We can debate whether IBM's patents are "cooler" than what the other kids have, but the issue isn't patent coolness or value, but rather whether they are purely defensive which they are not.
Sorry but none of the patents that organization handles are provided to "everyone", just to those who follow their particular license rules. You may like the terms of their license better, but it's still a license, not a public domain offering.
Yes, I've read many things that Torvlalds has said. Did you have any particular thing in mind? I'm not going to continue this back and forth forever. If you guys can't produce a quote or link you're just bullshitting.
Why don't you quote the part of what Torvalds said that makes you think I'm not being fair or at least provide a link. Or is it just too easy to claim that I haven't read some unspecified quote?
You may be right that Ravicher's study isn't good evidence that Linux violates MS patents. I did notice however that Ravicher may be doing a little spinning of his own now. The relevent question is whether Linux is violating MS patents, not whether Linux violates patents no more than proprietary software. If Windows violates some non-MS patent than the patent holder could sue MS, but that would have no legal consequences with respect to any MS patent violated by Linux.
Patents existed long before cross licensing agreements and there are plenty of examples of one-way licensing. I don't buy your excuse for licensing i.e. "no reason not to recover part of the enormous costs", but in any case, it makes no practical difference in the markeplace. Why companies use patents that limit competition and increase profits doesn't change the basic fact that they do.
Yes, if indepedent unbiased third parties can look at the patents and the Linux source code, they could provide a reasonable opinion whether MS claims were valid or not (although not legally binding). This would have nothing to do with Linus, however. He could point to the outcome for vindication (as could MS if the result was in their favor), but he still couldn't give his word on analysis he hadn't performed himself.
Why is this obvious truth so hard for you to accept? The fact that Linus can't "give his word" has nothing to do with whether Linux violates MS patents, whether MS patents are valid, or whether software patents are a good idea.
I'm not "mixing up" anything. I haven't blamed IBM, Amazon, or MS. I'm just saying that the primary reason for obtaining a patent isn't defensive and IBM's actions support my conclusion.
No, it's absolutely not "his word against theirs" unless he's examined MS patents. The problem with patents is that you can violate them quite easily without trying to. You can't "give your word" concerning facts you haven't investigated.
"Surely some of IBM Global Services' customers have been threatened over it."
The problem with that theory is that IBM's suit against Amazon won't have any effect on the "one-click patent". If you're going to threaten somebody, you have to tell them what you want.
"It has nothing to do with revenge. Sun is languishing because before they managed to finally bring out Niagara, they spent years with an antiquated architecture (in terms of performance) and actually ended up scrapping a sparc architecture project because it would have been outdated by the time it was released, which in turn was because they simply fell on their ass and failed to execute. Sun is a victim of its own incompetence."
But the point is that Sun was focusing on MS instead of minding the store. They would have been much more likely to produce a competive architecture if they had actually made it a priority. Beating MS was more important than beating thier real competitors.
I've never claimed that Linux has owners, but that doesn't mean that Linus has nothing to lose if it fails. Look how much time we waste around here just trying to prove we are right. Where's the profit in that?
"That is insulting to Linus and a good fraction of the human race."
People we don't know get insulted daily on Slashdot and at least half of us have been guilty of it here. I'm glad that the thought of someone as clearly innocent, gentle, and honest as Linus being unfairly accused of having any bias in favor of the OS that made him famous has motivated you to pledge to never insult or question the honesty of anyone without absolute proof even if they work in Redmond.
The point is what special insight does Linus have based on his leadership of Linux? If he hasn't investigated the patents, the answer is none. So he has the same opinion as all the "right-thinkers" have at Slashdot and others who are pro-FOSS, so why ask him?
Amazon, as I've said. Amazon has never threatened IBM over the "one-click patent" and IBM has little reason to care about it since selling to consumers isn't really their business.
Your belief is based on an even more unlikely theory than defensive patents: that IBM is going to be the defender of the world by suing MS if it tries to enforce any software patent. IBM may be a boring company but the one thing they do very well is not allowing emotions to cloud their judgement. That's why they're still doing well while Sun languishes.
