|
EU Patents - It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over |
|
Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 06:19 AM EDT
|
If you thought the EU patent story was a done deal, I suggest you read this account by Arend Lammertink on his efforts to turn things around in the Netherlands, which may result in the Dutch Parliament revoking its vote approving the patent directive. Lammertink holds a Masters degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Twente and works as a Software Engineer for dGB Earth Sciences that specializes in quantitative seismic interpretation software and services. OpendTect, one of the company's products, is "the world's first open source seismic interpretation system". He writes: "Seemed as good as lost. But it ain't over yet. We've played our cards (and luck!) quite nicely here in The Netherlands (if I may say so myself) and at this moment the Dutch Parliament is actually considering to revoke the vote Minister Brinkhorst gave at the Council. This has never happened before in the history of the European Union!. . . .
"The Dutch parliament will make a final decision about the position the Minister will take in September. A debate about this issue will take place at Thursday, the 24th of June, 19:45-20:45 CET. Also see the official agenda of the Commission for Economic Affairs. They may also decide to require the European Presidency to open a new voting procedure, which would completely reopen the case for all member states . . .
"Remember, all European countries can legally revoke their vote if they want to and they have the power to require the European Presidency to open a new voting procedure, which would completely reopen the case for all member states." A preliminary report by several Spanish experts on European procedural law, under the coordination of Dr. Luis Fajardo Lopez, confirms that the votes can be changed: "There are legal ways to change the position adopted on May the 18th meeting. In other words, at this procedural moment there is no legal obstacles to reversing the political agreement on common positions, neither to adopt a new probably more balanced political compromise."
The article is full of references, including to this 1998 article that claims in the past the BSA sued companies and agencies that couldn't prove ownership of their software, Microsoft's and that of others, and then settled on terms that the company from that day forward use only Microsoft software, a charge Microsoft denied. Novell, however, said the sweetheart deals that left Novell out in the cold did happen that way: "In 1995 Antel, the national telephone company of Uruguay, was caught pirating $100,000 worth of unlicensed software programs from Microsoft, Novell, and Symantec. Antel was nabbed by the Business Software Alliance, a trade association that partly acts as a global bounty hunter for the software industry. The BSA's lawyers in Uruguay quickly filed suit.
"But instead of waiting for a ruling on the case, the BSA abruptly dropped the suit in the fall of 1997. The BSA receives funding from most of the top software companies but appears to be most heavily funded by Microsoft. And, according to Antel's information technology manager, Ricardo Tascenho, the company settled the matter by signing a 'special agreement' with Microsoft to replace all of its software with Microsoft products. . . .
"Felipe Yungman, Novell's manager of security for Argentina, says he and another staffer at Novell discovered, while pursuing their own investigation for the company, that the BSA was setting up sweetheart deals for Microsoft. 'Companies or government offices had to, as a condition [that the BSA] forgive them of piracy, replace Novell products with Microsoft products,' he says." In an interview with Microsoft's Steve Ballmer, he first praises his company for all the R & D they do, and then indicates they intend to be paid back for it by using their patents: "Since Microsoft went public in 1986, we have invested a total of $36 billion in R&D, creating a wide range of integrated technologies that have helped customers and developers do more. Over the next 6 years alone, we will invest another $40 billion in innovation, continuing to make us a top R&D spender in any industry. Specifically, our focus is on integrated innovation, making our products and services work together and understanding how customers use technology and information to improve their lives. No other company in our industry is focused on this kind of innovation. We also are filing for 2,000 patents a year, a number we expect to increase in the years ahead." What does a company need 2,000 patents a year for? Maybe to supplement the BSA's alleged activities? Maybe they realize their days are numbered as a software vendor, that FOSS is the future. If they can't muscle us into using their software, perhaps they can force us to pay a toll for using whatever we prefer. Wait a sec. Isn't that SCO's impossible dream? Or maybe they'll just use patents to sue FOSS out of the market as Plan B? No doubt they will daintily use others, like patent pool companies that have little to lose, to do their fighting for them. Say, is that legal for a monopoly to do? To use their power and assets to gang up on the competition and make it impossible to compete? The EU patent decision will play a role in what happens to free and open source software's ability to compete. It's very odd to me that governments, many of which have announced that they intend to switch to GNU/Linux, don't connect the dots and comprehend that there is a connection between having that choice and patent decisions they make. It does seem that there was a measure of confusion in the minds of those voting, and that at least some thought they were voting to curtail software patents. Perhaps they should read this article,"Why Europe Should Be Wary of Software Patents," by Brian Kahin, who is a visiting professor in the School of Information, Ford School of Public Policy, and Department of Communication Studies, at the University of Michigan. He was formerly Senior Policy Analyst at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy where he was responsible for the intellectual property and digital economy issues: "Large companies amass portfolios for strategic purposes: cross-licensing, blocking, deterrence, and revenue generation. . . .While patents facilitate niche entry by small companies, patent portfolios disadvantage small companies seeking to enter markets for complex products. They have little to trade, but they need a lot of licences. But how many, and from whom? As Robert Barr of Cisco testified at a FTC roundtable: 'There are too many patents to be able to even locate which ones are problematic. I used to say only IBM does clearance ... but IBM tells me even they don't do clearance searches anymore.' . . ."As last month's Managing Intellectual Property interview with Marshall Phelps, the architect of IBM's licensing programme, shows, Microsoft wants to start earning returns from its massive portfolio. After all, why shouldn't users pay innovators? Why shouldn't today's developers pay tribute to the R&D investments of the past 20 years? Why should European developers, small, medium, open source, or otherwise, get a free ride on Microsoft and IBM?
