decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The Be Very Afraid Tour and a Word About that Patent Study
Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 11:30 AM EDT

When SCO started threatening to sue over Linux, it offered Linux users protection from lawsuits if they'd buy a SCOsource license. Some did, despite having other viable protective options. A smattering did accept SCO's SCOsource offer.

If you can call it an offer. "Nice restaurant you've got here. It'd be a shame if anything happened to it."

Ask those companies today if they'd buy a SCOsource license again, if they had a chance to relive it. What did they get for their money? Other companies put off switching to GNU/Linux systems, because of SCO's threats. Think of the savings lost to them because of letting themselves be intimidated. So who were the smart ones, the companies that caved in to the threats or those who saw through them?

Now Linux users are being offered a "patent peace" with Microsoft in a very similar way, only this time, it's supposedly patents backing up the threat. Or is it? Let's see if we can quantify. First, on the patent study Microsoft misquotes, here's what it actually found:

No court-validated software patent is infringed by the Linux kernel.

None. That may be why there has never been a patent infringement lawsuit against Linux. That means that to date, Linux doesn't infringe anybody's court-validated patents.

One thing we have learned from the SCO litigation, aside from the folly of suing your own customers, is that Linux is the cleanest, most pure code on the planet. Also probably the most examined and picked over by enemies looking to find fault. Novell has just reiterated that it knows of no patents that Linux infringes, and that's after long discussions with Microsoft on the subject, with specificity, according to Microsoft. What does that tell you? [Update: I see Novell's general counsel Joseph La Sala appears to directly confirm it to BusinessWeek:

But Joe LaSala, senior vice-president and general counsel at Novell, says none of his company's software violated Microsoft's patents, and that the agreement was about technical compatibility between the companies' products. "We're quite explicit about that," he says. "We've heard their arguments."

So, what exactly is Microsoft selling?]

The study also found that a third of the 200+ non-validated patents that could conceivably be used to threaten Linux are owned by companies friendly to Linux. Only 10% belonged to Microsoft, and they just told us they're not litigating. In any case, Red Hat indemnifies its customers, among other options, if you are in a panic.

Dan Ravicher did that patent study three years ago. The threat today is actually smaller than it was then, thanks to two recent Supreme Court rulings. That might explain the New York Stock Exchange switching to AIX and Linux, starting today, now that I think of it:

The New York Stock Exchange is migrating off a 1,600 millions of instructions per second (MIPS) mainframe to IBM System p servers running AIX and x86 Hewlett-Packard Co. servers running Linux, with the first part of the move going live today.

Francis Feldman, the vice president of the shared data center for Securities Industry Automation Corp. (SIAC), the NYSE's technology arm, said the bottom line for the migration was the bottom line. He estimates the move will halve the cost of transactions, and though he wouldn't detail how much that would mean on a yearly basis, he said it is "serious financial savings, very serious."

People aren't as dumb as Microsoft needs them to be. One more thing: it's important to realize that there is a threat if you DO enter into such a deal.

Thanks to a patent system that went overboard issuing patents, which the Supreme Court in its recent KSR ruling brings to a screeching halt, many previously issued patents aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Nearly half of all patents that were brought to trial under the old patent system's definition of obviousness were thrown out. If you apply KSR's standard of nonobviousness, as the highest court says you must, how many patents would survive? What, you think Microsoft's patent on IS NOT is not obvious? So the threat isn't as big as it might appear.

To help you understand the actual purpose of the latest threats from Microsoft, there's a transcript on Wikisource of Eben Moglen's break-out session at Red Hat Summit 2007, from the video on YouTube. Moglen talks about Microsoft's annual "Be Very Afraid Tour" in answer to a question from the audience asking Moglen to explain the threat posed to GPL’d software’s freedom by the Microsoft-Novell agreement. I thought it would be worthwhile to make the transcript part of our permanent collection here also, because I don't know if Novell reads Wikisource. Also, I thought it worthwhile to inform CEOs thinking that safety lies in such deals that in fact it puts their future software supply in danger, as Moglen explains.

Ask yourself this: do I want to be forced to use someone's product under threat? To pay them even if I don't want their product? If you buy an HP printer, do you also pay Xerox and Dell a tax because you didn't buy a printer from them? Deeper, do you want to help Microsoft destroy Linux and FOSS?

You may remember what Andrew Orlowski wrote when Microsoft took us on the "Be Very Afraid" tour in 2004:

"Let's remember too that many software patents are thrown out by the judge.... The explosion of patent filing activity at Microsoft doesn't necessarily indicate an explosion of creativity; and many may be even more fatuous than the FAT patent....

And in any case, as Dan Ravicher noted here, the winner doesn't keep all. "It's rare for a patent holder to get an injunction, especially against a smaller competitor, just because of anti-competitive terms."

Thirdly, a frontal assault would likely generate huge retaliation from IBM, which needs Linux -- a nice earner for its consultancy and integration services division. ...

So like Mutually Assured Destruction, the true value of Microsoft's patent arsenal lies in the threat of their use, not their actual use.

Orlowski called this one exactly right. That's what it was about then, and it's what it is still about, with the added wrinkle that today we have Open Invention Network, so IBM doesn't have to retaliate. OIN can. Of course, IBM is a member of OIN.

