speaking of being completely ignorant, there simply is no Microsoft IsNot patent. Microsoft has submitted a corresponding patent application, but it has not yet been granted or refused by the USPTO.
No, not ignorant, it was an oversight.
My point is that Microsoft has applied for a patent on something that is so simple - apparently eager to use patents in a way that restricts competition.
Just by applying for a patent, Microsoft stirred people up.
If you're not ignorant on the subject you'll know that many 'bad' patents have been granted, purely because the USPTO has been inept in discovering prior art. The fact that the USPTO has not rejected the application is not a good sign.
Why would Microsoft bother applying if it didn't think it had a chance? This is the problem with the patent system: it seems to be controlled by people who do not posess the ability to discern what is or is not worthy of patenting.
It's not so much that patents are bad, but what people are being allowed to patent.
With software patents, people are patenting the most simple of ideas, and they're doing it in a frenzy.
Microsoft's 'IsNot' patent is just one of the pathetic reasons why so many people have become anti-patent.
Software patents seem to be used mainly as an anti-competitive action, rather than used for protection of clever and innovative ideas.
Anybody who can't understand what the fuss is about is either completely ignorant of this situation, a moron, or plans to use his own patents in an anti-competitive way.
Well, Microsoft originally said back in 2002 that security hadn't been at the forefront of its business model because nobody was willing to pay for it.
Obviously Microsoft thinks that everybody should pay for security in general, not just computer security, and that it's one great sea to fish in.
No, but you can't blame people for thinking that way. And really, Microsoft has made it all about killing.
With Microsoft it all seems to be some kind of battle to the death, heaven forbid that there should be competition.
Windows seems to be all about killing off the competitors by lock-in, bundling and FUD, which is even worse, like poisoning your opponent rather than fighting them in a fair battle.
I can understand how it seems that the Open Source community is alway attacking anybody who says anything against it. There usually is vehement opposition to anybody saying that Linux/Open Source is weak in a particular area.
But, has anybody ever really looked at why this is the case?
Take a look at all of the FUD that has been constantly flung at Linux/Open Source for the past few years; most people coming against Linux have used the most desperate arguments to persuade people that it's not good (such as Linux is a cancer, and un-American). It seems as if Linux/Open Source hunting is the latest popular sport.
Getting the facts is hard. Microsoft's Website should be renamed "GetSomeOfTheFacts.com". We need FULL facts, not just a bunch of facts tailored together in such that makes one side look good.
Take this for example:
You have two cats, one gets twice as much food as the other. Which cat would you say was better off? The cat that gets twice as much food? Well, what if we later discover that the cat eating twice as much has such a bad case of worms that it's digesting less than the other cat?
Full facts are necessary, without them you can easily present a false report.
Analysts are being widely disrespected because of situations such as this:
According to a new report, written by none other than DiDio herself, Yankee appears to have changed its mind and now there is very little difference between the cost of maintaining a Windows versus a Linux-based corporate computing environment. Can this be the same DiDio who last year told us that the total cost of Linux was three to four times higher than that of Windows. We wonder what has changed in the past few months to change her mind?
The word of an analyst certainly doesn't seem trustworthy. How can they get any respect?
Although it could gain the company a level of trust and support that it greatly needs, Microsoft would lose money by Open Sourcing Windows.
Microsoft currently locks people into its products via proprietary APIs, file formats, and protocols.
Microsoft is touting 'integration' as being a major bonus of using its software - something that the competition has been locked out of.
Microsoft is relying on money generated by upgrades to maintain its cash flow, upgrades of Microsoft Office being one of the main sources of income. If the competition becomes compatible, and can offer the same level of integration, Microsoft has lost its 'strangle-hold'.
Open Source is not good for Microsoft's cash-cows, and is totally against Microsoft's profitable business model.
I don't think that it would be wise for Microsoft to Open Source its software.
Microsoft has suggested that opening its code to the world would be catastrophic, that open code means more likelihood of security breaches, and that security through obscurity is the best way to go.
We see plenty of popular Open Source software, and access to its source code hasn't been catastrophic. It's obvious by now that Open Source itself isn't a security concern.
Besides, it's funny that Microsoft is putting faith in security through obscurity, when crackers have been successfully exploiting Microsoft's software for years, even though they can't see the source code...