As Indigo Montoya says: "There's not a lot of money in revenge"
"What's more, Linus more or less dismissed the claims as nothing more than FUD."
But I thought Linus made a point of not investigating possible patent problems with Linux so that he couldn't be accused of deliberately violating them. If he hasn't looked into the patents, how could he possibly know that MS's claims are FUD?
Of course, no matter what he might actually believe, Linus is obviously going to call it FUD just as Gates will obviously say it isn't. You're not going to get an unbiased response from people who have so much to gain or lose, so why bother to ask? It's like asking a politician "Do you think you can win?". You already know what the answer will be.
"Today, what companies worry about isn't asserting their patents against other companies, but maintaining their freedom of activity."
Last year IBM sued Amazon over IBM patents and it had nothing to do with "maintaining freedom". The whole theory of defensive patents is just an excuse for patent-mongers like IBM to continue to restrict competition.
I find the opposite to be true. Locking, unlocking, and opening doors, buckling and unbuckling seatbelts, adjusting the seats, releasing the brakes, etc, etc vary widely from car to car. Even which side the steering wheel is on varies. Cars are incredibly idiosycratic.
Yes, some compensation is required for that aspect, but it's not as if all those synapses can fire in support of solving a problem. In any case, there's no doubt that computers can perform operations much faster than humans. If not, we wouldn't be using them. The difference is reasoning which humans can do and computers cannot (so far). Speed and storage are responsible for the computer's win since there's really no other reasonable explanation.
I agree with everything you said until you got to the MS bashing part. I don't think VB was marketed as a way to transfer BASIC skills to GUI programming, it was marketed as a simple way to create GUI programs for Windows which is exactly what it did.
Isn't this a bit like having the hospital administrator imprisoned for life because somebody died due to fact that the faulty infusion pump that killed the patient wasn't paid for on time? The fact that software is pirated or not has no effect on the outcome.
Slashdot Mirror
We can debate whether IBM's patents are "cooler" than what the other kids have, but the issue isn't patent coolness or value, but rather whether they are purely defensive which they are not.
Sorry but none of the patents that organization handles are provided to "everyone", just to those who follow their particular license rules. You may like the terms of their license better, but it's still a license, not a public domain offering.
Yes, I've read many things that Torvlalds has said. Did you have any particular thing in mind? I'm not going to continue this back and forth forever. If you guys can't produce a quote or link you're just bullshitting.
Why don't you quote the part of what Torvalds said that makes you think I'm not being fair or at least provide a link. Or is it just too easy to claim that I haven't read some unspecified quote?
You may be right that Ravicher's study isn't good evidence that Linux violates MS patents. I did notice however that Ravicher may be doing a little spinning of his own now. The relevent question is whether Linux is violating MS patents, not whether Linux violates patents no more than proprietary software. If Windows violates some non-MS patent than the patent holder could sue MS, but that would have no legal consequences with respect to any MS patent violated by Linux.
Patents existed long before cross licensing agreements and there are plenty of examples of one-way licensing. I don't buy your excuse for licensing i.e. "no reason not to recover part of the enormous costs", but in any case, it makes no practical difference in the markeplace. Why companies use patents that limit competition and increase profits doesn't change the basic fact that they do.
Yes, if indepedent unbiased third parties can look at the patents and the Linux source code, they could provide a reasonable opinion whether MS claims were valid or not (although not legally binding). This would have nothing to do with Linus, however. He could point to the outcome for vindication (as could MS if the result was in their favor), but he still couldn't give his word on analysis he hadn't performed himself.
Why is this obvious truth so hard for you to accept? The fact that Linus can't "give his word" has nothing to do with whether Linux violates MS patents, whether MS patents are valid, or whether software patents are a good idea.
You haven't really made a counter-argument, have you?
"And MS doesn't have any special insight either as they haven't studied it either"
Nobody asked for MS's opinion, they just announced it. As far as what they have or have not studied, who knows?
I'm not "mixing up" anything. I haven't blamed IBM, Amazon, or MS. I'm just saying that the primary reason for obtaining a patent isn't defensive and IBM's actions support my conclusion.
No, it's absolutely not "his word against theirs" unless he's examined MS patents. The problem with patents is that you can violate them quite easily without trying to. You can't "give your word" concerning facts you haven't investigated.