"This might be a reasonable argument if developers actually learned anything from these massive portfolios, but from most accounts nobody reads software patents. Programmers don't use reference manuals, patents are not written to convey knowledge beyond the bare minimum needed to fulfil legal requirements, and lawyers advise against reading patents because of the risk of wilful infringement. . . . "According to an AIPLA economic report, when the amount in a controversy is under $1 million the average cost per side is half a million (2003), not including staff time and opportunity costs. Licence fees of $10,000 look pretty good compared to the costs of contesting patents.
"On the other hand, licence fees of $10,000 or even $100 kill the open source model of software distribution."
So, that's the game. Remember all the criticism of Linus which SCO heaped on him for saying he didn't do patent searches? Now you know the rest of the story. Nobody does them.
Many of you may be planning to attend LinuxTag next week. If so, perhaps you may be interested in the following information from Jan Wildeboer, which he asked me to relay to you:
Next week the LinuxTag will take place, Europe's biggest Linux event. Software patents will be a major theme, of course, now that we may have to face complete patentability (http://swpat.ffii.org).
Many people will wear the following T-Shirt: http://dhcp42.de/ltag/index.html
FFII (http://www.ffii.org), mySQL, FSF-Europe etc. will hold a demonstration against software patents in Europe at Thursday, 24. June starting at 6:00 pm.
We will have 10 "programmers in chains" - they will wear prisoners costumes with patent numbers on them. This is meant to ... inform of what is about to happen.
More information here: http://kwiki.ffii.org/DemoKarlsruhe04En
Banners here: http://dhcp42.de/ltag/index2.html Media contact:
jw at domainfactory.de You may also find this FFII press release of interest, because it also indicates that the deal isn't yet firm, and that there are efforts to reinstate the amendments that were dropped in May: "It is not yet certain that the Irish Presidency has secured a real majority.
To re-instate amendments in the European parliament requires absolute majorities. This is achievable: many of the amendments did achieve this level of support in the first reading. But some of the votes are likely to be very close." The press release says that it was Germany that did not stand firm, by the way, and was instrumental in getting the draft compromise passed.
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 07:05 AM EDT |
Pls. put corrections here, so I can find them. Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbeadle on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 07:16 AM EDT |
Thanks,
-jb
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- BSA/BSE -- Mad Cow vs. Mad ___ - Authored by: ansak on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 09:14 AM EDT
- OT, URLs here, please... - Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 09:43 AM EDT
- Clueless in Seattle - Authored by: Peter Smith on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 09:51 AM EDT
- [OFF TOPIC] SCOX hurdles - Authored by: tgnb on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 11:52 AM EDT
- CNet, HR107 and Rick Boucher - Authored by: ray08 on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 12:06 PM EDT
- New "Halloween" Article - Good Stuff! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 12:11 PM EDT
- OT, SCOX Income Statement... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 01:17 PM EDT
- Disturbing Story - Authored by: the_flatlander on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 01:28 PM EDT
- Wired Magazine article about Darl McBride - Authored by: dahnielson on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 01:34 PM EDT
- Wired Magazine article about Darl McBride: excellent - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 02:20 PM EDT
- Pretty well balanced - Authored by: tangomike on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 03:11 PM EDT
- Wow! Read the article! - Authored by: gdeinsta on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 07:29 PM EDT
- Wired Magazine article about Darl McBride - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 08:27 PM EDT
- Wired Magazine article about Darl McBride - Authored by: Arker on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 08:39 PM EDT
- Just like Blepp - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 08:51 PM EDT
- Darl McBride: Don't Cry for Me, Argentina! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 09:15 PM EDT
- Excellent article - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 10:24 PM EDT
- Precious... - Authored by: jkondis on Wednesday, June 23 2004 @ 12:42 AM EDT
- OT - IBM & the Holocaust - Authored by: fLameDogg on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 02:11 PM EDT
- On the education front, locally Re: OT, URLs - Authored by: randall on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 03:05 PM EDT
- Oracle challenges Microsoft's challenge - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 07:43 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Nivuahc on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 07:31 AM EDT |
The article is full of references, including to this 1998 article that
claims in the past the BSA sued companies...