And that brings us to the Moglen transcript, because his point is that a company wishing to attack Linux and FOSS would want to destroy the Open Source development method, but to do that successfully it would first need to divide enterprise customers from developers:

**********************************

Eben Moglen: Oh, I beg your pardon, certainly, I, the question was so obvious that it needed no repetition: “Could I explain the threat posed to GPL’d software’s freedom by the Microsoft/Novell agreement?”.

And I’m going to speak in slightly more general terms than that, beginning with: Imagine a party which wants to eliminate Free Software’s freedom or at least hobble its developers in serious ways, so as to inhibit their ability to compete. Imagine that such a party has patents of uncertain validity but in large numbers, which it could conceivably use to scare developers and users. Imagine that such a party then begins to make periodic threats in the form, “Gee, we have a lot of patents. Never mind how many. Never mind what they are. Never mind how good they are. We have a lot of patents, and someday something terrible will happen. Don’t use that software.”

Imagine that that’s a strategy that the party adverse to freedom engages in because it’s better than suing. Suing is expensive. Suing is irreversible. And suing might actually cause you to have to explain which patents they are and why they’re any good. [Laughter] So threatening is better than suing, OK? Imagine a party who engages in recurrent threats every summer time, for years on end, on a sort of annual “be very afraid” tour, okay? [Laughter]

I know, it sounds absurd.

Imagine now that what happens is that the annual “Be very afraid” tour starts creating terrible pushback, because people call up who are the CEOs of major banks and financial institutions, and they say, “Those people you’re threatening are us. We’re the largest, richest, most powerful people in capitalism, and we determine the value of your stock. We think you should be quiet now.” OK?

That happens if you do this thing of saying “be very afraid” to people who have lots and lots of money and lots and lots of power and who control the value of your stock. They will push back. The business model of threatening to sue people works if the people are 12-year-olds. It does not work real well if they are the pillars of finance capitalism. So as a party engaged in annual “be very afraid” tours, you’re going to start to get pushback by enterprise customers who say, “That’s *us* you’re threatening.”

Now what if you could reduce their sense of being the people who are made afraid? What if you could find a way to give them quiet and peace -- and make a little money on the side -- so that the only people who are left quaking when you did your annual “Be Very Afraid” tour were the developers themselves? Now you would have given yourself a major ecological boost in swinging your patents around and threatening to hurt people.

Deals for patent safety create the possibility of that risk to my clients, the development community. If enterprise thinks that it can go and buy the software my clients make from some party who gives them peace from the adversary in return for purchasing a license from them, then enterprises may think they have made a separate peace, and if they open the business section one morning and it says “Adversary Makes Trouble for Free Software”, they can think, “Not my problem. I bought the such-and-such distribution, and I’m OK.”

This process of attempting to segregate the enterprise customers, whose insistence on their rights will stop the threatening, from the developers, who are at the end the real object of the threat, is what is wrong with the deals.

So what you ought to do is to say to parties, Please don’t make separate peace at the community’s expense. Please don’t try to make your customers safe, if that’s going to result in the destruction of the upstream rain forest where your goods come from. We’re an ecological system. If you undermine community defenses, you’re undermining the whole ecology. And doing that for the benefit of your customers at the expense of your suppliers is not a good way to stay in business.

So that’s the fundamental discussion about the problem created by such deals.


  


The Be Very Afraid Tour and a Word About that Patent Study | 504 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections
Authored by: chaz_paw on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 11:43 AM EDT
Corrections, if any, here, please.

---
Proud Linux user since 07/26/04
Registered Linux user #422376

Charles

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: MDT on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 11:45 AM EDT
Clickies if you have them

---
MDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Be Very Afraid Tour and a Word About that Patent Study
Authored by: Toon Moene on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 11:51 AM EDT
If you can call it an offer. "Nice restaurant you've got here. It'd be a shame if anything happened to it."
I'm sorry, but I'm still more impressed by the following:

Dino: How many tanks you got, Colonel?

Colonel: About 500 altogether.

Luigi: 500! Hey!

Dino: You ought to be careful, co1onel.

Colonel: We are careful, extremely careful.

Dino: 'Cos things break, don't they?

Colonel: Break?

Luigi: Well everything breaks, don't it colonel. (he breaks something on desk) Oh dear.

...

---
Toon Moene (A GNU Fortran maintainer and physicist at large)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Protection Racket - Surly Not
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 11:55 AM EDT
Wikipedia Quote: A protection racket is an extortion scheme whereby a powerful
organization, most often a criminal organization or gang coerces individuals,
other criminals or businesses to pay protection money which allegedly serves to
purchase the organization's "protection" services against various
external threats.

Hmmm no legitimate company would stoop that low?...
... oh... wait...

---
Linus: "The bulk of all patents are crap...
Spending time reading them is stupid...
It's up to the patent owner to do so, and to enforce them."
:p

[ Reply to This | # ]

Irony and another SCO lawsuit?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 12:01 PM EDT
Those few that purchased an SCOsource license, should be pushing SCO to sue
Microsoft, saying it is damaging to "their IP" in Linux.

How's that for Irony?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell indemnifies its customers too
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 12:01 PM EDT
lest everyone forget,

Novell indemnifies its customers also,

in fact, they were the first,
Red Hat is just playing copy-cat.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Analyst: Forced Alliances Are Microsoft's Goal
Authored by: Tweeker on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 12:08 PM EDT
If Microsoft isnt willing to sue (and has now even said as much), how can it force "alliances" and licensing from anyone willing to call its blatant bluff?

