Would you say the same if someone made a list of the "ten most important bands in history" only to have some clueless teenager say "who are the Beatles?".
Just because the reader is too young/ignorant to know all of the entries it doesn't make them any less relevant.
"Yes, it would be nice if everyone used perfect English, there were no typos or punctuation errors, and someone corrected grammatical errors before they hit the main page. But at the end of the day Slashdot is all about discussing the news, communicating new discoveries, inventions, and the progress of technology. This is not a spelling bee. While it's certainly possible to argue that incorrect use of the language can impact the communication of an idea, . .."
Why argue that when you can just look at this article? I've spent 20 minutes reading it now and I've not seen one comment yet that is not related to the poor use of language in the story.
If the story submitter and editors had actually done their jobs and ensured that the submission was grammatically sound then this wouldn't have happened and we would all be arguing the merits of the story right now.
This is a perfect example of how poor spelling and bad grammar can distract and detract from an important message. The "grammar nazi's" are dead right on this.
"The only thing that makes one item counterfeit from another identical item is the brand owner saying it's fake."
Sounds like DeBeers and their ongoing efforts to discredit "man made" diamonds as being somehow fake, despite them being indistinguishable from the "real thing."
When you apply for a software patent, you don't need to include any source code. You just need to describe what your patent covers. Have you ever looked at a patent document?
Checkout Nintendo's patent for "software emulation of a handheld game" (url includes link to the actual patent document)
If Nintendo were to actually weild this patent they could stop anyone from producing a product that contained "software emulation of a handheld game".
End of story.
No "showing of code" would be necessary. It's as simple as saying "Your product provides a feature covered by one or more of our patents therefore you must give us money.
Thank you. Come again!"
You might say "oh, but that is just stupid. Such a patent is way to broad and there is probably prior art anyway" and you would be right.
But the fact remains that if Microsoft has a broad patent along those lines and throws it at Samba, where do you think the Samba guys would get the money to prove their case in court? Hopefully a combination of the EFF, IBM and Redhat might be able to throw together a large enough warchest but then mahybe not either. Microsoft has a lot of lawyers on their payroll.
It's about time you guys on slashdot came to terms with how Software patents work. It's not like they haven't been discussed ad-infinitum on this site for the past 5 years or anything.
Quote:
Patents on software often appear completely counterproductive -
by monopolising a technique, a patent can simply ensure that the
technique is never used. Rather than making money, a patent can
cause the death of an otherwise promising technology, and this
is frequently the aim of patents held by owners of threatened
technology.
If it were possible to "code around" a patent claim then it would not be possible for a patent to kill a technology.
I would respond to this but it is total gibberish.
Just because you (and half of slashdot and/or the geeksphere in general) don't understand;
a) The difference between a patent and a copyright
and
b) The meaning of my OP
it does not follow that my OP was an "astro.troll", moron.
It could be that I am a linux advocate (I am) and that I wish Ballmer and co will burn in hell (I do) and that I am merely annoyed that some of the people who are fighting this battle are clueless amateurs albeit with good intentions.
Causing your opponents to fall about the floor laughing at your "attacks" is not a good way to win a war.
"Linux is based on POSIX. POSIX wasn't Microsoft's idea"
Good greif, they only have to pick on one tiny piece of functionality, we are not talking about being in dispute over the over-arching architecture of the OS here.
"In order to have a valid patent infringement claim on Linux, Microsoft have to show how they applied for a valid patent,"
Would take about 1 hour of a paralegals time to find the relevant file cabinet.
"how the patent application described a new idea of Microsoft's,
That is, in fact, what the patent already does. The aforementioned paralegal would just need to print the patent out.
"and exactly where that same idea is present in Linux code."
No, this is where the wheels fall off your argument.
Lucent-Alcatel have just won a patent case against Microsoft concerning the MP3 codec.
They didn't need to provide copies of the particular source code in Windows to make their claim. All they needed to say was "MS uses MP3 software in Windows and we have patents (Patents#12345 & 12346) that cover technologies contained within the MP3 specification."
