|
| Authored by: MadScientist on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 03:38 PM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 03:41 PM EDT |
| Yes, maybe Microsoft is finding out the world doesn't revolve around their feet. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 03:42 PM EDT |
| --andy [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: MadScientist on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 03:42 PM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 03:43 PM EDT |
These questions get harder every day.
Hmmm, Bill Gates can't afford his cell phone bill?
I give up why?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Impossible - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 06:59 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 03:44 PM EDT |
Apparently they pulled out because they didn't want to offer indemnification
against IP claims on the technology they were pushing. Ha! Let's just say I
don't expect Dido latch onto that one. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 03:45 PM EDT |
hmmm, i dislike the UN, and i dislike microsoft. whose side do i take on this
issue?
anyway, how can you have a "standard" and be able to sue people over
IP at the same time?
perhaps they were trying to get their IP added to the standard, then attempt to
license it once the standard was established, saying that anyone who adopts the
standard is using their IP and therefore they are entitled to compenstation.
that's purely speculation of course.
i'm sure they've gone back to redmond to create their own "standard"
which will merely be a rip off of the UN standard with proprietary
"extensions" that magically make it work with nothing but microsoft
products. and now that they know they have rights to everyone else's IP that's
put input into the standard, there's nothing stopping 'em.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 03:45 PM EDT |
| ... we know for hunting Kevin Mitnick? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 03:46 PM EDT |
| link [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Scriptwriter on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 03:47 PM EDT |
| Here's the same story, no
registration required courtesy of the International Herald Tribune. The
article carries Markoff's byline, so I'm sure it's the same article.
And here's the Inquirer's take
on it. The subtitle for their article: "(Microsoft) Takes its ball home and
sulks" :) ---
Don't it always seem to go that you never know what you've
got 'til it's gone? RIP Mike "Moogy" Tuxford 1952-2004
irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: irieiam on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 03:50 PM EDT |
I view this as what it is. They don't want to give away what they can sell. No
matter what the reason(s) is, that is true enough for any corporation.
Of course, the conspiracy theorist in me says they are stealing IP or ideas and
we'll see it soon in, what; Longhorn? Kinda like CLI autocomplete appearing in
NT? The X desktop Pager patent filing?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: gdeinsta on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 03:53 PM EDT |
The
inquirer
says:
However the issue seems to be one of intellectual property
rights. The guidelines that the UN has drawn up would force corporations who
contribute technology to indemnify the United Nations against potential
challenges involving intellectual property claims.
So they don't
want to offer a guarantee that they don't infringe someone else's patents or
copyrights. My but the FUD has come back to bite them. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 03:54 PM EDT |
If you don't learn to share you can lose the whole thing.
That's a lesson you're suppose to learn by the time you're six.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Snicker..... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 04:25 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 04:01 PM EDT |
The article compares the UN indemnification policy to the SCOG/IBM case. A
better comparison would be the Rambus case(s).
In the Rambus situation, Rambus contributed technology to the JEDEC standard for
DDR SDRAM (your current standard PC RAM). They failed to mention they'd patented
the technology so they tricked all the other RAM manufacturers into moving their
customers over to a patented Rambus design.
Obviously, once the whole market (i.e. practically everyone in the world with a
PC) was using this new RAM standard, it was too late to replace the design.
Several lawsuits and US federal gov't department (FTC?) appeals are now pending
as they fight over this chicanery. I think this is the type of analysis people
should be thinking about here.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: John M. Horn on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 04:01 PM EDT |
As Microsoft has repeatedly made direct and indirect references to the reason it
is compiling a patent arsenal, this action comes as no surprise. For Microsoft,
indemnifying any standards body or organization sets a potentially dangerous
precedent that is at direct odds with its stated goals with regard to its
'intellectual property'.
Microsoft's patent game is still in its early stages and much of what may come
is probably unknown even to Microsoft. The one thing Ballmer and Gates are
likely to be sure about is that they want to keep their options open. Agreeing
not to litigate over their IP is surely the last thing Microsoft wants.