Sun Responds to Microsoft's Patent Claims

[ Reply to This | # ]

Danger Will Robinson danger!! This could be an ambush!!
Authored by: magikfingerz on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 12:25 PM EDT
Excuse me if I sound so negative but, since I read This Article describing how Novell's Engineers have access to Microsoft's Code, I'm continuously thinking: What if MS is trying to somebody "accidentally" introduce some of his "protected code" to Linux kernel?... or at least to some key apps what Novell maintains (remember OpenOffice? Novell is one of the maintainers) letting Engineers to see their code. They alleged that is part of the arrangement between Novell and MS but, if this happens... What we will do when the agreement ends? MS will sue for sure if any of this Engineers adds at least a bit of this code protected by Microsoft to some of the apps. Of course if this happens we will know who and when do this and we will remove the code almost immediately, but in the meantime nobody will save us from Microsoft's wrath and FUD will rise the sky... :( PD. Sorry about my English... I speak Spanish :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Annual be Afraid Tour? How about waivers?
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 12:30 PM EDT
A recent article raised the question of waivers when you know about infringements and don't sue. With an annual be afraid tour, don't we have a pattern that would justify waiver? The thought of a mega corporation like Microsoft investing millions in a patent portfolio just to make it go poof into a puff of smoke makes my head go dizzy. IANAL, and I have more question than answers here.

Q1: What does it take to make the waiver incontrovertible and legally indisputable?

I think Microsoft will dispute the waiver and makes all sorts of excuse to keep the FUD going. But if we dig out case law and document that Microsoft actions meet the standard for the waiver ...

Q2: Did Microsoft actions meet the standard for waiver?

We have a quote database, why not fill it? Perhaps we should go year by year document the annual be afraid tour, what what said and what the response was. We have, OIN. We have the GPL2 and GPL3. Why not have a track record for a waiver defense as well?

Q3: Doesn't a corporation has an obligation to watch the competition and protect its flagship products?

When the bulk of your revenues come from a few products, you have an obligation to know who your main competition is, isn't it? You are required as part of your responsibilities to shareholders to see what they are doing and find out about patent infringement, isn't it? If after finding out you don't do anything, this should be a waiver, isn't it?

Q4: Is mutual assured destruction a waiver or in the alternative promissory estoppel?

We all know large software patents portfolio are not used for suing. They are used to countersue in case someone is mad enough to sue. But if the entire industry doesn't sue for years because of MAD, doesn't this become an implicit covenant that can be used in court?

Q5: Is all the above like waving a red flag in front of a raging bull?

This amounts to tell Microsoft that if they don't sue fast enough, their entire patent portfolio will go poof in a puff of smoke. What do you expect them to do? But if on the other hand they still don't sue after being waved the red flag ...

Q6: If businesses have the choice between mutual assured destruction and waving their patent portfolio, what is the point of software patents?

Patent as supposed to promote useful art and science don't they? If they can't be enforced without destroying their owners, what good are they for?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court validated?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 12:43 PM EDT
Not to be a troll, but it seems to me that a lot of the crowing in this article
hinges on the phrase "court validated".

What does it take to get a patent "court validated"? Survive a
challenge to the patent itself? Something else? If it has to be challenged in
court, I would think the vast majority of patents would not fall under that
label.

And court validated or not, a patent lawsuit is not something an individual
developer can withstand on his own. Unless, perhaps, it's Linus. And even
then...

I would like to know: Are there any legal defense organizations that would
support patent infringement cases against open source developers? A weak
defense might very well set precedents we would rather not see, so best we take
care and make a strong one, come the day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Eben Moglen proves Novells plan is working
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 12:49 PM EDT
Eben Moglen in his statements above really proves
that Novell's plan is working.

why do I say that? because the whole idea was to get Microsoft to push it too
far, and get all those banks, other major corporations to push back, and force
Microsoft into the position it now finds itself.

it's the perfect plan.
If Microsoft proceeds to sue anyone or make threats (now that they've stated
they won't) they look like idiots and lose credibility and they lose

if Microsoft gives in and does nothing, they lose again.

There's no way out.

And the best part is, Novell laughs all the way to the bank with the hundreds of
millions they've taken from Microsoft.

And in the end opensource, the GPL, and we all win.

Novell are crafty little devils.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • MS - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 12:59 PM EDT
    • MS - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 01:13 PM EDT
    • MS - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 07:53 AM EDT
  • Eben Moglen proves Novells plan is working - Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 01:32 PM EDT
But were Microsoft using the earlier study?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 12:53 PM EDT
The Fortune article is quite specific that they are talking about patents owned by Microsoft, rather than just about patents that Linux may violate:

"The Redmond behemoth asserts that one reason free software is of such high quality is that it violates more than 200 of Microsoft's patents."