Producing the relevant source code is not required because it is not relevant. The mere fact that infringing functionality exists is evidence enough.
Theoretically, MS could do the same thing to Samba, they would not need to provide any copies of the Samba source to make such a claim, they would just need to show that Samba provides functionality that is covered by a patent they hold.
"and explicitly stated that they want Ballmer to show us the code within Linux that violates their intellectual property."
No, this is wrong.
If this were true, then it would be impossible to accuse a closed source company of a patent violation because you can't have access to their source code.
The fact is you don't need to "show code" to make a patent violation claim.
What they should be asking is "Ballmer, you cock smoking scumbag, tell us which Linux features infringe on which of your patents or shut the hell up"
You guys might say "Oh, well, asking to 'see the code' is just a different way of asking for that" but what you are failing to understand is that this website is making a legal demand and scumbags in suits and lawyers in particular tend to be incredibly anal about interpreting what is asked of them.
If you don't present your claims in 100% correct legalize, then they will just laugh and ignore you, which is precisely what they will do to these guys.
They should have obtained some legal advice before posting their site because they have just made themselves look foolish.
"It works the same. If Microsoft revealed what code in Linux violates their patents, then the Linux people can rewrite that section of code in a way that doesn't violate the patent."
You obviously don't understand how patents work.
Patents are for ideas or methods and not the implementation of said ideas. To make a patent claim, you don't have to "show" any fucking code, all you need to do is say, "hey, that was our idea!"
This is why software patents are such a goddam bad idea.
You can't "rewrite code" to overcome a patent claim, you can only remove the infringing feature or pay the "licensing" fee (which is impossible for open source, which is why MS is making all the patent infringement noises in the first place.)
Consider Amazon and the "one click" patent fiasco if you don't believe me.
"The Novell deal is something that strikes me as weird, but Novell publicly rebutted any such assertions of IP theft, so that can't be it"
Are you referring to where Hovespian said that the agreement "is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property," and that when the company "entered the patent cooperation agreement with Microsoft, Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents." whereas shortly after this Ballmer responded that the two companies "agreed to disagree" about potential infringement and the alleged presence of Microsoft's intellectual property of Linux.
Are you suggesting that Microsoft does not use their dominant position in the market place to enormous amounts of pressure major vendors to not offer Linux as an alternative? Do you really believe that Microsoft is willing to compete head to head with Linux on equal footing? Why should they be allowed to threaten OEMs with huge price hikes if they dare to offer alternative products?
As for Walmart, as far as I am aware they were selling absolutely crappy ultra-cheapo white boxes without any sort of ability to advise potential customers or offer much in the way of after sales support. Considering that 90% of the planet do not have Walmart stores anyway I don't see what they did or didn't do as being particularly relevant. When HP starts offering a choice between pre-installed OS's I will take notice.
I have noticed that HP have very recently started offering laptops with nothing but FreeDOS on them (along with a Suse Linux 10 Certified tag). Whether that is due to the widespread disappointment with Vista remains to be seen.
I've also noticed that while most major suppliers had removed Windows XP as an option on their new PCs for launch day it now appears that XP is back on sale, and in a lot of cases as the default option.
This would be a valid point were it not for the fact that Microsoft uses its vast market power to exclude alternatives from being visible at the point of sale. By ensuring that the likes of Dell, HP/Compaq, IBM, Acer and Gateway don't offer alternative OS choices through threats of massive price hikes via their OEM contracts they make it virtually impossible for someone to purchase a brand name PC without purchasing Windows with it.
Have you ever tried buying a PC without Windows? There are only two ways to do it. Buy a whitebox from a small retailer or stumble upon the occasional PC with pre-loaded linux that is usullay hidden deep in the bowels of the websites of online retailers such as Dell and HP.
In the first case a lot of people are hesitant to buy non brand name PC's because they incorrectly assume that they will get better quality if they choose a brand they "know" (read: have heard of).
