"The article goes on to observe that this move is doubtlessly motivated by Sun's interest in GPL3's direction."
Or perhaps it was motivated by Sun's desire to buy their way into the "free" software community's good graces without fully embracing its approach. Remember how happy everyone is about IBM's contributions even though all their profitable software remains proprietary.
Yes, we had a SoftWarehouse in Orange County, California too back in the day. Their prices were about 30% lower than anyone else's. I could browse that store for hours.
As you know, I was asking for evidence of official court documents that state that MS was convicted, not dictionary definitions and references to obscure state court cases a decade ago.
Despite the sloppy use of the word "convicted" by lay people and the occasional judge, the fact remains that the legal consequences of losing a civil case vs. being found guilty in criminal court are so vastly different that a single word can't accurately reflect both scenarios.
I suspect the reason that there isn't a special word for the civil scenario is because the practice of "trying" people in bad faith without following the rules of evidence for a criminal case is a relatively recent invention.
Most people who say that MS was "conficted" either don't realize it was a civil case, or are trying to mislead by suggesting that the outcome was equivalent to being tried in criminal court, which it certainly is not.
you couldn't find any evidence to support the claim that MS was convicted of anything.
"In other words, it is now a declared legal fact that Microsoft violated the law. Is there a better word than "Convicted" or "found guilty?""
It's more accurate to say that the court found in favor of the plaintiff, which was the government. The problem with saying it's a "declared legal fact that Microsoft violated the law" is that the standard of evidence was much weaker than the standard that would be used to convict you of speeding. This civil option provides a way for the government to punish you without actually proving you commited a crime.
If MS was really "convicted" it should be easy for you to provide a link to an official court document that says so (being that the term "convicted" is used in judicial documents indicating a finding of fault or guilt in a civil case and all)
Well, Caldera was a civil case as well. So Caldera's intent in filing the lawsuit was to obtain money and they eventually received it. Is Caldera guilty of soliciting hush money from criminals? You see how we can casually throw accusations of criminality around?
"Just because a conviction has not been rendered does not make the action any less criminal."
That's true, but likewise just because some people have the opinion that an individual or organization has performed a criminal act, doesn't make it true. The purpose of a criminal trial (at least in the US) is to determine if the accused is guilty or innocent of the charges. If, as in the case of the DOJ vs. MS, no criminal charges are even filed, then there really isn't much to support the idea that criminal acts were performed.
"MS is a multi-national corp. and have to abide by the rules, regulation and laws of the countries they wish to do business in. In the definition of "criminal" at no point in that definition does it specify this carries special boundries, or limits for US companies."
I don't disagree with that (although I haven't yet seen any proof that MS has been found guilty of a criminal act in other countries either, but it might be true). The point is that the english word "criminal" in the US carries with it certain assumptions about due process that may not hold true in other countries, so intentional or not, it's misleading to use that word unqualfied with respect to MS particularly when the vast majority of Slashdotters are going to assume it has something to do with the DOJ case.
"These are not tricky brain teasers - if you write real software you probably call those functions (or equivalent methods in C++ or Java or Python) dozens of times per day."
Yes, people call them, they don't implement them. Other than preparing for MS interviews, why would any productive programmer waste a minute of time thinking about it?
Yes, there are multiple meanings to the word "criminal" and I'm sure you know exactly which one we've been using in this discussion.
If you have proof that MS has engaged in criminal behavior (using the other meaning of "criminal") I suggest you contact the appropriate authorities. Until then, please forgive me if I don't take your word for it.
I'm not as familiar with the EU actions, but since MS is a US company if someone makes the unqualified statement that they were convicted of antitrust, it's appropriate to assume they're referring to US courts. The term "criminal" has a very specific meaning in the US that includes being found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" (I'm sure there are countries in the world where such a high standard is considered "inconvenient" by the government).
I think calling MS (or anyone else in the US) a criminal based on a non-US court determination without mentioning the difference in legal standards is an attempt to mislead by using the full emotional impact of the word as it exists in the US even though the meaning is different in the other jurisdiction.
And no, it was a civil case in the US. Feel free to look it up.
Nice Googling. Unfortunately, that's not the part of antitrust law that the government used to sue MS. Since the standard of evidence is much weaker in a civil proceeding, the government probably didn't think their case was strong enough to win as a criminal case. The trade-off is that the government can't say that MS is guilty of a crime because they never proved it was.
Again (and again, and again..) the antitrust case against MS was a civil one. MS hasn't been convicted of anything and isn't a criminal. I'm sure anyone who claims that Slashdot is not even-handed with respect to MS will be happy that you provided evidence supporting it.