So there are several options here:

  • Microsoft has done its own new study that found more patents that the previous one (plausible, patents are couched in such broad generalities that it must be hard to match their claims against actual code).
  • The earlier study only looked at the Linux kernel, while this new data from Microsoft looks at a much broader amount of FOSS (Doesn't quite match. The Fortune article says 42 patents against the kernel, while the old one says Microsoft owns about 10% of the patents in their count).
  • Fortune mis-reported the statements as claiming ownership of these patents, when the actual weasel words used were quite ambiguous.
  • [ Reply to This | # ]

    thanks pj, hadn't caught that yet. gotta love Eben
    Authored by: warner on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 01:03 PM EDT
    n/t

    ---
    free software, for free minds and a free world.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Be Very Afraid Tour and a Word About that Patent Study
    Authored by: mks on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 01:08 PM EDT
    I was reading up on some of the public statements from Microsoft about the patents that it claims Linux infringes on and this one struck me as almost an exact copy of the SCO quote about copying of code:
    Microsoft is now making claims based on its own evidence, though it will not specify exactly what patents are infringed. "This is not a case of some accidental, unknowing infringement," Microsoft vice president for intellectual property and licensing Horacio Gutierrez told Fortune. "There is an overwhelming number of patents being infringed."
    I seem to remember SCO saying similar things about it being more than just coincidental copying and how it was an overwhelming number of lines of code. (I don't have the quote at hand, but it really sounds so familiar that I wonder if it was written by the same person - you know, in a talking points type of paper...)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Lessons from RIM, risks
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 01:12 PM EDT
    RIM's blackberry network was almost shut down over a patent. This seems to say
    that no matter who you are or who depends on you (US govt) that patent problems
    at a supplier can be problems for a customer.

    Time to reread the Microsoft EULA. Then look at the fact that Microsoft has
    settled a number of lawsuits over patents and copyrights. There is a definite
    danger in closed source code. Someday the provider may just not be able to
    protect their customers.

    In the old days once you had the OS you were free. Beware the software as
    services model being pushed by Microsoft (monthly license checks etc). These are
    making a central off switch that could be applied under court order (also by
    accident or maliciously).

    It seems to me freely auditable code is a requirement for critical systems. The
    old mantra was to second source critical elements of systems. Barring that an
    open system seems the next best option.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Are End Users Really In Danger?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 01:25 PM EDT
    Is there a case, anywhere, of a patent holder sucessfully suing end users for
    patent infringment? I can see someone suing Linux distribution makers, but I
    just can't see where receiving and using Linux makes the end user liable for
    anything.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    What happens if...
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 01:43 PM EDT
    Suppose I get a copy of Suse that can be directly traced back to Microsoft (such
    as buying a Dell computer with it).
    I then proceed to "infect" source repositories with it (such as by
    commiting Suse's source code followed by a diff of what has changed since the
    version Suse uses).

    As far as I can see, this could:

    - Force Microsoft no not enforce patents on the "infected" projects
    because of the implicit patent grant of GPL2.

    - Put Suse upstream in the source code distribution, so any attack to force a
    party to not use/distribute said projects would also force Suse to cease it's
    own distribution.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Open Invention Network and the larger software community
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 01:51 PM EDT
    One trouble I see with OIN is that it only protects programs specifically named
    on their list of software in what they call the "Linux system". I
    work on free software that is not on their list, even though it is official GNU
    software, and so I don't feel so reassured by their presence. I don't see how
    one can apply to have software added to the "Linux system" list; I did
    send an email inquiring about this to their contact address, but so far there's
    been no response.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Untested Patents and GPL FUD
    Authored by: Simon G Best on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 02:26 PM EDT

    I like the emphasis on lack of court-validated patents :-)

    It reminds me of that old FUD propaganda about the GPL having not being tested in court. From what I remember, the main problems with that propaganda were:-

    • It confused copyrights with copyright licences, as if an invalid licence would mean an invalid copyright.
    • Most copyright licences never get as far as being tested in court, and most never need to. The copyrights are usually valid anyway, and that's usually what counts.

    In contrast, as you say, about half of patents tested in court turned out to be invalid, before KSR. And now, in light of KSR, it looks like it's going to be even worse (from those patent holders' perspectives). It's significantly and fundamentally different from that FUD about GPL validation.

    I'm hoping that PHBs, and the like, who tend to be susceptible to such stuff as the old GPL FUD, will pay attention to this superficially similar-sounding - but substantially different - stuff about patent validation. What I'm hoping is that they'll actually stop and think about this stuff, about what's being said by Microsoft, et al, and their opponents. It also nicely re-emphasizes the "put up or shut up" message to Microsoft that keeps getting voiced.

    There's also a delicious hint of "by their rod shall they be measured" :-)

    ---
    "Public relations" is a public relations term for propaganda.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Be Very Afraid Tour and a Word About that Patent Study
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 02:42 PM EDT
    "Only 10% belonged to Microsoft, and they just told us they're not
    litigating."

    Microsoft lies.

    Period.

    Microsoft sells lies, not software.

    So NOTHING - I repeat, NOTHING - they say is to be believed until proven true by
    events or third parties (who aren't being paid by Microsoft.)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    How could anyone check MS code?
    Authored by: IMANAL on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 02:51 PM EDT
    How could anyone check MS' code if they have violated
    someone elses patent?

    I guess the leaked NT code would not be permissible in
    court.

    -

    ---
    --------------------------
    IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Be Very Afraid Tour and a Word About that Patent Study
    Authored by: John Hasler on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 03:03 PM EDT
    > Nearly half of all patents that were brought to trial under
    > the old patent system's definition of obviousness were
    > thrown out.

    That doesn't mean much. Clearly valid patents are less likely to end up in
    court.

    ---
    IOANAL. Licensed under the GNU General Public License

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Be Very Afraid Tour and a Word About that Patent Study
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 03:41 PM EDT
    Linux is not the cleanest code on the planet. That distinction falls only to
    OpenBSD. Linux is allowing itself to slowly be commercialized, while the OpenBSD
    crown refuses on grounds of pure freedom. Yes, the BSD license is not as
    "good" as the GPL for freedom on down the road, but look to BSD for
    "clean" code.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    IS NOT
    Authored by: mram on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 04:58 PM EDT
    "What, you think Microsoft's patent on IS NOT is not obvious?"