In the second case it is usually impossible to find any PC loaded with linux just by connecting to a retailers main page and just clicking. You usually have to already know that they offer a Linux PC and then have enough ability to search and find it on the site. Often you can't even find it using the search tools on the site and you have to do a site: search in Google, which most people don't even know you can do.
You can't just go pick a PC and then choose between Windows and Linux, which is how it would work were there a level playing field.
This is why people are always "bashing on Microsoft". If they had faith in their own product then they would have no problem with competing fairly against Linux.
Clearly they don't have faith in their products, so why should we?
You know, I agree with most of what you write, apart from the "everyday home user" stuff.
If they are not interested in the everyday home user then why on earth would they be currently in the middle of ploughing through half a billion dollars woth of mass market TV adverts trying to convince people to go "Wow" when they first see Vista?
Ummm, I might be wrong because I have little interest in Windows, but I was of the understanding that the Volume Shadow service is a server side function that allows network clients to roll back to previous versions of data located on a network share. ie it doesn't affect local files at all.
Slashdot Mirror
"It should not be gamer age dependant, "
Why?
Would you say the same if someone made a list of the "ten most important bands in history" only to have some clueless teenager say "who are the Beatles?".
Just because the reader is too young/ignorant to know all of the entries it doesn't make them any less relevant.
"Yes, it would be nice if everyone used perfect English, there were no typos or punctuation errors, and someone corrected grammatical errors before they hit the main page. But at the end of the day Slashdot is all about discussing the news, communicating new discoveries, inventions, and the progress of technology. This is not a spelling bee. While it's certainly possible to argue that incorrect use of the language can impact the communication of an idea, . . ."
Why argue that when you can just look at this article? I've spent 20 minutes reading it now and I've not seen one comment yet that is not related to the poor use of language in the story.
If the story submitter and editors had actually done their jobs and ensured that the submission was grammatically sound then this wouldn't have happened and we would all be arguing the merits of the story right now.
This is a perfect example of how poor spelling and bad grammar can distract and detract from an important message. The "grammar nazi's" are dead right on this.
"The only thing that makes one item counterfeit from another identical item is the brand owner saying it's fake."
Sounds like DeBeers and their ongoing efforts to discredit "man made" diamonds as being somehow fake, despite them being indistinguishable from the "real thing."
sigh
When you apply for a software patent, you don't need to include any source code. You just need to describe what your patent covers. Have you ever looked at a patent document?
Checkout Nintendo's patent for "software emulation of a handheld game" (url includes link to the actual patent document)
If Nintendo were to actually weild this patent they could stop anyone from producing a product that contained "software emulation of a handheld game".
End of story.
No "showing of code" would be necessary. It's as simple as saying "Your product provides a feature covered by one or more of our patents therefore you must give us money.
Thank you. Come again!"
You might say "oh, but that is just stupid. Such a patent is way to broad and there is probably prior art anyway" and you would be right.
But the fact remains that if Microsoft has a broad patent along those lines and throws it at Samba, where do you think the Samba guys would get the money to prove their case in court? Hopefully a combination of the EFF, IBM and Redhat might be able to throw together a large enough warchest but then mahybe not either. Microsoft has a lot of lawyers on their payroll.
It's about time you guys on slashdot came to terms with how Software patents work. It's not like they haven't been discussed ad-infinitum on this site for the past 5 years or anything.
Here is a good article about software patents.
Quote:
Patents on software often appear completely counterproductive -
by monopolising a technique, a patent can simply ensure that the
technique is never used. Rather than making money, a patent can
cause the death of an otherwise promising technology, and this
is frequently the aim of patents held by owners of threatened
technology.
If it were possible to "code around" a patent claim then it would not be possible for a patent to kill a technology.
I rest my case.
I would respond to this but it is total gibberish.
Just because you (and half of slashdot and/or the geeksphere in general) don't understand;
a) The difference between a patent and a copyright
and
b) The meaning of my OP
it does not follow that my OP was an "astro.troll", moron.