The article is full of
references, including this 1998 article that claims in the past the BSA
sued companies...
--- My Doctor says I have A.D.D... He just doesn't
understand. It's not like... Hey! Look at that chicken! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Mike B on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 07:33 AM EDT |
Microsoft doesn't know the meaning of the word. What have they invented?
Let's see:
The BSOD
The Outlook virus spreader
The Windows spam machine vulnerability
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish
Countries that allow software patents and DMCA type laws will ultimately find
themselves in the back seat when it comes to technology. The US is most
vulnerable. Just as we lost our industrial edge to the NIMBY's and
environmentalists, we are going to lose our tech industry leadership to the IP
cartels...
---
Disclaimer: Former IBM employee (I worked as a Q/A tester in their server
division, qualifying prerelease products with IBM supported Network Operating
Systems,[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Innovations? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 07:36 AM EDT
- Innovations? - Authored by: gbl on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 07:47 AM EDT
- Innovations? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 07:54 AM EDT
- Be fair, guys - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 07:58 AM EDT
- You are confused - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 08:10 AM EDT
- Be fair, guys - Authored by: Peter Smith on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 08:33 AM EDT
- FOSS innovates - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 08:36 AM EDT
- FOSS innovates - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 08:58 AM EDT
- Be fair, guys - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 09:05 AM EDT
- But you have forgotten about M$'s.. - Authored by: ray08 on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 09:31 AM EDT
- Be fair, guys - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 10:14 AM EDT
- Be fair, guys - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 12:26 PM EDT
- Be fair, guys - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 23 2004 @ 12:01 PM EDT
- Be fair, guys - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 10:46 AM EDT
- Be fair, guys - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 11:23 AM EDT
- Be fair, guys - Authored by: John M. Horn on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 11:27 AM EDT
- Be fair, guys - Authored by: LarryVance on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 11:04 PM EDT
- Innovations? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 09:19 AM EDT
- Innovations? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 11:26 AM EDT
- Innovations? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 12:41 PM EDT
- Innovations? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 12:58 PM EDT
- The other "i" word - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 12:59 PM EDT
- The other "i" word - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 01:32 PM EDT
- OT: Mono - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 06:11 PM EDT
- Innovations? FUD! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 23 2004 @ 03:52 AM EDT
- Innovations? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 24 2004 @ 07:56 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 07:57 AM EDT |
6 patentable inventions being made each and every day by Microsoft seems an
awful lot, even for such a big company. OK, some of it would be old stuff (FAT,
for instance), which they only bother patenting once it has already established
market dominance, but that wouldn't square with increasing the rate of patent
applications in the future.
Is there any other field in the world where people would claim to invent
patentable concepts and designs at such a rate, and expect people to believe
that they are *that* good that these things wouldn't be reasonable inventions
for anyone else competent in the field?
I can only think of biosciences as a possibility, where you can patent genes or
other discoveries, I suppose that could possibly go fast enough, but it seems
unlikely.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Very easy ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 08:14 AM EDT
- Patenting genes - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 09:09 AM EDT
|
Authored by: sjgibbs on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 08:07 AM EDT |
You've been quiet lately PJ, and I've missed your witty bulletins. I now see you
were cooking up a storm. The rumour that you were off sick must surely have been
untrue!
I like what I see comming from this Lobby. I think the use of costumes really
shows that the community is making an effort to get its point across. It is also
a great way to get the point accross of course, a fantastic visual aid
Looking at the patents that have hit the media I see similarities with things
I've done in the past. (I'm endlessly walking a tightrope of reading and
deliberately not reading patent documents - fun) However, I've only been active
in the industry a few years so I wouldn't call myself an expert on anything. yet
amazinlgy these patents seem pretty obvious and often familiar to me.
Surely, this level of patented "innovation" (not meaning to dignify
it) totally undermines the position that Microsoft is seeking to protect a
significant investment. The ideas being patented just aren't worth the billions
they say they are, and meanwhile smaller players are locked out of using these
simple ideas in their own work. Scandaluous.
