I felt that the first step would be to sift through Microsoft's 6700 patents and try to second-guess which ones are most likely at issue here. When the field's narrowed down bit, the proper strategy for each patent can be defined. It may be a prior-art search, or an obviousness challenge, or a re-code/workaround. Or simply abandoning the software in question (some have suggested abandoning Mono, for example, because the relevant patents are likely to withstand any challenge.)
Truthfully, I would've expected a higher number, since they're talking about *all end-user FOSS rather than just the kernel.
MS has 6690 patents. 3K are probably totally irrelevant (like their trackball designs). Of the remaining 3K I have no doubt that 3/4 can be invalidated due to prior art or obviousness. Since they've narrowed it down a bit by category, people could likely start developing strategies for the rest.
(I have a good idea on how to do that, but ppl are getting upset when I link it;)
Sorry to keep plugging myself, but I really want this to take off and pling-style sites need users to go twoclick looks at patents in the GUI category:
The only thing more depressing than a high-profile corporate exec trotting out ye olde "we're serious businessmen; those linux guys are hippies" is that -- sigh -- it's going to work at least a little bit. I still run into people who think that free software "can't work" because it requires to be superhumanly selfless.
"That's the dirty little secret. When I talk to open source developers, at least half are talking about Windows, from SugarCRM, MySQL, PHP. Every single one,"
... generally you'll do much better by submitting idiotic inflammatory statements from __________ (I can't even think o f anything to call him) who say, e.g.
"Hilf said that the Linux phenomenon had nothing to do with Linux, but rather it had a lot to do with Apache, MySQL and PHP. It was those applications which pulled Linux up with it, the "Visual Basic of open source.""
...if, as I infer from the summary, DoJ is mostly going to concern itself with criminal copyright infringement for monetary gain.
Now: I am a *serious free-culture advocate (founder of Artists for File Sharing) and here's why I support the merciless crushing of those durn pirates: they are helping to keep people addicted to the feces that comes out of the "content industry". If they could be shut down -- which, alas, they prolly can't -- people would more frequently start looking into the free culture alternatives.
It's basically the same reason I want all "pirating" of Windows to stop.
"if Microsoft divulges what the FOSS patent breaches actually are, the community will respond promptly, and that particular bullet will have been fired"
Here's another thing they're not ready to reveal: TFA:"Some customers actually entered into direct patent licenses with Microsoft [in 2004], Smith says, including some "major brand-name companies" in financial services, health care, insurance and information technology. (He says they don't want to be identified, presumably because they fear angering the FOSS community.)"
I found the reporter's presumption interesting. Here's another likely reason these companies don't want their separate peaces known:
MS essentially extorted money from them based on vague "intellectual property" FUD. Making that well-known would invite any patent holder to do the same.
I think my theory's more sound than the reporter's notion that MS is all afraid of the FOSS community. What do you think?
The point is that the distinctively Microsoft practice of leveraging their control of the Windows code to crush competition in new markets (Cf. browser wars) depends on the government-granted monopoly called copyright.
Likewise their attempts to nip Samba in the bud, and constant efforts to keep Samba falling behind through fire and motion.
Was doing dev work and the data model sucked ass. I was charged with gluing some functionality together despite the crappy design of the network table. I said "we should scrap the network table and rebuild it" to no avail.
Sure enough after I had done a couple tweaks it became "my" network table.
I remember Moglen predicted that the DMCA would primarily be used -- not to thwart copyright infringmenet -- but to thwart competition and public participation. Cf. printer cartridges, SLAPPs, etc. It often seems to me like he was prophetic.
Of course, the only time I ever hear about DMCA usage is on/. so it's not exactly fair and balanced. Are there tons of legitimate DMCA takedowns happening that don't get reported?
"How many enterprise customers do you think actually read those things?"
Bingo. They read the pitches from the vendors, which contain gigabytes of FUD saying e.g. there's no company "standing behind" open source software (which, of course, is false). The pitches do not mention that their own EULA disclaims every liability it possibly can.
Sorry, I simply don't agree that "it won't exist unless you pay for it". People do things -- sometimes incredibly impressive things -- for many reasons. To reduce human creativity to an economic transaction is, frankly, insulting to my notion of civilization.
By your logic Emily Dickinson's poems do not exist, since she had no expectation of being paid for them and even wanted them destroyed upon her death.
"The agreement could also provide broadcast networks a way to give viewers an alternative to the convenience offered by digital video recorders , without allowing them to avoid the ads, according to the report"
Sorry what is being "given" to viewers here? -An alternative to convenience (i.e. annoyance) -"without allowing them to avoid" (i.e. "while forcing them...")
Maybe I'm old-school, but usually giving things to one's customers is, um, phrased positively like e.g. "giving viewers quality programming *without wresting control of their devices from them
"Content" is a metaphor intended to make people think of creative works as products to be wrapped up and shipped around like any other commodity, when in fact creative works are natural expressions of our humanity and civilization.
Slashdot Mirror
Fun while it lasted. Come back a little bit later
I felt that the first step would be to sift through Microsoft's 6700 patents and try to second-guess which ones are most likely at issue here. When the field's narrowed down bit, the proper strategy for each patent can be defined. It may be a prior-art search, or an obviousness challenge, or a re-code/workaround. Or simply abandoning the software in question (some have suggested abandoning Mono, for example, because the relevant patents are likely to withstand any challenge.)
MS has 155 patents with the word "User Interface" in the title. Have a look:
T O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-b ool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Microsoft&FIELD1=ASNM& co1=AND&TERM2=user+interface&FIELD2=TI&d=PTXT
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
What sucks is that yesterday they only had 151...