"It doesn't matter that you're not specifically named if the accusations include and affect you."
It matters a great deal because you have to prove you were the intended target. A burden you would not have if you were named specifically.
Unlike some random guy in the "community", those who are actually in business can't afford to oversimplify the legal issues invovled. I suspect that most companies like Red Hat think Ballmer's statements aren't damaging enough to justify the risk and expense of trying to fight MS. Let's say Red Hat suspects there could be some MS patents (no matter how unfair the patents might be) that are violated by Linux. If that were the case would they really want to start a fight with MS over the patent issue?
As I said before what specific organization has been allegedly slandered? For example, Red Hat, can't say "MS said we are violating their patents" because it isn't true.
Again, it's not very useful to say "MS didn't name me specifically, but I'm one of the guys they referred to as violating their patents and oh by the way I didn't do it but I want to sue them for not accusing me of something I didn't do"
We were talking about stealing code, not looking at it or borrowing concepts. The fact is that a lot of Linux code wouldn't be useful in Windows and much of it is a rehash of old ideas anyway. If you want to copy features, you run the code, not study it.
"And in any case, it's rather difficult to negotiate a license agreement for a patent when you haven't be told what you're supposed to be violating. "
You can't argue both that you've attempted to resolve the issue and that there isn't an issue. Has MS contacted any specific vendor, for example Red Hat, and said "you're violating our patents". If not, would Red Hat really go to MS and ask them which patents they are violating?
This reminds me a bit of the Paula Jones case where she essentially said "I wasn't the Paula that had affair with Clinton and stop talking about me in the right-wing papers".
Obviously the real F/OSS responsible parties have so far concluded that taking this legal action carries more risks than benefits. Perhaps they don't believe that MS will ever sue and they don't think the claims are hurting them. Perhaps they aren't sure that they would win. Perhaps they fear triggering the very patent fight that people are worried about. Maybe they don't have the money to take the case all the way. Who knows?
There's no reason for Novell to know the specifics. The value is that they can say "buy or distro and you won't be sued by MS". It doesn't matter how many patents there are, it's a blanket protection.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm saying that they didn't convert any of their profitable software to F/OSS.
"The article goes on to observe that this move is doubtlessly motivated by Sun's interest in GPL3's direction."
Or perhaps it was motivated by Sun's desire to buy their way into the "free" software community's good graces without fully embracing its approach. Remember how happy everyone is about IBM's contributions even though all their profitable software remains proprietary.
Yes, we had a SoftWarehouse in Orange County, California too back in the day. Their prices were about 30% lower than anyone else's. I could browse that store for hours.
As you know, I was asking for evidence of official court documents that state that MS was convicted, not dictionary definitions and references to obscure state court cases a decade ago.
Despite the sloppy use of the word "convicted" by lay people and the occasional judge, the fact remains that the legal consequences of losing a civil case vs. being found guilty in criminal court are so vastly different that a single word can't accurately reflect both scenarios.
I suspect the reason that there isn't a special word for the civil scenario is because the practice of "trying" people in bad faith without following the rules of evidence for a criminal case is a relatively recent invention.
Most people who say that MS was "conficted" either don't realize it was a civil case, or are trying to mislead by suggesting that the outcome was equivalent to being tried in criminal court, which it certainly is not.
you couldn't find any evidence to support the claim that MS was convicted of anything.
"In other words, it is now a declared legal fact that Microsoft violated the law. Is there a better word than "Convicted" or "found guilty?""
It's more accurate to say that the court found in favor of the plaintiff, which was the government. The problem with saying it's a "declared legal fact that Microsoft violated the law" is that the standard of evidence was much weaker than the standard that would be used to convict you of speeding. This civil option provides a way for the government to punish you without actually proving you commited a crime.
If MS was really "convicted" it should be easy for you to provide a link to an official court document that says so (being that the term "convicted" is used in judicial documents indicating a finding of fault or guilt in a civil case and all)
Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
Well, Caldera was a civil case as well. So Caldera's intent in filing the lawsuit was to obtain money and they eventually received it. Is Caldera guilty of soliciting hush money from criminals? You see how we can casually throw accusations of criminality around?
"Just because a conviction has not been rendered does not make the action any less criminal."
That's true, but likewise just because some people have the opinion that an individual or organization has performed a criminal act, doesn't make it true. The purpose of a criminal trial (at least in the US) is to determine if the accused is guilty or innocent of the charges. If, as in the case of the DOJ vs. MS, no criminal charges are even filed, then there really isn't much to support the idea that criminal acts were performed.