    Well, that one could patent IS NOT is definitely not obvious :)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Alphonse Capone would be proud
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 05:07 PM EDT

    of modern business in the IT industry.

    'Dey can do dat & de law let em'

    So 1st we had SCOgie, a lieutenant, who failed miserably. Now Stevie Capone (a
    relative of big Al), has to step in and try to do the job properly.

    "You wanna trouble, you gunna get it, we got de law to help us, but you buy
    our protection, you gunna be ok. Capice?".

    DSM

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Be Very Afraid Tour and a Word About that Patent Study
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 05:10 PM EDT
    Microsoft is using P.T. Barnums adage" You can fool all of the people some
    of the time and some of the people all of the time but not all of the people all
    of the time." And they are using this as a intimidation tactic. Plain and
    simple. Unfortunately there are a lot that fall into the second category and not
    enough in the third category which is what Microsoft is counting on.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Be Very Afraid Tour and a Word About that Patent Study
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 05:26 PM EDT
    Microsoft is in deep doo-doo with Vista. Despite BG's bravado and - ahem - sales
    figures, it is crashing. The SP1 may do something for it but I see that as
    needing a complete re-write, not so much a service pack as a new OS.

    Where do they go next? They are stuffed.

    They could use thousands of engineers to produce another, late, bad OS. There is
    an alternative. I am thinking that a light is starting to glow dimly over a few
    heads at HQ. It would take less engineers, less time and produce a better
    product if they produced a Microsoft Linux.

    Now you have done going ewwwwww, think about it. It does make sense for
    Microsoft to do that. If they are going to do that then what should they do
    about the patents - nothing. They may need to learn to play nicely after all. It
    could be essential to survival.

    Tufty

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Eben and The Be Very Afraid Tour
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 06:19 PM EDT
    "The primary enforcement gravity of the GPL is everyone's understanding
    that anti-community behavior is bad for business."
    - Eben Moglen, November 2005

    IOW "Nice restaurant you've got here. It'd be a shame if anything happened
    to it."

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Pardon my confusion
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 06:34 PM EDT
    If MS can export compiled code to be installed by manufacturers in foreign
    countries where patents don't apply due to some assumption that that code
    doesn't embody the practice of the patent, it is inconceivable to me how the
    distribution of source code to anywhere whatsoever could be construed to embody
    the practice of a patent.

    So how could MS sue developers or for that matter, any subset of the FLOSS
    community other than distributors?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Absurd idea!
    Authored by: Fredric on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 07:02 PM EDT
    Now if I understand Mr. Eben Moglen correctly he claim that MS got into the Novell deal to make it possible for large and powerful corporations to buy and use Linux and still feel safe from The Patent Threat.

    The idea is that these large corporations will then sit in the stands and cheer while Microsoft hunt Linux developers.

    I find this idea a little absurd. Maybe I did not get that right but wouldn't it be like telling a farmer that "we will shoot your cattle but don't worry, we would never harm you or your family".

    Those banks and Fortune 500 companies will probably want to continue to enjoy the fruits of FOSS in the future and without Linux developers that may not be. Maybe MS expect the large corporations to reason that "with the current developers gone we can just commercialize Linux and drive on". We all know that's just a dream (or rather, nightmare) and I am pretty sure that the guys making decisions in a Fortune 500 company will also have the brains to figure this out.

    Then again, maybe I got the whole thing wrong.

    ---
    /Fredric Fredricson
    --------
    -- Heisenberg was maybe here

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Be Very Afraid Tour and a Word About FUD
    Authored by: webster on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 07:31 PM EDT
    ..
    FUD works. A lot of people aren't going to buy Linux this week. It isn't safe.
    Many don't know if they would pay or fight, but they don't want to be the one
    that gets sued. Best to let this thing blow over. It must be pretty bad. Look
    at all the hysterical articles. Even the Supreme Court is dragged into it.

    The SCO FUD no longer does the job. Monopoly FUD is awesome. They have
    billions to play around with. They can sue, lobby for laws, manipulate
    campaigns. Maintaining Monopoly share is sacrosanct, like self-defense. All's
    fair. By definition a Monopoly has no significant competitors. So destruction
    is necessary and fair game. Pay or perish.

    ---
    webster

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Be Very Afraid Tour and a Word About that Patent Study
    Authored by: pajamian on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 07:48 PM EDT

    Well, they are likely getting thier Linux support either from IBM (considering that the other platform they are switching to is AIX, this would make sense) or HP (because the Linux servers they are getting are HP servers).

    IBM to my understanding supports both Red Hat Enterprise Linux and SUSE Enterprise Linux. I think they also support YellowDog Linux on their PowerPC platforms. I think they also support Oracle.

    HP Lists the distros they support on this page as Debian, Mandriva, SUSE, Oracle, Red Hat and Red Flag.

    I think we can eliminate YellowDog, Mandriva and Red Flag as possibilities, so that leaves Debian, SUSE, Oracle or Red Hat. I think it's likely to be one of the latter three of those.

    ---
    Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack perspective.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Software patents compared to the real world
    Authored by: schaste on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 08:28 PM EDT
    I was just reading an article in a fine art photography magazine called View
    Camera, when a line from the article made me think of the issue of software
    patents. I've been trying to get my head around the idea of how anyone thinks
    they could patent an idea, and then this line hit me (paraphrased so there's
    hopefully no copyright issue): The author was discussing his view of creating a
    picture versus producing a record of the scene. Human beings can only see a
    limited range of light. In a photo of the interior of an old church lit only by
    daylight, unless there is some additional lighting, the only way to see the
    detail in the shadows would be to _walk into the shadowed area_.

