactly where open source most naturally thrives, and it's the exact opposite of how Microsoft has always operated - one vendor, one set of products, nothing open. Microsoft's executives know this, they're not stupid, so they're trying to hold back the trend with patents and faux-open standards like OOXML. It's like trying to hold off a global ice age by burning your house down.
Sam ty sig.
Would Hanlon's razor be a good explanation as well?
...even you should be able to see that Steve "FUCKING KILL GOOGLE" Ballmer would love a chance to cut Linux off at the knees.
No, that's what you see, because that feeds into your "Good VS Evil" software fantasy.
I think you missed the point completely. Both of the post and of the article.
"And by allowing the patents to go to AST in the first place, Microsoft may (the article implies) be signaling at least their lack of active intent to disrupt the Linux marketplace."
Im much more inclined to believe that the intent was some patent troll getting their hands on the patents. They want a new SCO, no doubt.
HTTP/1.1 400
Headline: Microsoft puts Windows source code into public domain!
When that happens, let me know. Until then, let's put that strawman away.
Gosh golly - where do you think Slashdot gets the idea that Microsoft might use patents as a weapon? Certainly not from anything Microsoft's leaders have said. I mean, it's not like there's a history. This is just irrational hatred for a successful company competing "the old fashioned way." Its got nothing to do with reaping what you sow.
MS have given Linux all the useful patents :-
Treble Clicking
Square Mouse Wheels
Clippy
Bob
etc etc
That all sounds very reasonable. And if I didn't have personal knowledge of what its like dealing with Enterprise IT providers that partner with your company, I might think what you've described is The Truth. However, I know that running Linux in a Microsoft dominated industry is troublesome. Most of my work involves Unix systems, so a Linux desktop is mostly feasible. But we have to be really careful when looking at purchasing tech unless it comes with a Windows trojan horse. No - not malware. Rather, some "appliance" is really a Windows Server or a particular pieces of hardware requires Windows to run it's management client. I have to keep a Windows partition available to VMWare because of legacy purchasing mistakes. And as much as that annoys me, it is the reality we all live in.
Yes - there are times when Microsoft makes the better option. And there are some examples of Microsoft products in our environment that make sense. But a large percentage of Microsoft architecture that I see in my environment involves very little choice.
You're right, it should be a Ballmer borg icon now.
Linux is fine becuase it is developed globally. It is the USA with these weird software and business method patents that has the problem which affects both open and closed software. There can always be US compliant distros with the patented portions removed just as Redhat already does with mp3 software. It's just like the stupid encyption export limitations which led to companies like RSA incorporating out of the USA and moving development out of the USA.
Remember these words: embrace, extend, and extinguish.
This is the only politic Microsoft knows, they're following the same modus operandi like in the past, this the only way they conduct their business.
Take a look at this document http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecis.eu%2Fdocuments%2FFinalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf&ei=B1KnSvzuENDFsgaa17XuCw&usg=AFQjCNGoTCIslXHnac9qnm0BYvqnHKqVew
Taken directly from this document:
"
This strategy has three phases: First, Microsoft âoeembracesâ a competing product by developing software or implementing standards that are compatible with the competing product. Microsoft then âoeextendsâ its own offering by creating
features or standards that are interoperable only with Microsoftâ(TM)s proprietary technologies. Finally, when Microsoftâ(TM)s proprietary software or standards have achieved widespread adoption, Microsoft âoeextinguishesâ its competitors by dropping any remaining pretense of compatibility
"
sounds familiar ?
Perhaps if the OS'es competed on technical merit alone you'd be right.
However, this isn't so. You have to add advertizing (accepted practice, but basically a dirty trick that says nothing about the merit of the product), FUD-slinging, vendor lock-in, people who are "used to Windows, ergo it's better", and a gazillion other factors which has nothing to do with the ACTUAL PRODUCT'S technical merits in itself.
On the bright side, Linux and Open Source can't die like MS can (bankruptcy). All the BFG's in the world wont make a licking difference if you've pressed IDDQD and are chipping away with your knuckles one bit at a time.
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
And I would point to Windows 7. That ain't Linux they are ripping off, hell I'm surprised the Ballmer monkey hasn't started wearing Mock tutrlenecks just to complete the look. Lets be honest here-Linux is at maybe 2% of the desktop market, and while Linux is kicking some ass on the web server market, most places have a Winserver behind the firewall. That is because Linux doesn't really have a drop in replacement for AD+Exchange+Outlook+Sharepoint+GPO.