I'll end on a positive note, I got a message from my MEP Graham Watson
suggesting that he's up to join this scrap. He's head of the Liberal lobby in
the EU and other members of that lobby have been outspoken too in the past.
Here's the good bit:
"The ELDR's position has been to oppose any extension of the patenting of
software, so we can look forward to a battle between Parliament and Council on
this."
Now... where do I get those natty Ts?
SJG
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 08:16 AM EDT |
PJ: It's very odd to me that governments, many of which have announced that
they intend to switch to GNU/Linux, don't connect the dots and comprehend that
there is a connection between having that choice and patent decisions they
make.
Sadly, it is not odd at all. More like something one should
expect. Different branches in governements are often working at cross purposes.
The people promoting open source may be in a totally different ministry (or
whatever) from those driving software patentability. The latter are typically
from a Ministry of Commerce, staffed by people familiar with (or retired from)
traditional industries and steeped in traditional "patents equal innovation"
mentality. And the countrys position on the patent matter in the EU coucil of
ministers gets defined mainly by the Ministry of Commerce reports...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jeetje on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 08:39 AM EDT |
Harumpf, don't hold your breath just yet. Minister Brinkhorst is a member of the
D'66-party, whereas Commissioner Bolkenstein (the one responsible for more
monstrosities than even ... can imagine) is a member of the VVD-party, which
coincidently is one of the other constituant parties of the current Dutch
administration.
Wouldn't surprise me if these are prelimenary movements for local Dutch
political games OR a way to get Brinkhorst a position in Brussels, where the
current European Commission is sitting out its last months of office....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 08:43 AM EDT |
Connecting the dots doesn't seem to be a government thing. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 09:01 AM EDT |
"It's very odd to me that governments, many of which have announced that
they intend to switch to GNU/Linux, don't connect the dots and comprehend that
there is a connection between having that choice and patent decisions they
make."
It's not odd to me. You're talking about two different areas
of government that don't really talk to each other. The people approving the
patent methodolgies are politicians. They listen to lobbyists and make
decisions. Lobbyists say things like "Open Source" is killing our industry, this
is the only way to save software companies, etc...
The people converting
entire governments to Linux are IT professionals, not politicians. They only
care about making things work and doing within budget. They don't answer to the
people the lobbyists target. They likely don't even talk to them. I have a
fairly good insight into how State Government works and I can tell you that this
is definitely the case. You have situations where the Governer will approve
something and want it to get done, and then watch the mini-managers in the State
essentially refuse to cooperate, leaving the Governer's mandate without
muscle.
I certainly hope there is success in re-opening this issue in
Europe, they may help stem the tide against FOSS until the Microsoft's of the
world are dealt with for their illegal behavior. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 09:40 AM EDT |
"Since Microsoft went public in 1986, we have invested a total of $36
billion in R&D..."
I believe in Steve's mind, this is not about true R&D, it is the apprearence
to have R&D. It is a requirement to have investors. To say they have
invested that much in R&D is just to say they have invested it so R&D
exists. This is so they can justify the other things that occur because of the
investment because that is the way other companies do it. The real money maker
is the pimping and pushing, a.k.a, their guerrilla marketing, and theit large
stash of cash to work through the courts and beat up other companies till they
give in.
You have to ask yourself. What in Microsoft's R & D actually makes it into
the market place? What percentage? Most of what they promote and sell is what
others have created or invented, and have claimed as their own either through
aquisition, stomping out competition, permenantly borrowed, or unaccountable
five-finger discounts that I suppose they have, but can't prove because of their
closed-source policies. Couldn't Microsoft incorporate code from either other
closed-source projects, open source, or public domain, close it all up, and call
it their own without accountability?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Matt C on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 09:45 AM EDT |
Whenever the patent issue comes up, the argument is made that the patent-holders
will essentially be able to extort money from SMEs who are unable to afford the
legal battle.
My question is this: how are any people/orgs (PubPat, OSRM) presently working to
reduce these costs? It seems that the theory of patenting in this country is
going to be VERY slow to change, and that the way F/OSS folk work could
contribute to both "fronts" in this battle.
The creation of an authoritative timeline for UNIX code is a start, so is
OSRM-style insurance, but I would suggest a specific project that seems (to my
untrained mind) eminently doable:
A Step by Step Guide to Getting the Software Patent Claim Against You Thrown Out
on Day 1.
And I don't just mean a document, I mean distributed databases, timelines, and
other tools that can make this a reality.