    This struck me as a forehead-slapping, "of course, it's obvious!"
    moment. Without some extra light, one can't produce a photo with more tonal
    range than the human eye sees without changing position to be within the shadow
    itself. So a device, the flash, might be patented to resolve the problem of lack
    of light. But no-one could patent the _idea_ of moving from one place to another
    in order to get better light; they'd be laughed out of the patent office, I
    hope. So, how could a programming concept (e.g. clicking on a button to open a
    menu with some contextual items listed in it) be patentable either? Maybe the
    mouse button itself, but not what you _do_ with it!

    To paraphrase the Australian patent officer to a young Albert Einstein
    ("Who is this barbarian?" "I'm a Tasmanian.") when the young
    scientist tries to patent E=MC^2, "A patent must be accompanied by a
    working invention! You can't patent an idea!"

    OK, that's enough coffee for me. Obviously my brain is starting to backfire. But
    if anyone else sees what I'm trying to say here, that the comparison of software
    patents to a patenting an idea in the real-world shows that patenting software
    is ridiculous, then I've hopefully made my point. Whatever it is.

    Steve S

    ---
    - Still working on a signature...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Be Very Afraid Tour and a Word About that Patent Study
    Authored by: mashmorgan on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 08:30 PM EDT
    Ahh another interesting patent, only issued in January.. amazing

    ## Client side, web-based spreadsheet ##

    Look out google
    http://www.google.com/patents?id=PIF4AAAAEBAJ&dq=smarty

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    NPR Interviews Roger Parloff of Fortune
    Authored by: fenris on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 11:07 PM EDT
    This afternoon, NPR's "All Things Considered" in a segment entitled
    "Microsoft Royalty Claims Help Fuel Patent Backlog"
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyid=10239441 interviewed Rodger
    Parloff basicly presenting a rather FUD-ified version of Microsoft's current
    breastbeating. No open source view was offered, and a statement that blatently
    ignored patent holders such as the OIN was allowed to stand. Sigh, I tend to
    expect better out of NPR.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The title of this chapter in PJ's upcoming book....
    Authored by: SirHumphrey on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 02:18 AM EDT
    Silence of the SCAMS.

    Where M$ refuses to be specific about the patent "violations"

    Where tSCOg refuses to be specifically specific, with specified specificity,
    about the "millions of infringing lines of code"

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    A bit of crystal ball gazing
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 02:34 AM EDT
    A What if poser.

    Suppose that Microsoft 'allows' Novell to contaminate the Linux Base code with
    some patented method (assuming that these hold up in court etc etc) and starts
    legal action against every distributor and user of Linux with that offending
    code
    AND
    the rest of the world shuns Software Patents.

    Could it be possible that the USA becomes a virtual Microsoft only zone while
    the rest of the world reject Microsoft products completely.

    Could the US become a technological backwater as many major IT companies leave
    the US to Microsoft and its ever diminishing circle of friends. Remember that
    even 10 years ago, the US was the biggest market for IT Product. This is no
    longer the case. The EU and increasingly Asia present bigger markets to
    companies that the fairly stagnant US Market.
    I think that the stranglehold that companies like Microsoft have on computing
    (at least as far as most Joe Public is concerned) is stifling innovation and
    progress.


    How did these thoughts come about?
    The USA has a record of protectionism that is virtually unrivalled elsewhere. In
    times like this the US (as seen by the rest of the world) does the Wagon Train
    act or circling the wagons and repelling all threats. As an American who has
    lived and travelled outside the US for the past 30 years most of my fellow
    citizens really have no idea about how the USA is perceived beyond the 50 states
    although the debacle in Iraq is starting to make the current generation at least
    a bit aware of what the World thinks of Bush etc. At times I don't let on that
    I'm American (I hold dual US/German citizenship) as frankly, I'm embarrased by
    my country.

    As I say, just a bit of crystal ball gazing. Ja!

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    42 Could be an Extrapolation from Ravicher.
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 03:32 AM EDT
    If we take the estimate of 27 Microsoft patents from Ravicher's study and Microsoft's current claim of 42, that is a difference of 15. This is an increase of 55% ((42 - 27) / 27). I believe that Ravicher did his study in 2004, which would be about 3 or more years ago (depending upon how long the study took). I don't know the kernel size that Ravicher examined, and I don't know exactly which version Microsoft is talking about now, but assuming 55% increase in code size in that time is not unreasonable. It is also not too far from the actual kernel increase over the last three years (keep in mind that this includes the transition from 2.4 to 2.6).

    This means that Microsoft's claim of "42" could just be a linear projection of Ravicher's estimates based on the increase in code size since then. Their other numbers for GUIs, e-mail, etc. could be also just be an extrapolation based on code size of a selection of those projects as compared to the kernel.