So while I enjoy a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, this one just doesn't really sound believable to me. MSFT is gearing up for Win7, all I've heard about it and Winserver 2K8 is good things, and them not inviting Linux is the big proof? Well duh, just because they are not trying to kill you doesn't mean if have to try to help you out either. It just seems to me MSFT is way too concerned with making sure Win7 doesn't pull a Vista and trying to fix their non hip image to go to all this trouble when Linux hasn't even put out anything earth shattering lately. More likely this is just MSFT tossing the dead wood and finally trying to concentrate more on their core businesses than be the jack of all trades and master of none.
After all, if it really was their intent to bone Linux with the patents they would have had meeting ahead of time so that only trolls ready to play ball would have been invited in the first place. I doubt seriously a company with that much money and power would have completely boned their plan so easily.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
In 1997 Microsoft invested $150M in Apple.
A quote from that article:
Davis also said that given the size of Microsoft, a $150 million commitment amounts to little more than good public relations. "Remember, they spent $450 million on WebTV. The investment still doesn't give Apple a coherent strategy for turning things around."
Sometimes partnerships work out and some times they don't. For example:
The companies also agreed to collaborate on the Java programming language and other programming languages to ensure they run consistently on both Windows and Macintosh platforms. In addition, Apple agreed to make Microsoft's Internet Explorer the default browser for the Macintosh platform.
We all know how MS Java and IE on Mac turned out, don't we?
Davis said the investment means that Apple will now toe Microsoft's line on Java. "If Java is a threat to Windows, and all operating systems, then it's a threat to Apple and the Mac OS."
We all know that Microsoft Java turned out to be a violation of some law or other and was deprecated. And we're only 11 years hence.
And one more quote on whether the investment and its concomitant concessions was a good deal for Apple: it was only 11% of Apple's available cash at the time:
Apple, which ended its third quarter with $1.2 billion in cash, will use the additional $150 million to invest in its core markets of education and creative content, Anderson said. He added that the company expects to gain a higher percentage of its revenues from software and services in these core markets in the future.
$150M in Apple that week evolves into $4.2B today. If Microsoft kept this one and did as well with their other investments, by now they would own the world.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Firstly IANAL and even in my job as a systems/software engineer I try to avoid dealing with patents like the plague on idioligical grounds (I also avoid spelling when ever possible).
Could this following scenario happen:-
1. Create a set of patents based on a product, each patent has a dependancy on the other(s).
2. Release a sub-set of the patents for product.
3. Wait for people to use the released set.
4. Sue them for breaching the unrealesed patents.
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
what the hell is a patent troll?
if someone come up with a good idea, the person has a right to patent the good idea
there is no such thing as a patent troll
don't demonize pioneer using suggestive terms
if you can't think of the idea earlier, you are the loser, and you should accept the fact and pay money to buy patents from the pioneer
you can't think of the idea first, and label the pioneer as a patent troll? this is the action of a shameful low class human
OK so why do MS keep saying that linux infringes on 200+ patents and they will be suing people soon.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
I liked it better when he was called Daryl.
Apparently MS resold a bunch of 3D graphics patents it bought from SGI in 2001-2002.
SGI was is urgent need of cash at this time, and MS was working on the xbox. It was like SGI selling its soul to MS...
Silicon Graphics graphics technology, Linux, not bad...
You may notice that Microsoft never offered the patents to OIN or anyone directly involved in developing Linux, but instead sold them in a private auction. If one didn't suspect Microsoft of being evil, one would suspect them of releasing the patents to third parties, in the hope that they would engage in patent litigation. Is there a precedent for MS funneling finance to companies who go on to sue people for using Linux?
"what the hell is a patent troll?"
"Patent-hoarding giant Intellectual Ventures has long beat the drum that it doesn't file lawsuits"
"While the Microsoft investment was important for Apple, it had nothing to do with money. The main thing Apple got out of the deal was Microsoft's commitment to continue Office on the Mac"
Actually MS threatened to cancel Office on the Mac unless they stopped shipping competing product like ClarisWorks.