Truthfully, I would've expected a higher number, since they're talking about *all end-user FOSS rather than just the kernel.
;)
MS has 6690 patents. 3K are probably totally irrelevant (like their trackball designs). Of the remaining 3K I have no doubt that 3/4 can be invalidated due to prior art or obviousness. Since they've narrowed it down a bit by category, people could likely start developing strategies for the rest.
(I have a good idea on how to do that, but ppl are getting upset when I link it
Sorry to keep plugging myself, but I really want this to take off and pling-style sites need users to go
I
twoclick looks at patents in the GUI category:
http://twoclick.org/unnamed/index.php?category=GU
Just starting out, but go here
http://twoclick.org/unnamed/
The only thing more depressing than a high-profile corporate exec trotting out ye olde "we're serious businessmen; those linux guys are hippies" is that -- sigh -- it's going to work at least a little bit. I still run into people who think that free software "can't work" because it requires to be superhumanly selfless.
This one's even better:
... of half of them?
"That's the dirty little secret. When I talk to open source developers, at least half are talking about Windows, from SugarCRM, MySQL, PHP. Every single one,"
Every single one
... generally you'll do much better by submitting idiotic inflammatory statements from __________ (I can't even think o f anything to call him) who say, e.g.
"Hilf said that the Linux phenomenon had nothing to do with Linux, but rather it had a lot to do with Apache, MySQL and PHP. It was those applications which pulled Linux up with it, the "Visual Basic of open source.""
...if, as I infer from the summary, DoJ is mostly going to concern itself with criminal copyright infringement for monetary gain.
Now: I am a *serious free-culture advocate (founder of Artists for File Sharing) and here's why I support the merciless crushing of those durn pirates: they are helping to keep people addicted to the feces that comes out of the "content industry". If they could be shut down -- which, alas, they prolly can't -- people would more frequently start looking into the free culture alternatives.
It's basically the same reason I want all "pirating" of Windows to stop.
"if Microsoft divulges what the FOSS patent breaches actually are, the community will respond promptly, and that particular bullet will have been fired"
Here's another thing they're not ready to reveal:
TFA:"Some customers actually entered into direct patent licenses with Microsoft [in 2004], Smith says, including some "major brand-name companies" in financial services, health care, insurance and information technology. (He says they don't want to be identified, presumably because they fear angering the FOSS community.)"
I found the reporter's presumption interesting. Here's another likely reason these companies don't want their separate peaces known:
MS essentially extorted money from them based on vague "intellectual property" FUD. Making that well-known would invite any patent holder to do the same.
I think my theory's more sound than the reporter's notion that MS is all afraid of the FOSS community. What do you think?
The point is that the distinctively Microsoft practice of leveraging their control of the Windows code to crush competition in new markets (Cf. browser wars) depends on the government-granted monopoly called copyright.
Likewise their attempts to nip Samba in the bud, and constant efforts to keep Samba falling behind through fire and motion.
Since the quantity in question (500m) represents only about 3% of the other quantity in question (13.7b)
"a newly found start may be as old as the universe itself"
Well, that's why they call it a 'start' isn't it?
Was doing dev work and the data model sucked ass. I was charged with gluing some functionality together despite the crappy design of the network table. I said "we should scrap the network table and rebuild it" to no avail.
Sure enough after I had done a couple tweaks it became "my" network table.
"There's a problem with your network table... "
Ick.
I remember Moglen predicted that the DMCA would primarily be used -- not to thwart copyright infringmenet -- but to thwart competition and public participation. Cf. printer cartridges, SLAPPs, etc. It often seems to me like he was prophetic.
/. so it's not exactly fair and balanced. Are there tons of legitimate DMCA takedowns happening that don't get reported?
Of course, the only time I ever hear about DMCA usage is on
My counter-headline: "Call It Whatever, but Stop Doing It. It's Pointless"
I could *possibly be persuaded to allow Vista onto one of my machines if someone gave me $200.
nosdkfjnalk j ashbfkjhv w ehb gw hk
"The 2 Open Source Think Tank was held on March 8-10, 2007, at the Silverado Resort in Napa,
California"
Heh. Sounds like it was prolly *lots of really hard work.
I'm just a beginner, but you don't need the "safety word" in cases of self-flagellation. You just stop.
"How many enterprise customers do you think actually read those things?"
Bingo. They read the pitches from the vendors, which contain gigabytes of FUD saying e.g. there's no company "standing behind" open source software (which, of course, is false). The pitches do not mention that their own EULA disclaims every liability it possibly can.
Sorry, I simply don't agree that "it won't exist unless you pay for it". People do things -- sometimes incredibly impressive things -- for many reasons. To reduce human creativity to an economic transaction is, frankly, insulting to my notion of civilization.
By your logic Emily Dickinson's poems do not exist, since she had no expectation of being paid for them and even wanted them destroyed upon her death.
"The agreement could also provide broadcast networks a way to give viewers an alternative to the convenience offered by digital video recorders , without allowing them to avoid the ads, according to the report"
Sorry what is being "given" to viewers here?
-An alternative to convenience (i.e. annoyance)
-"without allowing them to avoid" (i.e. "while forcing them...")
Maybe I'm old-school, but usually giving things to one's customers is, um, phrased positively like e.g.
"giving viewers quality programming *without wresting control of their devices from them
"Content" is a metaphor intended to make people think of creative works as products to be wrapped up and shipped around like any other commodity, when in fact creative works are natural expressions of our humanity and civilization.