A side-question I guess I need answered is "what, specifically, makes a
patent fight so expensive?" Discovery? Prior art research? Can we fix it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cjdj on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 09:48 AM EDT |
Theres something I dont understand. Doesnt Microsoft NEED linux to be in the
marketplace? I mean, isnt linux about the only real competition (now days) for
them? I'm rather skeptical that this ms-linux war is over the horizon as many
seem to think.
Sure, microsoft are going to spread their FUD to keep linux depressed in the
marketplace, and will lie and manipulate the big deals the way they have
obviously done over the last decade, but an all out attack on linux? I really
wonder.
They need linux the same way they need apple, sun, freebsd, etc... to avoid
being a monopoly, even if they are, and behave like they are.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 10:06 AM EDT |
Of course Microsoft will try to use it's (US)patents to combat Linux. However
something I never hear that amongst the companies that use Linux as a seriously
in their business model (read IBM) will start asking Microsoft 'royalties' for
their patents, because it is in IBM's interest that Linux/open source is a
competative force.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 10:09 AM EDT |
Usually, a person or company is fearful of something happening to them when they
do that something to others, and it is not a trustworthy or good business
behavior, and they know it is so, but they do it anyway most likely for the sake
of greed.
Windows NT, as I always thought, was a derivative of Xenix. I believe it is not
as "clean" of a build from the ground up as we are led to think by
Microsoft. Or what does "clean" mean? They might be
"telling" the truth, but not conveying the whole idea. Don't you think
that if someone learns from Microsoft or a from peticular individual in
Microsoft (ie. Bill or Steve) the methods and motivation on how to make money
(the way Microsoft has always done business,) that they would actually do the
same thing to Microsoft, and Microsoft wouldn't see it because they do it
themselves and think it is ok?
Something I learned as a player in life, the saying "Do unto others as you
would have them do onto you" also means "Players get played onto
themselves as they so play onto others..."
I think we should start looking into the validity of Windows NT, especially
since all marketted Microsoft OS products are heavily based on Windows NT
(Windows 9x and DOS doesn't count here, although they could be rip-offs too.)
We are seeing a lot of indirect Microsoft involvement in the attempted killing
of Linux. And as I have looked at the Unix tree, SCO goes a long way back with
Microsoft and Xenix. I think this SCO/IBM Linux issue is only the tip of the
iceberg. We must dig deeper and expose the whole truth. We have trusted
Microsoft, the marketplace, and the government way too long and too much. We
know Microsoft has benn and is up to something illegal. We just have to prove
it. And we will grow as a nation and a community if we successfully do that. The
smoking gun is long gone. We have to "find the DNA samples, the residual
gun powder, the blast markings, and old bullets, and exhume the dead bodies and
check them over again." We need to find the "Jimmy Hoffa"s of
this situation.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 10:22 AM EDT |
(And please repost this information where applicable in Groklaw or Grokline)
I am really thinking we need to track the information down which links SCO and
Microsoft together.
Check out some of these links
One:
http://www.winntmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=4500&pg=1
"In the early 1980s, three major branches grew on the UNIX tree: UNIX
System III from Bell Lab's UNIX Support Group (USG); UNIX Berkeley Source
Distribution (BSD) from the University of California at Berkeley; and a version
of UNIX that ran on the x86 processor family, Microsoft's XENIX. Are you
surprised to learn that Microsoft had a version of UNIX? If so, you'll be even
more surprised to learn that XENIX had the largest installed base of any UNIX
system during the early 1980s. Microsoft sold XENIX to The Santa Cruz Operation
(SCO) in 1995, when Microsoft purchased a portion of SCO. Throughout the 1980s,
the UNIX market fragmented further, with versions of the OS splitting several
times; in many cases, descendant branches of a version merged with separate UNIX
lines."
Two:
(What if oldSCO really had something going on that would threaten the Windows
platform? Effectively dissolve oldSCO and reorganize it into something more
pleasing to Steve Ballmer and Microsoft.)
http://www.operating-system.org/betriebssystem/_german/bs-windows.htm
(translated from German courtesy of google.com)
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.operating
-system.org/betriebssystem/_german/bs-windows.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dwindows
%2Bnt%2Bxenix%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8
"Windows® Family
Microsoft began at 1981 with MSDOS 1,0 to develop operating systems for
computers. One year had cooperated before Microsoft in Unix relatives the
operating system XENIX OS for different computer platforms, 1984 this range
however to SCO had been transferred. With Windows 1,0 1985 were added beside DOS
a second line, which was meant with network support for Consumer (Home edition)
first in the single place and later."
Three:
(What did Microsoft sell to SCO in regards to Xenix? Same sinereo as Novell
maybe? Did they learn?)