As I've said he has no special insight since he hasn't studyed the patents and his answer is entirely predictable.
"Surely some of IBM Global Services' customers have been threatened over it."
The problem with that theory is that IBM's suit against Amazon won't have any effect on the "one-click patent". If you're going to threaten somebody, you have to tell them what you want.
"It has nothing to do with revenge. Sun is languishing because before they managed to finally bring out Niagara, they spent years with an antiquated architecture (in terms of performance) and actually ended up scrapping a sparc architecture project because it would have been outdated by the time it was released, which in turn was because they simply fell on their ass and failed to execute. Sun is a victim of its own incompetence."
But the point is that Sun was focusing on MS instead of minding the store. They would have been much more likely to produce a competive architecture if they had actually made it a priority. Beating MS was more important than beating thier real competitors.
I've never claimed that Linux has owners, but that doesn't mean that Linus has nothing to lose if it fails. Look how much time we waste around here just trying to prove we are right. Where's the profit in that?
"That is insulting to Linus and a good fraction of the human race."
People we don't know get insulted daily on Slashdot and at least half of us have been guilty of it here. I'm glad that the thought of someone as clearly innocent, gentle, and honest as Linus being unfairly accused of having any bias in favor of the OS that made him famous has motivated you to pledge to never insult or question the honesty of anyone without absolute proof even if they work in Redmond.
The point is what special insight does Linus have based on his leadership of Linux? If he hasn't investigated the patents, the answer is none. So he has the same opinion as all the "right-thinkers" have at Slashdot and others who are pro-FOSS, so why ask him?
"Who has IBM gone after without provocation?"
Amazon, as I've said. Amazon has never threatened IBM over the "one-click patent" and IBM has little reason to care about it since selling to consumers isn't really their business.
Your belief is based on an even more unlikely theory than defensive patents: that IBM is going to be the defender of the world by suing MS if it tries to enforce any software patent. IBM may be a boring company but the one thing they do very well is not allowing emotions to cloud their judgement. That's why they're still doing well while Sun languishes.
As Indigo Montoya says: "There's not a lot of money in revenge"
"What's more, Linus more or less dismissed the claims as nothing more than FUD."
But I thought Linus made a point of not investigating possible patent problems with Linux so that he couldn't be accused of deliberately violating them. If he hasn't looked into the patents, how could he possibly know that MS's claims are FUD?
Of course, no matter what he might actually believe, Linus is obviously going to call it FUD just as Gates will obviously say it isn't. You're not going to get an unbiased response from people who have so much to gain or lose, so why bother to ask? It's like asking a politician "Do you think you can win?". You already know what the answer will be.
"Today, what companies worry about isn't asserting their patents against other companies, but maintaining their freedom of activity."
Last year IBM sued Amazon over IBM patents and it had nothing to do with "maintaining freedom". The whole theory of defensive patents is just an excuse for patent-mongers like IBM to continue to restrict competition.
That should be "idiosyncratic" not "idiosycratic".
I find the opposite to be true. Locking, unlocking, and opening doors, buckling and unbuckling seatbelts, adjusting the seats, releasing the brakes, etc, etc vary widely from car to car. Even which side the steering wheel is on varies. Cars are incredibly idiosycratic.
Yes, some compensation is required for that aspect, but it's not as if all those synapses can fire in support of solving a problem. In any case, there's no doubt that computers can perform operations much faster than humans. If not, we wouldn't be using them. The difference is reasoning which humans can do and computers cannot (so far). Speed and storage are responsible for the computer's win since there's really no other reasonable explanation.
Slow the computer down until it can process information at the maximum speed a human synapse can fire, and see who wins a timed chess match.
I agree with everything you said until you got to the MS bashing part. I don't think VB was marketed as a way to transfer BASIC skills to GUI programming, it was marketed as a simple way to create GUI programs for Windows which is exactly what it did.
Isn't this a bit like having the hospital administrator imprisoned for life because somebody died due to fact that the faulty infusion pump that killed the patient wasn't paid for on time? The fact that software is pirated or not has no effect on the outcome.