With Open Source software, ensuring that the code is secure has had to be of high concern from the start - there is no security through obscurity. But Microsoft software was not developed with security in mind (as Microsoft itself has admitted - not that it needed to), and opening its millions of lines of flawed code to crackers could indeed be catastrophic.
Although Linux was very similar to Windows in look and feel, even as far back as 2001, many people said that it was too different, that the learning curve was too steep; things were in different places than expected, and that there were too many options.
That was one of the main reasons why people said they wouldn't consider using Linux. It was one of the main reasons many people wouldn't use Open Office.
Could it be that upon the release of Longhorn, people may find Linux to be more familiar?
I've heard many consultants say that businesses (mostly small businesses) won't switch from Microsoft Outlook or Microsoft Office, even though alternatives would definitely suffice, purely because their employees (or at least some of them) can't handle change.
Many people still use insecure Microsoft solutions, because they feel overwhelmed when presented with something even slightly different. Look at the hassle getting people to switch to the more secure Firefox Web browser!
I guess that the new look and feel of Longhorn is either going to cause people to postpone upgrading as long as possible, or even give people more incentive to try out Linux. I mean, if you're going to have to get used to something new anyway, why not put Linux in the mix?
"Microsoft technology has transformed business practices and his company has had a profound impact on the British economy."
Microsoft's business practices usually have a profound impact. That's why the company has faced anti-trust cases.
Although we can't deny that Bill Gates has been a successful businessman, we can't deny that he has allowed his company to crush competition in an anti-competitive manner (according to the courts), and has not only maintained an illegal monopoly (according to the courts), but it has leveraged its illegal monopoly to force its way as a leader into other markets.
If he's so successful, why can't he promote competition? Competition is good for the end-user, just look how Firefox got Microsoft to update Internet Explorer! Bill Gates should ensure that competition is kept alive by accepting open standards.
A knighthood for bundling and lock-in. Hip, Hip, Hooray!
Q: Would Microsoft willingly let crackers view its source code?
A: Of course not.
Yet this is what Open Source software has been doing for years.
The Shared Source way of allowing select users to check code for flaws is fine; but, surely one of the greatest benefits of Open Source is that anybody can see it?
Secure coding is mandatory for popular Open Source software - it's a prime target!
Open Source software can stand up to being thrown to the masses, yet Microsoft prefers security through obscurity.
Shared source is a way of achieving security through obscurity, while allowing others to find your bugs for free (and then charging the same users to upgrade to the latest version for enhanced security).
I find it peculiar how my post (parent) is currently modded:
30% Funny 30% Overrated 20% Redundant
Funny? Possibly.
Overrated? Possibly.
Redundant? No way! Look:
Redundant -- Redundant posts are ones which add no new information, but instead take up space with repeating information either in the Slashdot post, the attached links, or lots of previous comments. For instance, some posters cut and paste otherwise legitimate comments in multiple places in the same discussion; the pasted versions are Redundant.
No, it's not flamebait, or offtopic, or a troll either.
Microsoft has attempted to patent many things. And many of the patent requests have not only been rejected, they had 0% chance of getting accepted in the first place. If you don't believe me, I would (politely) suggest doing some research.
No, Sun wanted Microsoft to stop providing its polluted JRE, and to ship Sun's own JRE. - (full article).
My point was that Microsoft made a big deal of this:
Tulchin added there was no immediate prospect of irreparable harm to Sun that would justify forcing Microsoft to carry Java. - (full article)
So, using Microsoft's own words, if there's no immediate prospect of irreparable harm to Microsoft, why should it be justified in carrying WMP over any other media player?
Microsoft announced that it would elliminate a JRE from WinXP altogether.
Microsoft stated - to justify what it was doing - that it didn't feel bundling gave an advantage, and that it was easy enough for anybody to download Sun's JRE.
Isn't it funny how Microsoft has changed its view. Now, Microsoft would have you think that Windows was severely hampered by not having WMP bundled with it. People having to download it is just terrible!
Microsoft still doesn't mind people having to download megabytes worth of patches though.
I'm surprised that SCO has been allowed to get this far without any evidence.
Anybody could claim similar things about any company, negatively affecting that company for months on end. If the claims are finally dismissed as false, damage has still been done to the defending company.
spam or data theft are not questions of the operating system. For this, you also need laws and global standards. - Gates
Well, that's one good thing at least, Bill suggesting global standards as an answer.
The speed with which, for example, the Linux community reacts to problems is not especially high. - Gates
This is funny, I've seen plenty of news articles revealing Microsoft to be pushing aside security issues that it calls unimportant, but others claim to be serious.