John Horn
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Khym Chanur on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 04:03 PM EDT |
| Is the UN asking to be indemnified against use of IP in the standards, or
against use of any IP by the UN? I can't tell from the article. If the
latter, I'd tottaly agree with MS's actions. But if it was the former... Well,
did Microsoft really think the UN would make and promote a standard that they
could then collected royalties on? ---
Give a man a match, and he'll be
warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his
life. (Paraphrased from Terry Pratchett) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 04:09 PM EDT |
With all due respect to PJ, I think that you have Microsoft's position back to
front, slightly, sort of:
Now, putting our thinking caps on,
can
anyone think of any good reason why Microsoft might not
wish to contribute to a
standard, if it has to give up
suing the standard body over IP claims?
I don't see that the
reason for MS's withdrawal is that they want to sue the standards body. There is
nothing to indicate that is what they want to do.
Rather I see that the
reason for MS's withdrawal is that want the standards body to adopt MS's ideas
in full - and if the standards body doesn't - they don't want anybody
else [even people inspired by the future standard] using any part of whatever
might protectable in MS's ideas.
The "We don't want anybody else
using any part of whatever might be protectable in MS's ideas" is giving advance
notice to the standards body - don't include our patents, copyrighted material,
etc., when you draft the future standard.
In short, MS appear to be at
fault* (in a moral sense), but not quite in the way that the quoted
sentence hints at.
* Fault in two different
ways:
1. Wanting to dictate the entire standard, and refusing to
participate if they don't get their way
2. Being pig-headed about not
allowing the standards body to use stuff that MS has already offered (it may
however turn out in real effects the effect is quite small if not much MS is
stuff is being used, or if the standard is still at an early
stage)
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 04:10 PM EDT |
Any standards body would require you to license any IP you
submit under some approved terms (Royalty free, RAND or
whatever) but I've never heard about requiring you to
indemnify against patents that you don't know about,
absurd opportunistic lawsuits and the like.
Then again, the world is going mad with indemnification at
the moment. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: MadScientist on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 04:10 PM EDT |
Background: Sun offended IBM $20 million worth just before this episode
<a href="http://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044_2.html">
Story </a>
The MS sudo patent
<a
href="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=
6,775,781.WKU.&OS=PN/6,775,781&RS=PN/6,775,781"> Sudo patent
</a>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: cybervegan on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 04:12 PM EDT |
They just can't reconcile it, can they. You can bet
they'll go off and form their own club, or go it alone
with a competing standard.
They just can't bring themselves to join in and play
nicely, can they - they want the whole playground to
themselves. Maybe they think they're just too good for
the rest of the world.
regards,
-cybervegan
---
Software source code is a bit like underwear - you only want to show it off in
public if it's clean and tidy. Refusal could be due to embarrassment or shame...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 04:14 PM EDT |
So let me get this straight - we live in a world where companies with big
patent libraries sue you unexpectedly for using technology we've always
used. Some such companies don't like MS.
MS is being asked to contribute technology to the common good, and then
indemnify the world against anyone who might unexpectedly sue because it
uses some technology everyone's been using for years?
Is there an upside for MS on this? I don't see one. But the downside risk is
huge, so any prudent Board will avoid it, as they are. I can't imagine how,
as a reasonable business, they could stay in this. The risk is simply too high.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Re: All about risk? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 04:16 PM EDT
- I doubt it. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 25 2004 @ 01:52 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 04:19 PM EDT |
| This is a Good Thing, no?
Surely organizations like the UN must be getting
pretty fed-up with companies like MS trying to assert their control over
anything & everything.
One can only hope that actions like this will
help convince the UN and others of the inherit value of FOSS
solutions.
-cheer
andy [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: MadScientist on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 04:23 PM EDT |
For those of us who need a tutorial before commenting
http://openebxml.sourceforge.net/
http://www.rawlinsecconsulting.com/ebXML/
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-ebxml/
http://webservices.xml.com/pub/a/ws/2003/03/18/ebxml.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Franki on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 04:32 PM EDT |
This is the same (or very similiar) to Microsofts SenderID technology. MS are
pushing hard to get it made part of the anti-spam standard, but they have
already patented it and offer a free license because they know that the license
requirements mean that its not acceptable to GPL open source..
That means postfix, sendmail and the other GPL MTA's can't incorporate it.
MS would like to have the business market stitched up the same way.. it gives
them another thing that they can say to potential clients, or clients that are
talking about leaving for OSS.
