Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Charging Royalties For Linux
andydread writes "It seems Microsoft's campaign to scare manufacturers away from open source and Linux in particular is proceeding at full force. The latest news is from Digitimes out of Taiwan. Apparently Microsoft is threatening Acer and Asustek with having to pay Microsoft a license fee for the privilege of deploying Linux on their devices. This time, it's in the form of Android and Chorme OS. So basically, this campaign is spreading to PC vendors now. What are the implications of this? Does this mean that if I build PCs with Linux (Ubuntu/ChromeOS/Fedora) and sell them I am at risk of getting sued by Microsoft? "
As Android is an open platform, vendors of Android handsets have to pay royalty fees of at least US$10-15 per handset for licensed use of the patents concerned, the sources explained.
There are only several Taiwan-based handset vendors and only HTC has signed for licensed use of Microsoft patents, leaving Acer and Asustek being the targets for the royalty charge, the sources indicated.
What a surprise, HTC pays license fees so they aren't asked to do so!
I don't like software patents either, but development does take its time and money and you currently still have to play by the rules like everyone else. Just because you're not selling as many devices as HTC doesn't mean you don't have to pay the same royalties. Even Google, like every other company, is asking for patent royalties, so why suddenly Microsoft shouldn't? Sure, hate the software patents, but twisting this as something like Microsoft demanding manufacturers to pay if they want to install Linux is just... wrong.
Apparently in completely unrelated news, Asus is deprecating Windows Phone 7. This even though Google totally cleaned Garmin's clock on the free navi thing.
As always, Garmin-Asus seeks the best for our consumers either on Android platform or on Windows platform. However, we see the potential of Android platform devices, so we are focusing on Android platform currently. - Steven Tu
Meanwhile Microsoft's VP, Corporate Communications Frank X. Shaw is over on Twitter right now trying to repair the damage done by today's CNN Money report. In case y'all want to wander over and lend him a hand.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
How the mighty have fallen.
Most of the stuff on
Twould make you want to twist their necks, wouldn't it?
And doesn't describe AT ALL what is happening.
...This time in the form of Android and Chorme OS.
I'm just glad it's for Chorme OS and not Chrome OS...
that's teh shizzle bizzle
Is this a poorly translated article that was originally in another language? None of it makes any sense. For example:
"As Android is an open platform, vendors of Android handsets have to pay royalty fees of at least US$10-15 per handset for licensed use of the patents concerned, the sources explained"
What does being an "open platform" have to do with paying patent royalties?
"Does this mean that if I build PCs with Linux (Ubuntu/ChromeOS/Fedora and sell them I am at risk of getting sued by Microsoft?."
Apparently it's not a problem unless you're installing them on a smartphone. These aren't really Linux patents they're claiming are being infringed.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
If I understand the article correctly, Microsoft has software patents on a number of technologies related to smartphones, and is seeking royalties from some portable electronics companies for their use of technology covered by the patents.
Generally a "ho hum" situation, BUT, Microsoft seems to be using the situation to pressure the companies to stop using Android and Chrome on the devices. Seems to be.
If anything, rather than proving that Microsoft is some sort of terrible evil, this proves that SOFTWARE PATENTS are a terrible evil.
We should never allow ANYONE to patent something that is not a physical item or process. The idea that a company can write up a vague description of how some software product MIGHT work SOMEDAY, if SOMEONE decides to develop it, and get the patent office to grant them the right to act as a gatekeeper for that idea, should be abhorrent to all people with scientific and technical backgrounds.
I think that about sums up the situation.
Now, perhaps I'm wishing for the moon here, but if anyone from the patent office, Congress, or the Obama administration is a Slashdot reader, this would be an excellent situation to use to show the average representative in Congress why, exactly, software patents should be abolished. "Here are two companies that are not using Microsoft products, and not stealing secrets from Microsoft, and in fact not using any Microsoft property at ALL, whose businesses are being interfered with because Microsoft was granted some software patents and they're using them as bargaining chips. This situation is ridiculous and should be addressed. (Etc, etc)".
Thus spake the master programmer:
"When the program is being tested, it is too late to make design changes." (Tao)
If so, can you blast MS on this publicly? kthxbye
Here.
Terribly summary, by the way.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
did the poster or slashdot actually read the article? nowhere does it say anything about charging royalties for linux!
i especially like this scaremongering from the poster:
"Does this mean that if I build PCs with Linux (Ubuntu/ChromeOS/Fedora and sell them I am at risk of getting sued by Microsoft?"
yes, only if you're infringing microsoft's IP.
this isn't defending microsoft, how about reporting the truth instead of attacking straw men.