"MS is a multi-national corp. and have to abide by the rules, regulation and laws of the countries they wish to do business in. In the definition of "criminal" at no point in that definition does it specify this carries special boundries, or limits for US companies."
I don't disagree with that (although I haven't yet seen any proof that MS has been found guilty of a criminal act in other countries either, but it might be true). The point is that the english word "criminal" in the US carries with it certain assumptions about due process that may not hold true in other countries, so intentional or not, it's misleading to use that word unqualfied with respect to MS particularly when the vast majority of Slashdotters are going to assume it has something to do with the DOJ case.
It sounds like the second group is just using C++ as a "better C" or perhaps they stopped paying attention to C++ in the 1980's.
"These are not tricky brain teasers - if you write real software you probably call those functions (or equivalent methods in C++ or Java or Python) dozens of times per day."
Yes, people call them, they don't implement them. Other than preparing for MS interviews, why would any productive programmer waste a minute of time thinking about it?
"Qualified means "people we make offers to", pretty much by definition."
That makes it a self-inflicted problem, pretty much by definition.
Yes, there are multiple meanings to the word "criminal" and I'm sure you know exactly which one we've been using in this discussion.
If you have proof that MS has engaged in criminal behavior (using the other meaning of "criminal") I suggest you contact the appropriate authorities. Until then, please forgive me if I don't take your word for it.
I'm not as familiar with the EU actions, but since MS is a US company if someone makes the unqualified statement that they were convicted of antitrust, it's appropriate to assume they're referring to US courts. The term "criminal" has a very specific meaning in the US that includes being found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" (I'm sure there are countries in the world where such a high standard is considered "inconvenient" by the government).
I think calling MS (or anyone else in the US) a criminal based on a non-US court determination without mentioning the difference in legal standards is an attempt to mislead by using the full emotional impact of the word as it exists in the US even though the meaning is different in the other jurisdiction.
And no, it was a civil case in the US. Feel free to look it up.
Nice Googling. Unfortunately, that's not the part of antitrust law that the government used to sue MS. Since the standard of evidence is much weaker in a civil proceeding, the government probably didn't think their case was strong enough to win as a criminal case. The trade-off is that the government can't say that MS is guilty of a crime because they never proved it was.
but comparing MS to OJ or the Mafia doesn't increase your credibility.
Again (and again, and again ..) the antitrust case against MS was a civil one. MS hasn't been convicted of anything and isn't a criminal. I'm sure anyone who claims that Slashdot is not even-handed with respect to MS will be happy that you provided evidence supporting it.
"It doesn't matter that you're not specifically named if the accusations include and affect you."
It matters a great deal because you have to prove you were the intended target. A burden you would not have if you were named specifically.
Unlike some random guy in the "community", those who are actually in business can't afford to oversimplify the legal issues invovled. I suspect that most companies like Red Hat think Ballmer's statements aren't damaging enough to justify the risk and expense of trying to fight MS. Let's say Red Hat suspects there could be some MS patents (no matter how unfair the patents might be) that are violated by Linux. If that were the case would they really want to start a fight with MS over the patent issue?
As I said before what specific organization has been allegedly slandered? For example, Red Hat, can't say "MS said we are violating their patents" because it isn't true.
Again, it's not very useful to say "MS didn't name me specifically, but I'm one of the guys they referred to as violating their patents and oh by the way I didn't do it but I want to sue them for not accusing me of something I didn't do"
We were talking about stealing code, not looking at it or borrowing concepts. The fact is that a lot of Linux code wouldn't be useful in Windows and much of it is a rehash of old ideas anyway. If you want to copy features, you run the code, not study it.
"And in any case, it's rather difficult to negotiate a license agreement for a patent when you haven't be told what you're supposed to be violating. "
You can't argue both that you've attempted to resolve the issue and that there isn't an issue. Has MS contacted any specific vendor, for example Red Hat, and said "you're violating our patents". If not, would Red Hat really go to MS and ask them which patents they are violating?
This reminds me a bit of the Paula Jones case where she essentially said "I wasn't the Paula that had affair with Clinton and stop talking about me in the right-wing papers".
Obviously the real F/OSS responsible parties have so far concluded that taking this legal action carries more risks than benefits. Perhaps they don't believe that MS will ever sue and they don't think the claims are hurting them. Perhaps they aren't sure that they would win. Perhaps they fear triggering the very patent fight that people are worried about. Maybe they don't have the money to take the case all the way. Who knows?
There's no reason for Novell to know the specifics. The value is that they can say "buy or distro and you won't be sued by MS". It doesn't matter how many patents there are, it's a blanket protection.
There would have to be a specific competitor or competitors that are harmed; it can't just be a vaguely defined "community".