"The threat of cancelling Mac Office 97 is certainly the strongest bargaining point we have, as doing so will do a great deal of harm to Apple immediately"
In any case, this is a good thing. Is it goodwill from Microsoft? I'm not sure. When they made the big internet patent grab several years ago, it seemed about as evil as you can get. But in having done that, one could argue that they kept other more evil companies from grabbing and exploiting them. If Microsoft simply gave them away now, that would be goodwill. If they charged $100B, that would be evil. If they charge essentially what they've spent to acquire and hold them, well, that still seems like a good thing. Twenty-two patents at $50K each would be $1.1M. So if the price was >$5M, I'd call it evil.
M$ has realized if they stop the FUD and show an honest cooperation by doing this to show they are not out to destroy Linux which would be a huge bad PR move. Instead by doing this they look good. I am still curious on how this benefits them though. Does this keep them out of antitrust lawsuits somehow? M$ never does anything like this unless they are either forced to or are trying to get something in return. We will have to watch and wait.
This possibility is why Mono is dangerous, and why Microsoft's promise not to sue is worthless. Since the promise not to sue is not a patent license, it doesn't bind any future purchasers of Microsoft's patents on .Net.
All Microsoft has to do is sell a couple of their more critical patents to patent trolls, after first granting themselves and all the Microsoft .Net users a suitable non-revokable license to them. *BANG*! No more Mono, and all the apps written for it become illegal to run in the US - unless you run them on Microsoft .Net. This is perfectly safe for Microsoft since they and their customers are protected by the patent licenses.
I don't know the current status as this was a couple years ago, but MS did have a working prototype of Windows 2000 running over linux. I don't know if they were doing something like WINE (I verified it wasn't WINE or a hypervisor) or if it was closer to the kernel, but it seemed to be the linux kernel and GNU commandline with a full W Win32 stack on top. This was probably just a couple guys fooling around rather than something "official", but most people wouldn't know or care if Windows was just a GUI on top of linux (as long as their old software runs).
They may be encouraging the Linux community (whatever that is - the MSM won't bother with subtleties, so neither will I) to acknowledge the validity of Microsoft's patent portfolio. Trusting Microsoft's on account of their affectations is like trusting Lucy to hold the football.
In other news, stalking wild predators "may be signaling at least their lack of active intent to" eat you.
Gullible much?
you had me at #!
Microsoft Letting Pants To Linux Firms
In this case, the most straightforward, simple explanation is that Microsoft floated its portfolio of Linux patents on the market as bait for patent trolls, and instead they were bought by a patent defense outfit.
What's your explanation, that Microsoft wanted to do good, but didn't want any credit for it? Because that's ridiculous on many levels. That Microsoft suddenly needed an insignificant few million for patents that it had suddenly reversed its clearly stated strategy on? Equally absurd.
There's nothing "conspiracy theory" or paranoid about Microsoft trying, and failing, to use its Linux-related patents to attack Linux, as it clearly signaled the intent to do with overt, not implied, threats. Microsoft is regularly badgered by patent trolls, so its not like the company doesn't understand how the game works.
And Microsoft's last attack on Linux via SCO, which involved overt "investment" in SCO after funding it with Caldera settlement money, slipped most people's radar and created near zero problems for the company while holding up Linux in a FUD-bath of terror. Why not try to do the same thing again? It's not like Linux suddenly isn't a thorn in Microsoft's server hide.
Daniel Lyons: Fake Steve Jobs and the SCO Shill Who Hated Linux
Microsoft's Unwinnable War on Linux and Open Source
I didn't see any mention in TFA about the specifics of the patents. There's no sense in debating this until we know just what the patents cover. Oh wait. This is Slashdot . . .
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
I know you're often pro-Microsoft, borderline fanboy
If that's how people on this site define the word "sane", then yes I am.
but even you should be able to see that Steve "FUCKING KILL GOOGLE" Ballmer would love a chance to cut Linux off at the knees.
So the guy who yells "FUCKING KILL GOOGLE" (so you say) is so subtle that he'd try to auction the patents to some other firm? So that other firm would then harass Linux and Microsoft would be in-the-clear? And yet so short-sighted that he didn't foresee the possibility that a firm that wants to defend Linux would buy the patents in the same auction? It's not just a conspiracy theory, it's a retarded one.
It's much more likely that Microsoft auctioned the patents for some wholly un-related reason, and didn't care who purchased them.
Comment of the year
You are very probably right; unfortunately, Microsoft has already demonstrated complete willingness, in the OOXML fiasco, to subvert ECMA by every means available, from hiring shills off the street to pack public meetings, to stacking committees with single-issue proxies (who now no longer show up, so that the committees are hamstrung without a functioning quorum) to outright vote-rigging. I really don't think they'd give a dented spittoon for any commitments they signed off on to ECMA.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
Hell just dropped below freezing...