I doubt it's intentional, but if Microsoft wanted to use their patent portfolio to scare businesses away from Linux (and I don't know that it's true), they probably would fantasize about reading this on the front page of Slashdot:
Does this mean that if I build PCs with Linux (Ubuntu/ChromeOS/Fedora) and sell them I am at risk of getting sued by Microsoft?
Already posted earlier today:
http://slashdot.org/story/10/10/27/1437252/Microsoft-Is-a-Dying-Consumer-Brand
this site has lost the right to call MS on the FUD they do spread, because slashdot is guilty of as much, if not worse FUD of it's own.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
All the manufacturers have to do is get the patents invalidated which is entirely possible.
Sir:
Fuck you.
We advance Linux until the last man falls.
Bonus points to anyone who recognizes the reference.
you sign an agreement to distribute MS licenses and they dont like it when you break it
sounds simple to me ... dont sign the agreement!
easy 3 step plan
1) dont sign with MS
2) let distrubutors sign with MS to offer MS product on sale (buy windows 7 for 75$ instead of giving it away)
3) profit
manufactures benefit from not being tied in to a deal, consumers still get a choice (its functional out of the box, but if you want windows add x cost), meanwhile they have a usable machine on OS software, +1 open source once they see gmail and facebook run the same, prices drop
CPM vs DOS anyone? this is how its been done since day one with this platform, welcome to 1981
When will you Americans learn that corporate greed is bounded only by criminal prosecution and enlightened consumers? Corporations are, at best, amoral and ruthless in their pursuit of profit.
"How wonderfully twisted summary. Even the article doesn't say Microsoft is demanding license for installing linux. It says Acer and Asustek should patent license fees just like everyone else" - by weachiod (1928554) on Thursday October 28, @12:08AM (#34045992)
OH man, per my subject-line? I know what you mean! Incidentally, I actually LIKE Linux 2.6.35 core, via KUbuntu 10.10, but I do NOT like how the "FUD SPREADERS" work around here, spreading FALSE bullshit... in fact, that kind of thing really upsets me because it's how a lot of "Internet technical urban legends" start, & misinform noobs especially (via dishonest means). That type of CRAP spreads!
I like BOTH forms of "major OS'" nowadays (*NIX variants, yes, even MacOS X (nice stuff) &/or Windows 32/64), but I do NOT like "gossipping whimps" who work via deceit - hell, nobody really does I do not think!
Example? Ok: 2 days ago, there was an article here about London Stock Exchange moving to Linux (after they F'd up & couldn't keep a Microsoft solution going there stable, whereas by way of comparison?? NASDAQ has for the same type of system no less, a market trade data dissemination system, called MDDS (which overall runs on their proprietary designed "SuperMontage" system))... I pointed out that this failure @ LSE is most likely NOT due to Windows usage since NASDAQ does well on it, but rather, the software architects, coders, & network staff that maintain this system with their DBA's too (i.e.-> their IS/IT/MIS team).
So, what happens? Well, this guy named "Unknowingfool" here tried to tell me "NASDAQ runs on LINUX" (which is complete bullshit, the NYSE does though), & then, he tried to imply I stated that NASDAQ runs its entire stock exchange on Windows... I never, EVER, stated that... in fact, I put out all the pertinent info. I know of above!
I busted him in trying to put words in my mouth I never said, and his outrageous lies on NASDAQ running its entire show on LINUX where I know it does NOT (in fact, I have been designing & coding or co-coding large "enterprise class/mission critical" systems like the ones @ these Stock Exchanges for 16++ yrs. now, & they are OFTEN built of multiple parts, like SuperMontage (well, this one's a LITTLE more "specialized & proprietary design" than usual, but my point's there)).
See it here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1836934&cid=34046188
It's unbelievable, but it DOES "2nd your motion" about the "Pro-*NIX zealots" that try to pull the wool over others' eyes here and with OUTRIGHT disinformation/misinformation OR twisting things!
APK
P.S.=> This is a GOOD site, with some good smart folks too (some with REAL skills, not the majority imo sadly, but a LOT of them), but there are some of what I call the "not men" element around here and I am NOT the only person noting it here either... here's someone you NIX folks will recognize, noting the SAME SHIT (and I am sure he has most of your guys' respect):
"It just takes one Ubuntu sympathizer or PR flack to minus-moderate any comment. Unfortunately, once PR agencies and so on started paying people to moderate online communities, and to have hundreds of accounts each, things changed." - by Bruce Perens (3872) on Friday July 30, @04:55PM (#33089192) Homepage Journal
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1738364&cid=33089192
He's dead on too... once "big monies" & their paid trolls/shills come around? It screws up great sites, because MOST of them??