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windowsnt/4/server/reskit/en-us
/resguide/sresfrnt.mspx
"Microsoft, MS, MS-DOS, XENIX, CodeView, and QuickC are registered
trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the USA and other countries."
P.S. - Someone else, outside of the current efforts in Groklaw, should
investigate all business avenues and trasactions between SCO, oldSCO, and
Microsoft. I am almost sure you will find evidence of wrongdoing of Microsoft.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dyfet on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 10:47 AM EDT |
So what does these 2000 "groundbreaking" patents per year
include, one may ask...hmm, let's see. Engineers at
Microsoft seem to be hard at work mastering the English
language and then patenting the pronoun!
<p>
The US Patent Office has granted Microsoft a patent on the
use of pronouns in programming languages (US Patent
6,748,585 "Computer programming language pronouns",
granted June 8 2004, filed November 29, 2000).
<p>
Yes, they do mention C++, smalltalk, Java, etc, and even
<b>this</b> in the filing. A most amusing read, actually.
To see how insane the USPTO can be, just take a look at
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL
&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,748,585.W
KU.&OS=PN/6,748,585&RS=PN/6,748,585
for yourself.
<p>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 11:29 AM EDT |
PC Pro is saying there is a problem with the developer's certificates recently
implemented by Linus:
The problem, writes Greg Aharonian in his
Internet Patent News Service newsletter, is that it is unlikely a programmer
would know what rights they can assert for the code for which they are claiming
responsibility.
'I highly doubt the average programmer is going to do a
patent search, and then pay for some sort of infringement analysis... such a
declaration is legally impossible for any programmer to assert in light of the
contradictory nonsense of copyright case law,' he says.
This
to me illustrates the dangers of the patent system as it is currently
implemented. With all the software patents that have been granted (I have no
idea how many there are, maybe millions) it would be virtually impossible for
anyone, let alone a small software developer, to do a meaningful patent search
for every patent that might possibly infringe what he is trying to develop. I
haven't taken a good look at the certificate--I'm not even sure I've seen it--
but if it requires the developer to certify unequivocally that he is not
infringing any patent that could be a problem. Maybe a better assertion would
be "to the best of my knowledge" or something to that effect.
Software
patents are the nuclear weapons of the technology industry. If all the nations
on earth that possess nuclear weapons were to fire them all off at each other
this earth would be left an uninhabitable cinder. Likewise if every software
patent holder were to unleash every patent in his/her/its portfolio, demanding
lincense fees and royalties for each, the entire software industry would likely
dissolve into a sea of litigation. No one, with the possible exception of
M$, would be able to pay all the license fees demanded (they would come to
multiple times their net worth) nor all the royalties demanded (which could be
orders of magnitude more than their gross revenues). And likely the only
software left available would be pirated software, because all the companies
that produced it would be out of business and bankrupt.
I realize this is a
ridiculously extreme scenario, but sometimes it takes something riciculously
extreme to get us to see the dangers of something. I would hope those in charge
of the USPTO, our congressmen, our judges and all who hold software patents
would read this, but I'm not holding my breath.
IANAL, IANAP, IANAG. The
opinion expressed here is my own and does not necessarily express the views of
any other person or entity.
--- What goes around comes around, and it
grows as it goes. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 12:48 PM EDT |
Well, Microsoft can patent the stars and copyright the moon if they want to.
They still will have anti-trust problems with all this.
Not during this administration, of course, but perhaps during the next one.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 12:52 PM EDT |
Quite a few comments have mentioned the royalty-sucking aspects of patents, but
that overlooks one critical possibility: The USA does not have compulsory
licensing of patents. Royalties are just a bribe to get permission.
A
patent is a Government-enforced right to forbid someone to do something. If the
FSF held a patent on a key part of the Microsoft Win32 API, no amount of money
would get Microsoft out of removing that API function. Of course we're more
used the the prospect of MS pulling the reverse.
If it comes to a patent
war, one possible outcome would be that IBM and some of the other heavies who
want to use Linux might decide to use their patent portfolios in its favor.
Since the GPL essentially blocks sweetheart deals, IBM might offer to license
their patents in return for some other company licensing theirs under
GPL-compatible terms.
How likely is this scenario? Pretty much proportional
to the perceived value of Linux/FOSS. If it comes to pass, though, some people
are going to be in serious danger of blowing a gasket. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 01:31 PM EDT |
Brigitte Zypries, Germany's minister of justice recently appeared in a
moderated chat about software patents on heise.de.
The transcript of the discussion can be found at http://www.heise.de
/chat/archiv/04/05/28/archiv.shtml.