I can't recall seeing anything like this in the Open Source community.
Microsoft continues to pack additional innovations onto the Windows platform at no cost, virtually annihilating competitors in the long-term. Why do you promote this strategy? - Spiegel
we are forced to continuously improve our products - Gates
Doesn't the above situation reveal that there is a problem in Microsoft's strategy?
It's improving its core product by exclusively bundling its own middleware apps into the main Windows 'distribution'. This isn't innovatively improving the product, it's combining Microsoft products (to the disadvantage of Microsoft's competition) in order to get people to upgrade Windows.
Nobody would expect Microsoft to add RealPlayer or Firefox to Windows, this would be giving the competition an advantage. So surely Microsoft's middleware should not have the advantage of being bundled with Windows?
This also seems unfair to many people. So, why not have Windows distributions (which I've said many times), where select distributors following specific guidelines, can add middleware from competing companies?
I am an optimist. And I always think: okay, in 10 years we will have accomplished it. But I already thought that 10 years ago. And obviously we are not yet that far. - Gates
I believe WinFS (originally Cairo) was heralded years ago, and isn't here yet. This must be an example of Gates' optimism.
Slashdot Mirror
You're probably using Windows XP.
XP doesn't crash, it just responds less.
: )
speaking of being completely ignorant, there simply is no Microsoft IsNot patent. Microsoft has submitted a corresponding patent application, but it has not yet been granted or refused by the USPTO.
No, not ignorant, it was an oversight.
My point is that Microsoft has applied for a patent on something that is so simple - apparently eager to use patents in a way that restricts competition.
Just by applying for a patent, Microsoft stirred people up.
If you're not ignorant on the subject you'll know that many 'bad' patents have been granted, purely because the USPTO has been inept in discovering prior art. The fact that the USPTO has not rejected the application is not a good sign.
Why would Microsoft bother applying if it didn't think it had a chance? This is the problem with the patent system: it seems to be controlled by people who do not posess the ability to discern what is or is not worthy of patenting.
It's not so much that patents are bad, but what people are being allowed to patent.
With software patents, people are patenting the most simple of ideas, and they're doing it in a frenzy.
Microsoft's 'IsNot' patent is just one of the pathetic reasons why so many people have become anti-patent.
Software patents seem to be used mainly as an anti-competitive action, rather than used for protection of clever and innovative ideas.
Anybody who can't understand what the fuss is about is either completely ignorant of this situation, a moron, or plans to use his own patents in an anti-competitive way.
Full TCP/IP is dangerous?
If Microsoft is taking this stance, why not just disable Internet connectivity completely with the next Windows update?
Windows could then become the most secure operating system out. Linux wouldn't stand a chance.
Like Thurrott says:
When someone asked why they were doing this, Chris Pirillo quipped, "because it looks like #$%," which I thought was the appropriate response.
Most appropriate indeed.
Well, Microsoft originally said back in 2002 that security hadn't been at the forefront of its business model because nobody was willing to pay for it .
Obviously Microsoft thinks that everybody should pay for security in general, not just computer security, and that it's one great sea to fish in.
I can see this resulting in Microsoft applying for a patent on the use of thumbs to poke things with.
Linux isn't really about killing Windows off..
No, but you can't blame people for thinking that way. And really, Microsoft has made it all about killing.
With Microsoft it all seems to be some kind of battle to the death, heaven forbid that there should be competition.
Windows seems to be all about killing off the competitors by lock-in, bundling and FUD, which is even worse, like poisoning your opponent rather than fighting them in a fair battle.
I can understand how it seems that the Open Source community is alway attacking anybody who says anything against it. There usually is vehement opposition to anybody saying that Linux/Open Source is weak in a particular area.
:
But, has anybody ever really looked at why this is the case?
Take a look at all of the FUD that has been constantly flung at Linux/Open Source for the past few years; most people coming against Linux have used the most desperate arguments to persuade people that it's not good (such as Linux is a cancer, and un-American). It seems as if Linux/Open Source hunting is the latest popular sport.
Getting the facts is hard. Microsoft's Website should be renamed "GetSomeOfTheFacts.com". We need FULL facts, not just a bunch of facts tailored together in such that makes one side look good.
Take this for example:
You have two cats, one gets twice as much food as the other. Which cat would you say was better off? The cat that gets twice as much food? Well, what if we later discover that the cat eating twice as much has such a bad case of worms that it's digesting less than the other cat?