Man, per the URL above my initials above as the example I saw this week? Man - They're TOO DAMNED STUPID to tie their own shoes!
Worst part is, they end up ruining the rep of great websites (like this one CAN be & is, except for the "pro-*NIX trolls & gossip + misinf
All any company need do, when threatened by this typical deceitful bullshite from Microsoft, is site the case THEY ALREADY LOST in court, then slam the door in their face and ignore them to death.
The END of SCO (aka Microsoft) case:
SCO loses another round in Unix fight, must pay $2.55M to Novell
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9110258/SCO_loses_another_round_in_Unix_fight_must_pay_2.55M_to_Novell_
SCO loses again: jury says Novell owns UNIX SVRX copyrights
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/03/sco-loses-again-jury-says-novell-owns-unix-svrx-copyrights.ars
SCO/Novell suit is over, SCO loses
http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/06/11/sconovell-suit-is-over-sco-loses/
And so forth...
When you can't compete: Litigate.
Rule 1. Anybody can sue anyone for anything.
Rule 2. If they fail to respondent in general the one who filed the suit wins.
Rule 3. If there is no ground for the suit it's easy to get it tossed out.
Rule 4. The golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules, in other words the one with the most expensive lawyer wins.
Rule 5. 90% of civil cases are settle out of court. This is mostly a poker game, with bluffs gambits deceptions , misdirection, Sleight of hand, deceit, corruption and hocus pocus.
A company like Microsoft is counting on the other party not doing there homework, not being as well connected, or not having as much leverage with politicians and judges.
Rule 6. Carrying a bluff all the way to court, and getting called on it would be devastating for a company like Microsoft. The best thing that could ever happen is Microsoft actually following through with it's threat.
Rule 7. Judges are held responsible for there judgments. I have noticed that they will do anything to defer to a previous similar judgment by another court on a related case rather then actually commit to a decision that they make themselves.
So in court what mostly happens is both parties are presenting similar cases in which the courts decided in there favor and the judge then decides who make the more relevant argument.
I have seem a similar strategy used to shake down companies for patent infringement on bogus patents.
The corporation being sued will look at this from a strictly profit and loss perspective, it's cheaper and more profitable to remain on good terms with Microsoft.
So they start by shaking down a small plays because they know they will kowtow, and Microsoft will even kick them back a discount or some other bullshit so it really doesn't cost them.
But this sets up a legal precedent establishing the legitimacy of Microsoft's claims.
They then can go after larger or more resistant players.
After a certain critical mass, it will be much more difficult to argue that the claims are fraudulent in court.
The EFF & GNU could be in for one heck of a battle if they don't intervene sooner rather then later.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
In my experience, digitimes.com is not the most reliable and fact-checked of news sources, despite that when they do get it right, they tend to get it pretty quick.
This is not a valid sentence
I thought there was a software patent cold war, where M$ and *Nix both have some software patents the other broke and they could enforce. I thought that both sides would not enforce because they would lose to much on the whole (major parts of their OS and user experience).
When I saw Vista I thought: Hey I have seen this in KDE 3.x . When I saw KDE 4 later I thought: Hey I saw this in Vista.
Both sides steal, but this does mean neither side will go to court. Microsoft can and will threaten to go to court for a great many things. They will not follow up on it. It would cost them to much.
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
If you build a computer, don't install the hard drive. Ask them customer which OS they want, then put that particular preloaded hard drive in. Then, in my experiences, it's a custom built computer.
Good analysis. Would be stronger if you use "their" for the possessive rather than "there" (which is the place) (in 5 and 7).
Oh, and "its" is the possessive while "it's" is the contraction for "it is"- that's one I always have trouble with (in 6).
I don't think settling actually creates any legal precedent - that requires at least a court ruling. I does start to create a psychological and social "precedent" however.
Based on the cautious denial by AsusTek most likely they are being charged a "fee" by Microsoft for bundling a different OS on a "device" that is covered by the broad AsusTek Microsoft OS agreement. Standard Microsoft practice. If you want to bundle Windows, and it's hard to be a OEM/ODM if you don't, you sign away your rights to bundle any other OS on any "Computer type device", IBM was prevented from bundling OS/2 on their PC's. Well technically they weren't prevented they just had to pay Microsoft a fee for each machine that shipped with OS/2, and I believe the fee was double the cost of Windows. In order to get the cheapest price for Windows you need to agree that you will ship Windows on all devices. If you want to carve out a device or product line, your cost of windows goes up and so does the cost of the right to include an OS from a different vendor.
You can pretend that the PC is an open platform all you like. It is not. Microsoft stole the PC from IBM and they're not giving it up.
Rule 3. If there is no ground for the suit it's easy to get it tossed out.