When you read the transcript
carefully, you may soon get the impression, that this lady is as dumb as a slice
of toasted bead.
Unfortunately, she really is as dumb as a slice
of toasted bread.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 01:57 PM EDT |
As for any patent, there is a comission who look for inovations. The issue is if
there is any waranty that the comission is a skilled enough in that domain and
is objective. A such person should have knowledge of all similar works. How can
they be sure that a student didn't already do that in his graduate work ? Or
there is no similar patent in a different country ?
During the history, there were a lot of dicoveries which has been attributed
for two researchers at the time (Lavoisier & Lomonosov, etc). In the today's
inovation rate, could anyone be assured that the patents are rightly assigned ?
And there is anyone which is able to cover all software technologies to see if
has not been already invented ?
In the software field, the allocated resources are only for reasearchers
paycheck and almost nothing for equipements and prototype materials. In such
conditions, any skilled omputer owner can do research at home (and they don't
neet to work in the garrage, anymore). But they haven't the power and knowledge
to apply for a patent for their work. In these conditions, software patents will
be used only by the big companies and no other small ones will prevail.
I'm thinking now how it would be IT industry if IBM wouldn't released it's PC
architecture to the clone makers. And every company should build it's own
hardware architecture. In these conditions, will Microsoft OS be on 90% of
todays computers ? So, it seems that opening the standard for compatibility, IBM
boost today's IT progress. In this case, the reasons huge software makers bring
that the denying software patents will detter progress, fall.
The progress is done by small companies, not by huge ones. These companies are
not limited to the one trail of inovations like he big companies do. If there is
any other way that an inovation can be achieved, the small companies will
follow.
Also, unlimiting the patents, it's another bad ideea. If a company apply for a
patent and forget about it due to funding issues, a progress line can be lost.
May be other companies can integrate those invetions, so progress will be
achieved. If a company doesn't apply a patent in an amount of years, then the
patent should become open. IANAL, but we don't live in an ideal world. Somehow,
the progress need a help.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 02:44 PM EDT |
Hmm. Licensed from AT&T? How so? How does their past practices jive with
what is happening today? NewSCO is working against Linux , Open Source, and
everyone else, based on the efforts and business deals of oldSCO. And with
Microsoft indirectly involved with the SCO efforts, I say let's re-examine these
situations of probable cause.
Currently there is no evdience to tie it in, but there exists a large amount of
probable cause to look.
SCO and Microsoft should not be allowed to be exempt from the very agendas they
are trying to push. It is assumed they have dirty hands too.
The biggest reason for my ideas here are the code links that SCO and Microsoft
are trying to form.
Xenix ----> Minix -----> Linux.
Who owns what? Where does (defunct) AT&T fit in? If Linux is tied to Minix
and is tied to Xenix, then does SCO and Microsoft own Linux? HHHMMM!!!!
Old business ties night be giving SCO and Microsoft a foundation to work from.
If the story is twisted enough, and the timing is right, Microsoft and SCO will
win in spite of the truth. I believe the truth has to be brought out to
counter-act all this FUD. And if SCO and Microsoft are making OS ties like that,
their history should be examined.
Also, I smell a SCO buyout from Microsoft brewing...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ujay on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 03:24 PM EDT |
The patent wars in Europe may only be a corrolary of the patent issues in the
US. With the US granting patents on the level it has been doing for vague
process in software, the europeans need to adjust to protect themselves from
probable litigation in the creation of software.
The political animals in
the EU will say whatever they think will placate the populace, but will act to
support the business and corporations that are behind the effort ( and paying
handsomely for the effort).
While the fight must continue in Europe, the
fight must alo begin in the US. The current patent laws in the US were
developed and implemented by a lobbyist for the Software Publishing Industry,
Bruce Lehman, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994 as Commissioner of the Patent
and Trademark Office.
Today, Bruce Lehman is the CEO of President and Chief
Executive Officer of the
International Intellectual Property
Institute
based in Washington DC.
It is no stretch of the imagination
to figure out why the gestapo tactics of the BSA started to get intense in
1995.
--- Programmer: A biological system designed to convert coffee
and cheesies into code [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jog on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 04:03 PM EDT |
See sec.gov [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 04:54 PM EDT |
Weeks before the election I wrote to the candidates asking
if they would oppose Software Patents. I only got one reply
suggesting that I write back after the election.
Here in the UK, it is a problem to identify an MEP who will
represent you. I live in the constituency of East Midlands
that has over 3,000,000 voters and has 6 representitives.
Unlike our national elections of MPs, where we have one
representitive in parliament, who is easy to write to.
There seems a total lack of communication and responsibility
of our elected representatives.