The more sane among us have realised that being a threat to Linux was no longer in Microsoft's best interests, for a while now.
I'm hoping, however, that as Microsoft continue to engage in more of these types of actions, that eventually the FSF and its' supporters will get the memo as well, and the culture of fear, hatred, and general toxicity which the FSF encourages among Linux users, will be allowed to die.
I've said it before, and I will keep saying it; at this point, Microsoft are no longer a viable threat to anyone but themselves.
...that chilly wind this morning, it was the hell freezing...
That ain't Linux they are ripping off
"Taskbar thumbnail previews" are something I remember having in Compiz long before Win7, and I don't remember seeing them on OS X, either. Want to be specific about what Mac things they're ripping off?
That is because Linux doesn't really have a drop in replacement for AD+Exchange+Outlook+Sharepoint+GPO.
The problem is firstly that people think they actually need all that -- do people actually use SharePoint? Anecdotes point to maybe.
But Exchange + Outlook? Plenty of groupware. AD/GPO? Samba is working on it, if it isn't released already, and Unix-centric solutions have existed for decades.
If I understand your argument, though, they're trying to concentrate on fighting Apple?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
If that's how people on this site define the word "sane", then yes I am.
If your reaction to being called a fanboy is to assume I'm that much biased in the other direction, you're making my point for me.
No, I do think you're mostly sane. But "sane" doesn't mean "agrees with me", and the same goes the other way. I do not have to be insane to disagree with you.
So the guy who yells "FUCKING KILL GOOGLE" (so you say) is so subtle that he'd try to auction the patents to some other firm?
Microsoft has been deliberately "subtle" in the past -- see MS Java, Dr DOS and Windows 3.1, "It ain't done till Lotus won't run", etc.
Again, the question here is: Is it so unbelievable that someone would both overtly rail at his enemies, and covertly attempt to undermine them? Ballmer wouldn't be the first to do this.
And yet so short-sighted that he didn't foresee the possibility that a firm that wants to defend Linux would buy the patents in the same auction?
Actually, that's not what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is more paranoid -- that said firm could easily be a front, or could be tempted with sufficient amounts of money, so that it looks as though they've sold the patents to a Linux-friendly company.
It's much more likely that Microsoft auctioned the patents for some wholly un-related reason, and didn't care who purchased them.
Oh, I'll grant that, easily.
But keep in mind, this is the same Microsoft who sent astroturfers to a Linux convention, saying things like "It's all over, the suits are taking over," back when IBM started showing up at these conventions. This is the same Microsoft who essentially stole the GUI concept wholesale from a Macintosh prototype -- keep in mind, Apple did actually license it from Xerox. And this is the same Microsoft who continues to fund SCO.
It is not paranoid to expect a company which has been underhanded and "subtle" in the past to continue to do so in the future. It may not be the most likely possibility, but it's hardly "insane".
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Microsoft has been deliberately "subtle" in the past -- see MS Java, Dr DOS and Windows 3.1, "It ain't done till Lotus won't run", etc.
MS Java - Microsoft added features to Java to make it integrate better with Windows, since Sun had absolutely no desire to make Java GUIs not suck-ass.
Dr DOS - Dr DOS had a genuine incompatibility with Windows 3.1, and, moreover, was a configuration not supported by Microsoft, so the warning was entirely appropriate.
Lotus won't run - Nothing but an urban legend. If you can *prove* that this incident happened then I'm all ears. So far I've seen no proof. Hell, I haven't even seen any evidence that any Lotus products failed to run on a particular Microsoft OS: which product? Which OS?
Now I don't doubt that *you* believe all those events represent nothing but pure, unadulterated, evil from Microsoft. But you also have to realize that all of them have an alternate interpretation where Microsoft's absolutely worst act is to protect themselves from lawsuits by people using an unsupported configuration of Windows 3.1. That doesn't strike me as particularly evil.
Again, the question here is: Is it so unbelievable that someone would both overtly rail at his enemies, and covertly attempt to undermine them? Ballmer wouldn't be the first to do this.
Ballmer? Or your crazy exaggerated caricature of Ballmer?
What I'm suggesting is more paranoid -- that said firm could easily be a front, or could be tempted with sufficient amounts of money, so that it looks as though they've sold the patents to a Linux-friendly company.