Yeah, that's why the SCO case was thrown out so quickly. Oh, wait...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I'm surprised nobody noticed that this story was posted already earlier today. Must be a slow news day.
"Microsoft Sues Motorola Over Android Patent Infringement" "Microsoft says Motorola is violating nine patents "that are essential to the smartphone user experience, including synchronizing email, calendars and contacts, scheduling meetings, and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power."
So this has nothing to do with Linux. Those are features of Android. And, from some other patent agreements, the "synchronizing mail" thing applies only to synchronizing with Microsoft Outlook and Exchange.
All ASUS has to do is remove Microsoft Outlook and Exchange compatibility from their version of Android. Encourage users to use Google's "cloud" apps instead. Or ordinary IMAP. Microsoft will love that.
"Does this mean that if I build PCs with Linux (Ubuntu/ChromeOS/Fedora) and sell them I am at risk of getting sued by Microsoft? " No. They've got far more to lose than to win. Consider why anyone would need to pay MS for a product they didn't develop nor invest time in. If MS tries suing anyone for royalties, they risk being counter-sued for anti-competitive behaviour (what *else* would you call it when MS charges royalties for Linux?). They *really* don't want to be in court for anti-competitive behaviour, again. Last time it cost them, what, US$1.4 billion? 497 million euros? In any case far more than they'd ever get by suing little entrepreneurs.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Hey! Did you read the article before to post it? It's a shame anyway that Microsoft uses this weapons to fight technology, but it's important to report the news as it is!
...if Ballmer will throw in a nice chair in the deal.
Perhaps this info-graphic can help explain the current absurd state of mutual destruction in the mobile industry. It tries to show who is suing whom.
It's a couple of weeks old though so obviously massively out of date:
http://infobeautiful2.s3.amazonaws.com/whos_suing_whom.png
I'm sure yacht brochures are being mailed to all the lawyers as we speak.
Does this mean that if I build PCs with Linux (Ubuntu/ChromeOS/Fedora) and sell them I am at risk of getting sued by Microsoft?
No, it does not. Unless you're high profile enough to represent a true threat in terms of mindshare, or moving enough systems to represent a significant revenue stream from royalties, they don't give a crap about you -- you're insignificant. (And whether you choose to interpret that as a good thing or a bad thing is entirely up to you... :D)
Trials within the USA are largely based on comparing similar trials that occurred in the past. Look at any law-film and you will always see arguments like "as occurred in the trial XXXX in the state of XXXX back in 19XX", and then claim similarities and expect the same outcome. This is just the way the US trial system works. This is also why every time a brand new issue pops-up, like the first file-sharing trial, the first post DMCA-based trial, etc, its outcome becomes very important. It will in essence set a precedent for future trials.
The European law system on the other hand is not so tight on past occurrences. They look more at what the current law says. Of course they also look at similar trials from the past as well, but the weight they put on it is not as heavy as in the US.
This difference was explained to me by a lawyer friend (yes I have one sorry) who studied in Spain and moved to live in the US. He says that the system works in a drastically different way.
Quite frankly, I would've been surprised if they had not tried something like this; it is certainly in character (and in the interests of their shareholders). And if they happen to get some protection *ahem* I mean "royalty" payments as a side effect, that's just more money to the bottom line.
Clearly they've got good lawyers on staff. Too bad their development teams aren't quite up to the same standard.
Rule 4. The golden rule
Sorry the rules aren't in order of precedence.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
I can't spell to save my life, I am a computer programmer.
So I am not even an amateur at law. But my former partner for 5 years was known as an attorney that could pull of the impossible. He broke Jean Claude Van Dam's unbreakable contract. Talk about Teflon coated.
He never ever went to court, it was all poker and maneuvering. His dad is one of the most powerful entertainment lawyer in Hollywood.
It was amazing to watch him work. When he was up against other lawyers it was like watching him pick the wings of a butterfly. They where playing law, he was playing a totally different game, they never stood a chance.
After many conversations with him, suddenly much of what I would see Microsoft and other large corporations do suddenly started to make a lot more sense. It wasn't about winning in court, but to win overall.
So many strategies all sort of within the letter law but dirty tricks. Things that as a logical computer programmer seems very unethical. But as it turns out is just business as usual for most of the big boys.
It's the reason the little guys almost always loose.
We had Microsoft sabotage our investment opportunities in 1996 by announcing a superior product with a completely faked demo, then not releasing anything for almost 5 years, and when they did it was nearly identical to what I was selling. There video streams even played in my 5 year old player without modification! They then disabled the ability for my product to work with the release of MSIE4.