But keep writing to your representatives; as the facts may
slowly sink in.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 05:49 PM EDT |
Any chance we'd get to see the 2 new IBM filings from yesteday?
We also still haven't seen RH's answer in support of their motion for
reconsideration, yet.
Thanks + Much appreciated.
Quatermass.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 08:21 PM EDT |
Amendment 2 to Novell-SantaCruz appears to be signed on the same day as IBM
Amendment X.
Amendment X is dated 16 October 1996 (see
below)
Amendment 2 begins:
As of the 16th day
of October, 1996,
Furthermore Item D of Amendment 2
between Novell and Santa Cruz contains the
following:
Novell and SCO agree to indemnify and hold
harmless the other from and against any and all losses, liabilities, judgments,
and costs
incurred ("Liability") if either causes the other to incur
Liability under Section 10 of Amendment No. X to Software Agreement
SOFT-00015 as amended, Sublicensing Agreement SUB-00015A as amended, Software
Agreement SOFT-00015 Supplement No. 170 as
amended, and Substitution
Agreement XPER-00015B ("Amendment No. X").
Which appears
to be an explicit reference to IBM's Agreements including Amendment
X
61. On February 1, 1985, AT&T and IBM entered into
certain AT&T UNIX Agreements:
a) Software Agreement Number
Soft-00015 (“AT&T / IBM Software Agreement” attached hereto and
incorporated herein
as Exhibit A);
b) Sublicensing Agreement Number
Sub-00015A (“AT&T / IBM Sublicensing Agreement” attached hereto and
incorporated
herein as Exhibit B).
62. In addition, AT&T
and IBM entered into a side letter on that date (“AT&T / IBM Side Letter”
attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit C).
63.
Thereafter, Amendment X to Software Agreement SOFT-00015, as amended, was
executed on or about October 16,
1996 by and among IBM, The Santa Cruz
Operation, Inc. (“SCO”) and Novell, Inc. (“IBM Amendment X” attached hereto
and
incorporated herein as Exhibit D).
My guess is that Amendment
X is IBM's royalty buy-out (royalty buyouts needed to be agreed by both Novell
and Santa Cruz according to the APA), and Amendment 2 reflects
this.
Section B of Amendment 2 is about future royalty buy-outs, so may
Novell and Santa Cruz were getting their house in order, in case of future
royalty buyouts. Section B of Amendment 2 begins:
Except
as provided in Section C below, and notwithstanding the provisions of Article
4.16, Sections (b) and (c) of the Agreement, any
potential transaction with
an SVRX licensee which concerns a buy-out of any such licensee's royalty
obligations shall be managed as
follows
More to
follow
Quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 08:41 PM EDT |
There's been much talking about BSA, and everyone seems to be afraid of it. Can
anybody please explain what is it that BSA does that creates so much fear? Some
say that being audited by BSA is worse than committing suicide. Anybody can
explain?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- BSA - Authored by: KenWilson on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 09:23 PM EDT
- BSA "authority" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 09:54 PM EDT
- From contracts - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 23 2004 @ 09:56 AM EDT
- BSA Shakedown Explained - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 09:43 PM EDT
- BSA - Authored by: John Hasler on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 10:25 PM EDT
- Bullies - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 11:03 PM EDT
- Bullies - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 11:11 PM EDT
- Ex-employees - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 11:39 PM EDT
- Ex-employees - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 23 2004 @ 12:18 AM EDT
- BSA insurance? - Authored by: AveryAndrews on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 11:54 PM EDT
- TCO? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 23 2004 @ 02:57 AM EDT
- BSA insurance? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 23 2004 @ 06:07 AM EDT
- BSA - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 23 2004 @ 03:42 AM EDT
- BSA - AdTI fellow travellers - Authored by: aussiedave on Wednesday, June 23 2004 @ 03:46 AM EDT
- BSA and statistics... - Authored by: macrorodent on Wednesday, June 23 2004 @ 04:09 AM EDT
- BSA business model explained - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 23 2004 @ 07:25 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 23 2004 @ 11:43 AM EDT |
And the EU parliament still has the last say anyways when
they will vote on the councils proposition later this
autumn. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 23 2004 @ 11:32 PM EDT |
Look, I could be wrong. But as far as I know, beneficial ownership refers to
the net position after netting out any longs and shorts. By this definition,
someone who is both long and short the same amount of shares would have no
beneficial ownership position.
I believe that the term beneficial ownership comes up often in securities
documents. If there are securities lawyers lurking out there, could they please
define how "beneficial ownership" is interpreted in the situation
where the party is both long and short the same amount of shares.
Thank you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|