Yah! And it's actually run by Illuminati lizardmen who have tunnels from DC all the way to Area 51 in Nevada, which they use (with the assistance of chemtrails) to conceal the true secret of TimeCube from an unsuspecting public!
But keep in mind, this is the same Microsoft who sent astroturfers to a Linux convention, saying things like "It's all over, the suits are taking over," back when IBM started showing up at these conventions.
[Citation needed]
This is the same Microsoft who essentially stole the GUI concept wholesale from a Macintosh prototype -- keep in mind, Apple did actually license it from Xerox.
I think what really happened is that Apple's extremely useful implementation of the concept proved to Microsoft that it was worth pursuing their own.
And it's also worthwhile to mention that Windows was far more different from Macintosh then, say, GEOS was. And, much of the original success of the Macintosh was due to Microsoft applications-- the reason Apple showed their prototype to Microsoft in the first place was to convince Microsoft to write apps for it.
And this is the same Microsoft who continues to fund SCO.
[Citation needed]
It is not paranoid to expect a company which has been underhanded and "subtle" in the past to continue to do so in the future.
Perhaps not, but you've yet to PROVE that Microsoft has been underhanded and subtle. The best you've done at this point is quoted a debunked urban legend.
Comment of the year
Dr DOS had a genuine incompatibility with Windows 3.1, and, moreover, was a configuration not supported by Microsoft, so the warning was entirely appropriate.
This one, I can prove. Not only that it was not a "genuine" incompatibility -- rather, a manufactured one -- but that management was well aware of what they were doing:
What the [user] is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is DR-DOS and then go out to buy MS-DOS.
So, what's the rationalization for that?
all of them have an alternate interpretation where Microsoft's absolutely worst act is to protect themselves from lawsuits by people using an unsupported configuration of Windows 3.1.
If that was truly the intent, why obfuscate the code in question, and why not actually report the problem outright -- that it was explicitly checking for MS-DOS?
Ballmer? Or your crazy exaggerated caricature of Ballmer?
Ballmer is enough of a caricature onstage, without any help from me, but that's beside the point.
I said, specifically, that he "wouldn't be the first" -- that is, whether he's doing this or not, it's not as if no one else has ever fit that profile in history.
And it's actually run by Illuminati lizardmen who have tunnels from DC all the way to Area 51 in Nevada
You have a serious problem with critical thinking if you can't see why an entirely different species which has never been seen isn't even in the same category as a corporation acting in its own self-interest.
Indeed, we have seen corporations do evil things in their own self-interest before. (Citation needed? Enron. Need more? Tobacco marketing to children.) So suspecting Microsoft of the same thing wouldn't be entirely unexpected.
You really don't see the difference?
this is the same Microsoft who continues to fund SCO.
[Citation needed]
Reasonably unbiased citation:
Has Microsoft's money been a significant resource for the financially ailing SCO?
Without a doubt. In early 2003, Microsoft started paying SCO what eventually grew to $16.6 million for a Unix license, according to regulatory filings. Only longtime Unix fan Sun Microsystems previously paid close to that, with a $9.3 million license deal.
In particular, I think this is reasonable:
Although Linux threatens Microsoft, SCO was a convenient ally rather than a Microsoft puppet in the Linux fight...
Now, granted, you've also got this:
doesn't that represent a smoking gun that the Justice Department should at least be interested in?
No, at least not yet.
Indeed, they tend not to do things blatantly illegal, and I don't believe I've suggested that.
Regardless of motive, however, they are still funding SCO, quite literally.
you've yet to PROVE that Microsoft has been underhanded and subtle.
If the AARD code isn't sufficient proof, you have a very high standard for proof.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Heck, I remember having dynamically updated previews of running apps (I think this is what you're talking about) in the desktop switcher in Enlightenment, what 0.9? 0.7? I can't remember exactly, it was well over ten years ago. OS X wasn't even a gleam in Steve Jobs' eye back then, and Windows? Don't make me laugh.
Nathan's blog
...to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock smoking twitter!
Actually, it's not quite the same. This is the taskbar -- that is, switching between active windows. Mouse over each one, and a little bubble pops up, showing a preview of the app.
It does help that "dynamically updated" is "dynamic" as in "my compositing window manager is doing this for me" -- that is, it's actually realtime.
But you do have a point about the prior art -- showing that in the "desktop switcher" -- I think that's what other things might call a pager, that shows a preview of your entire desktop? -- has definitely been there for awhile.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!