I had CNN trademark "livecam" after they did a story on it. Then send us a siest and desist! Fortunately that didn't fly, I had the domain years before the trademark was filed. We were never able to get the trademark for ourselves after that.
More recently the first CCTV DVR board which I designed and built while in Korea 1997 was copied by a number of Korean companies. Many Chinese company started making clone boards of the Korean boards. One of the Korean companies then threatened to sue me for reselling the Chinese version of the board which was my original design! Didn't take much to call that bluff.
So many dumb greedy people.
The number of time's I'd been burned in business by this stuff is disturbing.
My last experience It was a $120K software contract with $20K upfront. Then $50K and $50K. It was in writing that it would be based on open source.
We got much of the functionally working and demo'ed it. He demanded source code, eventually I caved in to get the next payment. He canceled his $50K check.
He handed the code to a Russian company to complete and filed a suit to get his $20K back because it was all based on Open Source code!
Fortunately these days I am not so easily intimidated.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
Isn't it time to bundle some botnets and to stop MS from communicating online, so they die and we can all get on with our lives?
"our patents relate to key features that users have come to expect from every smartphone .. That Microsoft has important patents in this area should not surprise anyone - we've spent over 30 years developing cutting-edge computer software link
"How wonderfully twisted summary. Even the article doesn't say Microsoft is demanding license for installing linux. It says Acer and Asustek should patent license fees just like everyone else:", weachiod
Microsoft plans to impose royalty fees on Taiwan-based vendors of Android handsets for using its patents in e-mail, multimedia and other functions, with Acer and Asustek Computer being targets in an actual attempt to prevent the two vendors from adopting Android and Chrome OS for their netbook and tablet PCs, according to Taiwan-based makers.
There are only several Taiwan-based handset vendors and only HTC has signed for licensed use of Microsoft patents, leaving Acer and Asustek being the targets for the royalty charge, the sources indicated link
Seen that Apple and Google are owning MS big times in every market besides the desktop PC, here are the two worst MS nightmare:
1. PC OS X Apple could do it. Apple may one day do it. They enjoy their expensive hardware margins but they may enjoy even more destroying MS with this.
2. Android for desktop PCs. This one, or something similar, is coming. Seen the huge success on the mobile phones, we may one day see Google pull this of.
If one of these two happens and is successful, living of patents royalties will be MS's sole way to make money.
This is one of the primary reasons that antitrust laws were invented -- to stop Rockefeller from charging railroads for trying to ship competitor's goods instead of his (same principle of charging royalties for installing the competing product). There is no way Microsoft would try this in any way that could be discovered.
now all that contributed in some way with the development of linux can reclaim MS their (retroactive) salary! Even the ones that work for competitors like IBM, Oracle or RedHat.
The patent was issued by a corrupt, overreaching, immoral, unethical, illegitimate government. If you think your rights and denial of rights, as a sovereign human being, stem from a corrupt, overreaching, immoral, unethical, and illegitimate government, then yes, you are free to subject yourself to the whims of the owner of this vile patent. Or if you are too weak minded or lacking the resources to fight it.
From The Fine Article:
Which is NOT how the slashdot story describes the article.
Seems like every time Microsoft and a Linux vendor are involved, the narrative is predictable.
Microsoft holds software patents, and it feels the devices infringe those patents. The infringing use of those patents is what is being sued over, not the Linux OS.
Debate the merits/problems with software patents if you want, but the issue here is infringement. Microsoft is also suing Motorola for similar infringement, and at least one manufacturer (HTC) is paying fees to license the patents. Seems like a non-story blown all out of proportion because it involves Linux and Microsoft.
Ken
How wonderfully twisted summary.
It's not that far off. They're using patents to stifle competition, including Linux. FTA:
But because Acer and Asustek are international vendors of netbook PCs, the actual motivation of Microsoft's royalty charge is to keep Acer and Asustek from using Google Android or Chrome OS instead of Windows Mobile for their netbook or tablet PCs, the sources pointed out.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Seriously, it sounds like they've got it all, even down to the "sue your (ex-) customers" part. I suppose that means that someone should check that the monopoly privileges in question really do belong to them.
Stories like this get the MS shills out in full force. I suppose you can nit pick the details of the law suit, and say MS is not really charging royalties for Linux, per se. But I think we all know what MS is up to, and it should come as no surprise. Ballmer threatened to patent-sue linux out of existence, years ago. Since then, MS has rigged law suits against redhat, htc, and anybody who might have anything to do with Linux. The scox scam is another shining example of MS tactics - although we could nit pick and say that is not really MS trying to sue linux out of existence.
This lawsuit, of itself, is not supposed to eliminate linux. It is just part of MS's ongoing effort. MS motto seems to be: "if you can't beat them, sue them."