    When looked at in this way, I'm not prepared to accept without evidence that Microsoft has done any genuine research at all on this subject. These could just be quick back-of-the-envelope estimates to give to the press and there really is no "list" for Microsoft to show anyone. There could be a lot less to this issue than there appears to be at first glance.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    UserFriendly's heard about this patent business before:
    Authored by: fudisbad on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 04:12 AM EDT
    Keyboard warning

    ---
    "SCO’s failure to provide code for the methods and concepts it claims were misappropriated is [...] a violation of this court’s orders." - Judge Brooke Wells

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Just a thought on the MSFT NOVL deal
    Authored by: AndyC on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 04:25 AM EDT
    First off, I'm a Brit, and an engineer/physicist to boot, so legal wheeling and
    dealing is completely alien to me (thank goodness!).

    I was reading something on the web (I've slept since then, so I can't remember
    where it was) concerning the Microsoft/Novell deal and I was wondering whether
    Novell have been really crafty. IF MS sell vouchers for SLES, don' they, by
    default, become a distributor of GPL software? Therefore, if I'm right (and I
    doubt it) won't the copyright holders or original writers (say, Red Hat or FSF)
    be able to withdraw their permission for MS to distribute said code?

    If MS then continue, wouldn't they be liable to be sued by those copyright
    holders?

    Maybe this was the plan all along and it wasn't about patents after all?

    AndyC

    P.S. I have got SuSe9.2 installed on a partition at home. I haven't touched it
    since the deal was announced.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Truth In Advertising???
    Authored by: KC on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 07:22 AM EDT
    I have mostly lurked Groklaw for "Lo, these many years," and being an
    "old guy" I have memories of the computer world older than some of
    you. I've used computers, and written code, but not they are merely a tool to
    get my job done.

    I'll not go into the issue of patents being granted for absurd applications -
    that is nothing new, though it appears to be getting worse. And
    "software" patents seem a perversion to me of the whole patent process
    - a patent for an idea that cannot be realized without some external (and
    undefined) instrumentality to actually cause something to happen!

    However,

    While IANAL, I do recall that there is a Federal statutory requirement about
    having proof for all the claims being made in advertising a product. Since SCO,
    and MS (and others) make these sorts of claims to cause users to think they need
    to buy a "license" - this seems to be, by the definition of the
    statute (as I recall it), ADVERTISING. And since they make these announcements
    to national, and international audiences of 'press' representatives - this
    should fall under the Federal Statutes. As I recall the statutes require that
    one have, and reveal, complete documentation to prove the claims made in
    advertising. This could force the company to reveal precisely what they think
    they have in the way of patents or IP that they believe is being infringed.

    Are there any lawyers out there who can speak to this?

    How does one go about getting a Truth In Advertising investigation started?

    ---
    KC

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Bug in Eben Moglen's Reasoning
    Authored by: Morosoph on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 08:05 AM EDT
    This doesn't affect the thrust of his reasoning, but there is a bug in Eben's reasoning in one important respect:

    How traders in a competitive market rate a stock isn't based upon their own interests as customers, but rather their interests as shareholders. In fact, the opposite is likely to hold, as ownership of a stock is a reasonable partial hedge against being ripped off.

    The reason why this doesn't matter so much is that whilst the banks might bid up the stock (as it now has some additional value as a hedge), they will vote for their larger interests when it come to shareholder meetings.

    Thus, although referring to those who "determine the value of their stocks" is misleading the audience, the simple fact that the banks have voting shares is extremely relevant.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    extort money and patents - The Be Very Afraid Tour and a Word About that Patent Study
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 08:34 AM EDT
    "Microsoft has already begun collecting payments and gaining access to the patent portfolios of companies that use the open-source Linux operating system in their products. The list includes Novell (NOVL), Fuji Xerox, and Samsung Electronics. "

    From the Business week article by Joseph La Sala

    It is one thing to extort money. It's something else again to extort patents! Somehow this bothers me more than the money does.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    A Fresh Conspiracy Theory.
    Authored by: Toon Moene on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 09:16 AM EDT
    Several "traditional" news media, among which the Washington Post, report the following:

    To some observers, Microsoft Corp. seemed to have an odd sense of timing when it complained recently that open source projects have allegedly violated 235 of its patents.

    At the same time, Microsoft's Washington, D.C., staff is pushing for a patent overhaul bill that would make it tougher for patent holders to sue and collect large damage awards against infringers.

    That patent reform bill came up for debate Wednesday, just days after Fortune published a story in which Microsoft officials claimed widespread violation of its patents in open source software.

    Make of it what you want ...

    ---
    Toon Moene (A GNU Fortran maintainer and physicist at large)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    What if someone makes a "request for disclosure"
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 09:24 AM EDT
    P.J. Please analyze this question: What if someone like RH before making a new version of their Linux distro, wrote MS and made an official "request for disclosure" under United States Code/Title 35/Chapter 29/Section 287?

    What would MS do? They don't want to disclose what patents they think apply, but if they don't disclose would the freesoftware company have some protection? What if everyone involved in Linux began making such requests?

    What would be the consequences for the Free software community?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    BBC and the new media world
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 09:41 AM EDT
    By chance I caught a part of 'Feedback' on Radio 4 just now in the car (Program
    for people to praise/complain/ask questions) and a question asked was what was
    happening about the media player being developed. That was not actually directly
    answered but the brief segment highlighted two things.

    One the media player is not the only internet development activity going on
    within the BBC.

    Two at least some senior people do grok the fact the world has changed unlike
    the MPAA, RIAA and others and are actually keen on the possibilities it creates.