It could be that I am a linux advocate (I am) and that I wish Ballmer and co will burn in hell (I do) and that I am merely annoyed that some of the people who are fighting this battle are clueless amateurs albeit with good intentions.
Causing your opponents to fall about the floor laughing at your "attacks" is not a good way to win a war.
"Linux is based on POSIX. POSIX wasn't Microsoft's idea"
Good greif, they only have to pick on one tiny piece of functionality, we are not talking about being in dispute over the over-arching architecture of the OS here.
"In order to have a valid patent infringement claim on Linux, Microsoft have to show how they applied for a valid patent,"
Would take about 1 hour of a paralegals time to find the relevant file cabinet.
"how the patent application described a new idea of Microsoft's,
That is, in fact, what the patent already does. The aforementioned paralegal would just need to print the patent out.
"and exactly where that same idea is present in Linux code."
No, this is where the wheels fall off your argument.
Lucent-Alcatel have just won a patent case against Microsoft concerning the MP3 codec.
They didn't need to provide copies of the particular source code in Windows to make their claim. All they needed to say was "MS uses MP3 software in Windows and we have patents (Patents#12345 & 12346) that cover technologies contained within the MP3 specification."
Producing the relevant source code is not required because it is not relevant. The mere fact that infringing functionality exists is evidence enough.
Theoretically, MS could do the same thing to Samba, they would not need to provide any copies of the Samba source to make such a claim, they would just need to show that Samba provides functionality that is covered by a patent they hold.
That is why software patents suck so badly.
"Hmm.. how hard would it be to find chance similarities in any two codebases?"
Hmm. how hard should it be for the average geek to understand the difference between a "patent" and a "copyright" violation?
Honestly, it's not that hard, even for someone who works with languages for a living.
"and explicitly stated that they want Ballmer to show us the code within Linux that violates their intellectual property."
No, this is wrong.
If this were true, then it would be impossible to accuse a closed source company of a patent violation because you can't have access to their source code.
The fact is you don't need to "show code" to make a patent violation claim.
What they should be asking is "Ballmer, you cock smoking scumbag, tell us which Linux features infringe on which of your patents or shut the hell up"
You guys might say "Oh, well, asking to 'see the code' is just a different way of asking for that" but what you are failing to understand is that this website is making a legal demand and scumbags in suits and lawyers in particular tend to be incredibly anal about interpreting what is asked of them.
If you don't present your claims in 100% correct legalize, then they will just laugh and ignore you, which is precisely what they will do to these guys.
They should have obtained some legal advice before posting their site because they have just made themselves look foolish.
"In that case, shouldn't he point out which Linux code infringed MS patents?"
Ummm.
No.
All they have to say is "Linux performs task X and task X is covered by our patents P1, P2 and P3.
No code needs to be provided to make such a claim, this is the difference between a so-called patent and a copyright violation.
"It works the same. If Microsoft revealed what code in Linux violates their patents, then the Linux people can rewrite that section of code in a way that doesn't violate the patent."
You obviously don't understand how patents work.
Patents are for ideas or methods and not the implementation of said ideas. To make a patent claim, you don't have to "show" any fucking code, all you need to do is say, "hey, that was our idea!"
This is why software patents are such a goddam bad idea.
You can't "rewrite code" to overcome a patent claim, you can only remove the infringing feature or pay the "licensing" fee (which is impossible for open source, which is why MS is making all the patent infringement noises in the first place.)
Consider Amazon and the "one click" patent fiasco if you don't believe me.
Ballmer is carrying on about "Intellectual Property" (ie patents), not copyright infringments.
In patent cases there is no "code" to be shown because theer is no allegation that any code was in fact stolen.
MS and their lawyers will be laughing themselves silly over the amateur hour antics of these dingbats.
Like Vista SP1 perhaps?
"The Novell deal is something that strikes me as weird, but Novell publicly rebutted any such assertions of IP theft, so that can't be it"
Are you referring to where Hovespian said that the agreement "is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property," and that when the company "entered the patent cooperation agreement with Microsoft, Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents." whereas shortly after this Ballmer responded that the two companies "agreed to disagree" about potential infringement and the alleged presence of Microsoft's intellectual property of Linux.