Blaming this on the software patent system is like saying: "it's okay for OJ to murder his ex-wife, it was the US legal that was at fault for OJ get away with it."
Microsoft can't come up with a better product, so they have to resort to using legal tactics to try and undermine the competition indirectly. Pretty sad. This tells me that they know that their own product stinks, so they have to resort to these tactics to try and force customers to use their products.
You can be sued at any time, by anyone, for any reason, no matter how stupid.
Further, you must defend yourself in court, or you will automatically lose.
It's expensive for the person suing you so it's not generally done unless they're really angry or really rich.
Does any of that description fit any person or corporation in the story you posted?
The suit will be thrown out but Microsoft hopes by the use of fear to control you without actually having to pay lawyers.
They have lawyers on staff who get paid anyway so there's no down side to this unless you call their bluff or stop buying their stuff because of their practices.
Up to you man.
-- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
The patent system is broken.
Irrespective of the accuracy of the article, patents have become an anticompetitive tool in the hands of big corporations.
Whatever patents Microsoft claims to have most likley are so general in scope that anybody trying to produce a mobil phone will "infringe", but they will pay the protection money because it is more expensive to defend yourself, specially knowing that the extortionists have bottomless pockets.
In all honestly it seems like the only solution may be a complete abolition of the idea of patents, I have no idea what incentives could be offered to innovators instead, you bright sparks suggest something, but the patent system is killing innovation and favouring the bully, it simply has outlived its usefulness (was it ever useful?)
Synchronizing is so damn old. The obvious ToDo now is meta-data based data-models for presenting information in any way a user may want to have the information available. Read in to an XML/object database... readout of a database.
I would use email (TCP/IP) meta-data intelligent-bots/agents syntax-collectors and information aggregation (with user selectable filters) to map information (names, places, times, oddities, junk...) and meta-data to an database that would provide many options for information reuse, mining, and exploitation. The PC/Smart-product would use a web-service app to present usable situational appropriate information extracted from the databases (people, places, things... GPS, campus map, campus/town directory subject, professor name, and phone number...).
Populating a database a/o situation appropriate information presentation from available and collected information is not application synchronization.
Is information aggregation in any way communications synchronization? IDNTS, IOW no
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Example: I bought a new Chinese phone, a Sciphone (http://mysciphone.com) with 3G, WiFI, Bluetooth, FM radio, 2 slots for SIM cards, etc, etc, etc.
It costs between 1/4th and 1/6th of what equivalent phones do.
It certainly is rough in the edges, for example the touchscreen has to be used with an stylus, and the software is subpar, but the basic functionality that one would expect is all there (and they beat the bog boys with the 2 SIM offering, something you see a lot in Chinese phones).
If companies like this could compete in even level field then quality would go to the roof and prices would go down.
As it is, bar China, or the brave souls like me that use importers that are out of the radar of the biog corps (I paid import taxes mind you) you can't have acces to these functional cheap phones.
Keep defending the patent system, but recognize that it is intrinsically anti-consumer and anti-innovation.
It should be the patent office upholding the patents.
Yeah, but that's only the kind of thing you'd expect to hear from a nation of criminals...
(As for the US, "it's not illegal until you get caught" is just the mantra of all of the politicians; the rest of us just try to delude ourselves into believing otherwise)
coding is life
Manufacturers don't seem to be leveraging their position - otherwise they would not have to pay Microsoft. If someone from say ASUS told Microsoft that if they wanted to have any chance of ASUS manufacturing Win 7 phone - Microsoft should not be talking smack about royalties. And then make a Win7 phone whenever there is a bit of slack - if it sells, well and good, if it doesn't go ask Microsoft for damages - no one wants to buy their OS.
I can't spell to save my life, I am a computer programmer.
Good thing that doesn't require persnickety attention to detail, eh?
I feel for you - my spelling is atrocious - if it were not for Firefox's built in spell checking I would look even more like a moron than I do now. Interestingly, over the past year or so, my typing errors have started to increase, and homonyms seem to be turning up in those errors. Maybe I have early onset Alzheimer's or a small brain tumor. If I'm lucky (for some value of "lucky") I'll be like John Travolta in "Phenomenon".
All these suits are because Microsoft CLAIMS there is infringing use of patents. Nothing has been proven.
At this stage it's just Microsoft pointing their corporate finger and making claims in an attempt to extort money.
Whoohoo, no law of software patents in northern europe ..! :P
it seems perfectly reasonable that Earth should be viewed as the third world portion of our Solar System
It's either that or the Third Reich from the Sun.
If parts of these operating systems contain Microsoft patents, yes Microsoft should demand compensation for it. If you are a PC maker that wants to ship supposedly a "free" OS, but it contain IP from other companies, then the few extra dollars to license from those companies should be a no brainer, beats paying for licensing the other company's OS.