Full facts are necessary, without them you can easily present a false report.
Analysts are being widely disrespected because of situations such as this
According to a new report, written by none other than DiDio herself, Yankee appears to have changed its mind and now there is very little difference between the cost of maintaining a Windows versus a Linux-based corporate computing environment. Can this be the same DiDio who last year told us that the total cost of Linux was three to four times higher than that of Windows. We wonder what has changed in the past few months to change her mind?
The word of an analyst certainly doesn't seem trustworthy. How can they get any respect?
Every day is April 1st for SCO.
: )
Although it could gain the company a level of trust and support that it greatly needs, Microsoft would lose money by Open Sourcing Windows.
Microsoft currently locks people into its products via proprietary APIs, file formats, and protocols.
Microsoft is touting 'integration' as being a major bonus of using its software - something that the competition has been locked out of.
Microsoft is relying on money generated by upgrades to maintain its cash flow, upgrades of Microsoft Office being one of the main sources of income. If the competition becomes compatible, and can offer the same level of integration, Microsoft has lost its 'strangle-hold'.
Open Source is not good for Microsoft's cash-cows, and is totally against Microsoft's profitable business model.
I don't think that it would be wise for Microsoft to Open Source its software.
Microsoft has suggested that opening its code to the world would be catastrophic, that open code means more likelihood of security breaches, and that security through obscurity is the best way to go.
We see plenty of popular Open Source software, and access to its source code hasn't been catastrophic. It's obvious by now that Open Source itself isn't a security concern.
Besides, it's funny that Microsoft is putting faith in security through obscurity, when crackers have been successfully exploiting Microsoft's software for years, even though they can't see the source code...
With Open Source software, ensuring that the code is secure has had to be of high concern from the start - there is no security through obscurity. But Microsoft software was not developed with security in mind (as Microsoft itself has admitted - not that it needed to), and opening its millions of lines of flawed code to crackers could indeed be catastrophic.
Although Linux was very similar to Windows in look and feel, even as far back as 2001, many people said that it was too different, that the learning curve was too steep; things were in different places than expected, and that there were too many options.
That was one of the main reasons why people said they wouldn't consider using Linux. It was one of the main reasons many people wouldn't use Open Office.
Could it be that upon the release of Longhorn, people may find Linux to be more familiar?
I've heard many consultants say that businesses (mostly small businesses) won't switch from Microsoft Outlook or Microsoft Office, even though alternatives would definitely suffice, purely because their employees (or at least some of them) can't handle change.
Many people still use insecure Microsoft solutions, because they feel overwhelmed when presented with something even slightly different. Look at the hassle getting people to switch to the more secure Firefox Web browser!
I guess that the new look and feel of Longhorn is either going to cause people to postpone upgrading as long as possible, or even give people more incentive to try out Linux. I mean, if you're going to have to get used to something new anyway, why not put Linux in the mix?
Do you have to pay royalties for accessing a Web server?
Does the Firefox team have to pay royalties to Microsoft because the browser could access an IIS server?
Do you have to pay royalties for creating an e-mail client that collects via POP3 from Microsoft Exchange?
No.
So why should anybody be expected to pay in order to develop an application that accesses a file/print server?
I believe that it's in the best interest of the end-user that such servers should have open protocols and APIs.
This would certainly help prevent illegal monopolies from maintaining their anti-competitive actions.
"Microsoft technology has transformed business practices and his company has had a profound impact on the British economy."
Microsoft's business practices usually have a profound impact. That's why the company has faced anti-trust cases.
Although we can't deny that Bill Gates has been a successful businessman, we can't deny that he has allowed his company to crush competition in an anti-competitive manner (according to the courts), and has not only maintained an illegal monopoly (according to the courts), but it has leveraged its illegal monopoly to force its way as a leader into other markets.
If he's so successful, why can't he promote competition? Competition is good for the end-user, just look how Firefox got Microsoft to update Internet Explorer! Bill Gates should ensure that competition is kept alive by accepting open standards.
A knighthood for bundling and lock-in. Hip, Hip, Hooray!
Q: Would Microsoft willingly let crackers view its source code?
A: Of course not.
Yet this is what Open Source software has been doing for years.
The Shared Source way of allowing select users to check code for flaws is fine; but, surely one of the greatest benefits of Open Source is that anybody can see it?