It's not directly about them making money off the standard, it's about them
blocking GPL software and sometime in the future you will see them touting how
many things there are that you can do on a windows platform, that you can't on
Linux.
rgds
Franki
---
Is M$ behind Linux attacks?
http://htmlfixit.com/index.php?p=86[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: SteveS on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 04:37 PM EDT |
I believe that gdeinsta got the point when they said:
"So they don't want to offer a guarantee that they don't infringe someone
else's patents or copyrights."
What the U.N. is looking for is a guarantee that what is being placed in the
"Standard" is free from IP issues from outside (Like SCOX is trying to
do with Linux), not whether the contributor will litigate or start charging for
the technology after the fact.. (although I'm sure they would like to avoid this
as well.)
I find it interesting that this was the hanging point for Micr$oft.
At least that's my read on this
Steve S.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rvergara on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 04:40 PM EDT |
Can you believe it, I am sure you can.
The patent is here:
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=6,775,781.W
KU.&OS=PN/6,775,781&RS=PN/6,775,781
and the rest of the story here:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18015
Can somebody explain the concept of prior art to these people?
Well, I guess this illustrates the kind of things we can expect being patented
by MS. This is only the beggining, however our community will stand together,
Groklaw has tested this.
Ramiro[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 05:16 PM EDT |
Perhaps MicroSoft are just tired of being a deep pockets target suits from
IP-only companies.
Suppose they hadn't pulled out, and had provided some ideas that were
incorporated into the standard. Then suppose some company in Utah sued the U.N.
for $3BN for infringing their IP. With the indemnification program, MicroSoft
get to foot the bill (and perhaps don't even get to fight the case).
Sounds like another good argument for scrapping the current s/w patent system.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Toon Moene on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 05:28 PM EDT |
Ye Gods !
I thought the whole idea of having vendors and users developing their ideas
wr.t. standards on Standard Bodies was to share Intellectual Property, namely:
their expert understanding of the subject at hand.
At least, that's why I partake in the deliberations of ANSI's J3 committee (for
standardizing Fortran), from which Microsoft withdrew as it left the Fortran
market, BTW.
---
Toon Moene (A GNU Fortran maintainer and physicist at large)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Glen on Tuesday, August 24 2004 @ 07:28 PM EDT |
<pipe dream>
Maybe this will put pressure on Europe and eventually the US to revamp their
respective software/stupidly obvious invention patent laws.
</pipe dream>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: cpw on Wednesday, August 25 2004 @ 03:56 AM EDT |
Something akin to this may have been stated before in other posts but M$
remind me of the Nazgul (IBM) of 20 years ago, back then hijacking standards was
the name of the game, I suppose it still is today, anyway I was involved in the
European STEP intiative back then and I remember going to a seminar in Paris
where it was stated by Big Blue that "We have looked at the STEP standard and we
have "improved" upon it" A presentation was then given on an IBM product called
MAU. This did not go down well with the conference attendees (representatives
from the engineering and automotive busines sectors) who at the end of the
presentation protested loud and long that what they wanted was standards that
they could rely on to make their businesses more efficient and that may be
relied upon well into the future and not "standards" that could be modified at
will by vendors seeking "lock-in" and a fast buck. The moral of the story is
that (eventually) IBM learned that this style of general arrogance towards your
clients and ticking of your customers by manipulation of standards is not the
best way to improve your share value. I believe that the likes of Microsoft have
yet to learn this lesson and they've probably gone off in a bit of a huff
(taking their ball with them) with the intention of coming up with their own
"standard" and trying to generate yet another revenue stream from it, however,
their customer base is starting to wise up to this type of tactic and to realise
that in the long run, corporately owned standards are not good for business. I
think that in the future the lesson that's coming along for M$ will be a
painful one, and they must realise that no matter how clever you think you are,
you ignore the maxim "The Customer is King" at your peril. Cheers, CPW [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 25 2004 @ 11:05 AM EDT |
| Am I mistaken, or does this read like Microsoft's EULA? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 26 2004 @ 06:23 PM EDT |
we work with Open Source and standards because we want to be part of the
*solution*
Go ahead and pull back. No one will miss you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