You can't make money selling someone else's IP, period, end of story. Patent laws might suck but it is the law and I am tired of open source protagonists assuming they are immune to these laws just because they get a warm fuzzy feeling when they release code that is free, even when its not their own IP. Microsoft might be jerks in how they are proceeding in all this, but they are exercising their rights under the law to be compensated when someone else steals their IP. Look, Microsoft has been in courts repeatedly for doing the same thing, I think they have cleaned up their act (out of necessity, otherwise this practice would bankrupt them), but a giant has been woken and they are going to protect their IP as rigidly as Sun or Apple or anyone else.
What I am more interested in is the idea that if open source code has IP from Microsoft then why hasn't the open source community extracted this IP so they can continue to keep the spirit of open source code alive, or is open source becoming an also-ran concept that waits for the big boys (Apple, Microsoft) to inspire innovation and then bitch when they get caught for ripping off proprietary IP.
The European Union has 23 official languages, and the people of PRC and India aren't very rich per capita on an exchange rate basis. Among developed countries, English has the most people per language, and USA has twice the population of CA, GB, IE, AU, and NZ combined.
Activesync has been the trojan horse that allowed Android and iOS into corporate email. It's a small price to pay for the destruction of windows mobile and what could have been another windows monopoly (a god-awful one at that.)
When are companies going to produce a US model and a non-US model and charge the software patent for only the US model to show how much all this is costing ...
As I understand it, they already do. It's part of why smartphones purchased up-front cost so much more in the United States market than in the European market.
This sort of behavior is exactly why I will NEVER pay Microsoft another penny for any software of theirs. Too bad - I was considering a high-end MSDN subscription this year, but now... Fergeddaboutit!
Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
Settling a lawsuit does not create a legal precedent. When you settle a suit, what actually happens, legally, is that the plaintiff withdraws their complaint. As far as the court is concerned, the legitimacy of the claims was never examined and the case was never decided. So no precedent.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
How can Microsoft be charging licensing fees for hardware manufacturers to put a non-MS OS on their products? There is some basic fact here that I'm missing; could someone please explain it to me?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
The constitutional purpose of the patent exception in the first amendment is 'to forward the useful arts and sciences'. The way that patents are currently used do anything but that. It would be a long fight, but I think it might be worth it.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
I can't spell to save my life, I am a computer programmer.
It's the reason the little guys almost always loose.
>> Syntax error line 7
Free Martian Whores!
@mods, could somebody please add a 'goodluckwiththat' tag to this :)
Ubuntu is in Africa, where the licensing for video and audio codecs is non-existent. Ergo, UBUNTU can provide all of that for free, particularly since you have to go off shore to get these linux add-ons. Acer probably included these codecs in their linux version and therefore owe MS their licence fees for same. That is my conjecture. Hatred for Linux has no boundaries. Just rest assured that Microsoft is climbing to the bottom of the hill. Two years ago they were at the top. Linux for non-american governments is going strong. So is the alternative to the heavy and slow functioning Office programs, even though they are of good quality. The best solution is the virtual system, with all software originating on the web. A pay as you go type of deal (Sounds like GOOGLE aps)
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Absolutely. This is how M$ got started - not by technical proficiency, their DOSes were about as bad as you could get. But Bill's dad was a lawyer who saw the potential and, IIRC, strategized the whole licensing scam whereby, if you wanted to OEM MS-DOS at a "trade" price on some/all of the PCs you sold, you had to pay for an MS-DOS licence for EVERY PC that you made/sold. Otherwise you had to pay for MS-DOS at over-the-counter retail prices, for EVERY PC with MS-DOS on it. The difference accounted for most of your profit on the unit... so the manufacturers capitulated, and any other OS was thereby priced out of the market. Cunning, but evil. Set back the cause of the personal computer by 5-10 years.
Some things never change.
I've seen this article in a few versions. I'm just a bit curious - does anybody have the details of the actual patent numbers that Microsoft claims Linux is using?
Given that Microsoft keeps all of it's code locked up really tight, under strict nondisclosure agreements, and doesn't file for patents when they actually create something, it's a bit hard for them to argue that the Linux implementation of a device is identical to their device - AND was not intuitively derived.
Linux on the other hand, requires contributors to declare any known intellectual property rights and to certify that anything not listed as the intellectual property of others is their own original creation and not taken from some other copyright or patented source. In effect, the developer must certify that the code was intuitively created or invented.