Secure coding is mandatory for popular Open Source software - it's a prime target!
Open Source software can stand up to being thrown to the masses, yet Microsoft prefers security through obscurity.
Shared source is a way of achieving security through obscurity, while allowing others to find your bugs for free (and then charging the same users to upgrade to the latest version for enhanced security).
I find it peculiar how my post (parent) is currently modded:
30% Funny
30% Overrated
20% Redundant
Funny? Possibly.
Overrated? Possibly.
Redundant? No way! Look:
Redundant -- Redundant posts are ones which add no new information, but instead take up space with repeating information either in the Slashdot post, the attached links, or lots of previous comments. For instance, some posters cut and paste otherwise legitimate comments in multiple places in the same discussion; the pasted versions are Redundant.
No, it's not flamebait, or offtopic, or a troll either.
Microsoft has attempted to patent many things. And many of the patent requests have not only been rejected, they had 0% chance of getting accepted in the first place. If you don't believe me, I would (politely) suggest doing some research.
I'm surprised that Microsoft hasn't tried to patent patenting itself.
That would be no more absurd than some of its other patent requests.
No, Sun wanted Microsoft to stop providing its polluted JRE, and to ship Sun's own JRE. - (full article).
My point was that Microsoft made a big deal of this:
Tulchin added there was no immediate prospect of irreparable harm to Sun that would justify forcing Microsoft to carry Java. - (full article)
So, using Microsoft's own words, if there's no immediate prospect of irreparable harm to Microsoft, why should it be justified in carrying WMP over any other media player?
Do you recall the issue where Sun complained that Microsoft was undermining Java by using its own polluted and incompatible version of the JRE - which (funnily enough) had security holes in it which Sun's JRE didn't?
Microsoft announced that it would elliminate a JRE from WinXP altogether.
Microsoft stated - to justify what it was doing - that it didn't feel bundling gave an advantage, and that it was easy enough for anybody to download Sun's JRE.
Isn't it funny how Microsoft has changed its view. Now, Microsoft would have you think that Windows was severely hampered by not having WMP bundled with it. People having to download it is just terrible!
Microsoft still doesn't mind people having to download megabytes worth of patches though.
Perhaps it was incidents like this that persuaded the Dutch parliament to make this decision.
I'm surprised that SCO has been allowed to get this far without any evidence.
Anybody could claim similar things about any company, negatively affecting that company for months on end. If the claims are finally dismissed as false, damage has still been done to the defending company.
Is this justice?
Why can't Microsoft do something beneficial, like patenting spam itself.
Actually, who sent the very first spam mail?
spam or data theft are not questions of the operating system. For this, you also need laws and global standards. - Gates
Well, that's one good thing at least, Bill suggesting global standards as an answer.
The speed with which, for example, the Linux community reacts to problems is not especially high. - Gates
This is funny, I've seen plenty of news articles revealing Microsoft to be pushing aside security issues that it calls unimportant, but others claim to be serious.
I can't recall seeing anything like this in the Open Source community.
Microsoft continues to pack additional innovations onto the Windows platform at no cost, virtually annihilating competitors in the long-term. Why do you promote this strategy? - Spiegel
we are forced to continuously improve our products - Gates
Doesn't the above situation reveal that there is a problem in Microsoft's strategy?
It's improving its core product by exclusively bundling its own middleware apps into the main Windows 'distribution'. This isn't innovatively improving the product, it's combining Microsoft products (to the disadvantage of Microsoft's competition) in order to get people to upgrade Windows.
Nobody would expect Microsoft to add RealPlayer or Firefox to Windows, this would be giving the competition an advantage. So surely Microsoft's middleware should not have the advantage of being bundled with Windows?
This also seems unfair to many people. So, why not have Windows distributions (which I've said many times), where select distributors following specific guidelines, can add middleware from competing companies?
I am an optimist. And I always think: okay, in 10 years we will have accomplished it. But I already thought that 10 years ago. And obviously we are not yet that far. - Gates
I believe WinFS (originally Cairo) was heralded years ago, and isn't here yet. This must be an example of Gates' optimism.
It seems that Microsoft is desperately digging up anything that makes its solutions seem better than OSS.
.
"IBM and Oracle -- two of Linux's biggest patrons -- have relished the effect the free software has had on Microsoft and other foes." Article here
If you read the article (linked above), this seems to give good reason for Bill to issue such a statement.