Are you suggesting that Microsoft does not use their dominant position in the market place to enormous amounts of pressure major vendors to not offer Linux as an alternative? Do you really believe that Microsoft is willing to compete head to head with Linux on equal footing? Why should they be allowed to threaten OEMs with huge price hikes if they dare to offer alternative products?
As for Walmart, as far as I am aware they were selling absolutely crappy ultra-cheapo white boxes without any sort of ability to advise potential customers or offer much in the way of after sales support. Considering that 90% of the planet do not have Walmart stores anyway I don't see what they did or didn't do as being particularly relevant. When HP starts offering a choice between pre-installed OS's I will take notice.
I have noticed that HP have very recently started offering laptops with nothing but FreeDOS on them (along with a Suse Linux 10 Certified tag). Whether that is due to the widespread disappointment with Vista remains to be seen.
I've also noticed that while most major suppliers had removed Windows XP as an option on their new PCs for launch day it now appears that XP is back on sale, and in a lot of cases as the default option.
Read it and I agree with your recommendation
This would be a valid point were it not for the fact that Microsoft uses its vast market power to exclude alternatives from being visible at the point of sale. By ensuring that the likes of Dell, HP/Compaq, IBM, Acer and Gateway don't offer alternative OS choices through threats of massive price hikes via their OEM contracts they make it virtually impossible for someone to purchase a brand name PC without purchasing Windows with it.
Have you ever tried buying a PC without Windows? There are only two ways to do it. Buy a whitebox from a small retailer or stumble upon the occasional PC with pre-loaded linux that is usullay hidden deep in the bowels of the websites of online retailers such as Dell and HP.
In the first case a lot of people are hesitant to buy non brand name PC's because they incorrectly assume that they will get better quality if they choose a brand they "know" (read: have heard of).
In the second case it is usually impossible to find any PC loaded with linux just by connecting to a retailers main page and just clicking. You usually have to already know that they offer a Linux PC and then have enough ability to search and find it on the site. Often you can't even find it using the search tools on the site and you have to do a site: search in Google, which most people don't even know you can do.
You can't just go pick a PC and then choose between Windows and Linux, which is how it would work were there a level playing field.
This is why people are always "bashing on Microsoft". If they had faith in their own product then they would have no problem with competing fairly against Linux.
Clearly they don't have faith in their products, so why should we?
I remember a guy on TV threw one on the floor and ground it with his foot, all the while cheerfully explaining that it would not be damaged.
This is something to be proud of because . . . ?
Basically, what you are doing is;
1) Feeding Microsoft by purchasing Vista
2) Supporting the RIAA and the concept of DRM infected media by purchasing from ITMS
hehe, You gotta love the monkeys with mod points on /. don't you?
Marking a first post as Redundant indeed.
(Note to self: Think twice before using subtle metaphors on /. because they are usually misunderstood)
Thanks for clearing that up.
What I was trying to convey in my original comment was that Microsoft hasn't made a decent product in the last 25 years.
I don't really think that MS-BASIC is particularly good.
I said Microsoft BASIC and I meant Microsoft BASIC.
I first used Microsoft BASIC on my trusty old CP/M microbee.
I haven't used it since. I don't even know what C-basic is.
You know, I agree with most of what you write, apart from the "everyday home user" stuff.
If they are not interested in the everyday home user then why on earth would they be currently in the middle of ploughing through half a billion dollars woth of mass market TV adverts trying to convince people to go "Wow" when they first see Vista?
I suppose Microsoft BASIC was good back in the day.
Ummm, I might be wrong because I have little interest in Windows, but I was of the understanding that the Volume Shadow service is a server side function that allows network clients to roll back to previous versions of data located on a network share. ie it doesn't affect local files at all.
I'm sorry, I didn't recognise it as a joke.
It is often difficult to convey such a subtle and subjective as humour in a text medium such as this.
I usually find that typing something funny often helps in these cases.