Linux source code is published as soon as the submission is included in the compiled code and published. The code is available for anyone in the world to examine and review. Yet Microsoft has never bothered to tell anybody in the Linux community that the code in question was violated - so that the perpetrator of the patent fraud could be prosecuted for illegally submitting code to Linux.
This preponderance of the evidence would require that, in order to prove that their patent was legitimate and had been infringed - that the perpetrator had actually seen the code, knew the code was Microsoft's, knew the claim was Microsoft's, and that he knowingly and fraudulently submitted the code to Linux or OSS code.
This would then give the Linux community the option of creating alternative implementations of the device in question, or properly licensing the patents from Microsoft, possibly in a cross-licensing arrangement.
However, it's beginning to look a lot like the SCO case, where Daryl McBride claimed that hundreds of code devices were the exclusive property of SCO, yet it turned out that IBM was able to prove that 95% of those code segments in question - had been published as Open Source PRIOR to being published in proprietary form, and many had been published, with enhancements, under GPL, by the original author who was also the original publisher and copyright holder. The claims that IBM did not request to be dismissed, it was ready to prove were actually the intellectual property of IBM, who had been using it prior to agreements with either SCO or in some cases, AT&T. IBM decided not to drop those claims, because it wanted to countersue that the claims were fraudulent, and that the lawsuit was part of a conspiracy - allowing IBM to go after deeper pockets that helped fund SCO in it's lawsuit efforts.
If Microsoft has attempted to file patent applications on Open Source code - without citing that code as "Prior art" as required by patent law, Microsoft would be guilty of filing fraudulent applications, and ALL of their patents would need to be much more carefully scrutinized.
Steve Ballmer is being very careful to go after ACER rather than Lenovo or IBM, who could probably cite prior art referenced in their own thousands of defensive patent applications - proving that the code Microsoft claimed was theirs, was actually prior art.
And if Microsoft does prove that the patents are not fraudulent, that they are legitimate, what is the actual value of the patents? There are 3,000 applications, 30,000 files, and roughly 3 billion lines of code. The Microsoft patents cover how many lines of code? Let's assume that 235 patents cover 235 thousand lines of code. So that would be less than 1/10,000th of the code used in Linux.
And would Microsoft be willing to submit their code to the same level of scrutiny as that of the Linux community. Would they be willing to publish all of their source code to determine how many patches, enhancements, and upgrades - that were only ever published under GPL - were included in Microsoft's software offerings?
With Intellectual property such as software, you have 3 options; proprietary, publish, or pat
IBM Certified IT Architect http://www.open4success.org
Getting hit over the head with a bag of bad patents is just bad.
It is just days to the elections in the US. Make some noise and let all the folk on the ballots know. Patent law is law and can be changed and improved.
What is going on now is akin to drug cartel law. Law outside of the law hidden behind the veil of contract law. Drug cartels defend their turf by intimidation and lawless abuse. The portfolios of the major patent players are so complex and interconnected by agreement that even the players cannot untangle the mess.
One key provision of the current law is that it protects you as you produce your product with the method of the patent. Without using the patent in a product the patent should be ruled abandoned and void. i.e. squash patent trolls.
Same for drug patents. If the drug is not in production (say small market) then the patent should expire become void and a boutique/ niche market source could surface.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
Rule 6. Carrying a bluff all the way to court, and getting called on it would be devastating for a company like Microsoft. The best thing that could ever happen is Microsoft actually following through with it's threat.
That is why you have to call their bluff, every time...its stop their shit dead...of course one needs somewhat deep pockets, thankfully their are organizations out there providing lawyers, so in reality its all just a matter of time.
Always call their bluff...better yet counter sue for court costs and any damages that apply.
Why was that guy s two posts modded down, they certainly rang true from what I know about our industry.
Meta-moderation is needed on John Sokol s posts please...better check them all as it looks like someone has a vendetta.
I called some of the Debian Linux guys on there shit. Maybe it was them?
Problem is Acer or who ever Microsoft is going after would have to do the calling.
For them it's down to $, what is cheaper or will make them the most money.
The opponent is counting on negotiating a settlement where it's cheaper to pay them off then to fight.
Corporations don't have principals or a conscience.
Now if there were a group that could legally represent Linux they could file an suit against Microsoft.
Imagine if Microsoft threatened to sue people for using a Apple products.
But this is the inherent problem of non-profit / non-corporate organizations in a world dominated by economics and financial interests.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
...Is this even allowed by law?
I am not devoid of humor.
No one should worry about building linux boxes. Just do it and defy Microsoft ... it is the only decent thing to do. Microsoft has claimed that it has patents within linux but has been unable to identify a single one.
Defying them is the correct approach to evaluate whether or not there is anything to the Microsoft claims.
Ian Soutar
Vancouver Island
Canada.
Ian