    They actually ended up talking about ability to tag comments to programs
    available for replay on the website, which was using wiki technology, and
    sounded potentially rather interesting. In the example given a presenter had
    mentioned some terms program length presumeably did not allow him to detail and
    someone had added a tag explaining them briefly and giving a book title for
    reference. Wikipedia and the dynamic around it was explicity mentioned and the
    person was clear he saw a big role for enabling people to add to content freely
    on the BBC site in a similar, in principle, fashion that enriched the experience
    for everyone. That sounds useful and enriching use to me.

    So when a reporter makes a dumb statement on the BBC remember he/she is a
    reporter with their own knowledge set and bias and not necessarily reflecting
    what the BBC is actually doing internally and developing for web use. Mind you
    recent reporting I'm aware of seems to have been largely pretty sound.

    Richard.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Nominations for the YouTube video thread
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 10:57 AM EDT

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    How and why the patent system should be reformed.
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 12:06 PM EDT
    The fact of the matter is that the patent office is rubber stamping patents
    without properly examining them and without properly examining obviousness or
    prior art. The result is a chilling effect on innovation and business and
    commerce, contrary to the puropse of the patents system.

    There is no God given right to own ideas. In Nature as God intended ideas are
    free and uncontrolled. Patents are an artificial creation of man which is
    intended to further technological innovation by granting someone with a new idea
    a monopoly on it's exploitation for a limited period to allow him/her to go
    public with it and seek and recover funds for research and development and
    marketing the product before others enter the market. Ideas cannot be owned -
    patents are just a time limited monopoly for the R&D phase. If patents are
    granted for trivial, obvious, or non-novel ideas, then patent law has the
    opposite effect of that intended - stifling innovation, stifling R&D
    expenditure, and stifling free competition.

    What is required to correct the patent mess is the following:

    1) Simple and objective rules that can allow a quick and definitive
    determination as to patentability. Ie. until and unless you can define in law
    exactly what is patentable and what is not, simply and unambigiously, then
    exclude it from patentability, since if you don't, the patent office will grant
    loads of bogus patents which do more harm than good.

    2) Patent protection should be limited to an appropriate timeframe - for the
    time required for R&D and to bring it to the market. 20 years is too long
    for software since the useful life of inventions is about 6 or 9 years max, and
    the intention of patent law to grant a monopoly for the R&D phase of an
    invention, not for it's entire useful life. Patent protection for 2 to 3 (approx
    one third of the useful life) should therefore be all that is granted for
    software if software is to be patentable.

    3) Scientific principles or mathematical principles/techniques, pre-existing DNA
    structures etc. should not be patentable no matter how they are dressed up -
    these are discoveries of what is existing already - there is nothing inventive
    here, and being granted a monopoly on the laws of nature or something you didn't
    invent would be damaging to progress, innovation, and business in general.

    4) Standards, and specifications for protocols, file formats, methods of
    encoding and enumerating data etc. should not be patentable. Patenting standards
    is contrary to both the reason for having standards and the reason for having
    patents, since patented standards would force people to use a single standard
    for which the state grants a monopoly. Because it is a standard all vendors are
    expected to be able to use it on an equal basis. Because it is protected by
    patents, other vendors are supposed to invent alternatives rather than
    implementing what is specified in the standard. Patented standards are an
    oxymoron.

    5) Software should be patentable only in as much as the physical effects of the
    code are patentable on their own. For example if a mouse trap uses a spring and
    a trigger is patentable, then the idea of an electronic sensor and software
    controlled actuator doing something similar should be patentable. It is the
    physical behaviour initiated by the software that should be patentable, not the
    code or algorithms used in the code. This was the way that patent law was
    intended to function originally. The reason for this is:

    a) Software is abstract and apart from open source software, code is secret.
    Hence it is not possible to search for prior art. It is stupid to allow
    patentability of something where it is not possible to search for most of the
    prior art.
    Note:
    i) it is not easy to determine the ideas thay may be present in software by
    looking at the code or by looking at the software's effects (except for the
    physical effects) - a considerable amount of effort decoding/reverse engineering
    of what the code does and how it does it, is required to find prior art. The
    patent office and nobody else for that matter has the resources to trawl through
    anything like a reasonable amount of prior code to find prior art.
    ii) In addition most code is closed source and therefore is unavailable for
    checking prior art.

    b) Software like writing is a creative art not an inventive one. Both use a
    basic language in different combinations to achieve something new. Patenting
    code is no different to patenting writing. You can't patent the syntax, since
    these are common to everyone. You can't patent the algorithms because they are
    basic mathematical principles. You can't patent the ideas behind software or
    writing any more than you can patent different patterns of laying bricks to
    build walls - they are a creative not an inventive expression, and using them in
    different ways and combinations is explicitly how languages or bricks were
    intended to be used. There is nothing novel about that.

    c) Patent protection is not necessary for software, or writing, since they are
    protected by copyright. Patent protection is crude in that it grants an
    artificial monopoly, and it's effects may be more harmful to society than good.
    Therefore wherever copyright protection is possible, this and not patents should
    be used for IP protection. Other forms of protection also available are trade
    marks, and design copyrights. Patent protection is a last resort that should
    only be applied to physical embodiments which have no other form of protection.

    d) In software, thinking up ideas are cheap, and requires little effort. On the
    other hand developing an idea into working software and marketing it is
    expensive and difficult. Patenting software therefore protects those that don't
    put in any effort, and allows them to extort from those who do - ie thise who
    develop (ie. coding) and market software. When applied to software patents have
    the opposite effect intended - they stifle innovation and encourage freeloading
    off those who invest money and effort to provide a useful product. Copyright on
    the other hand does protect and reward those who put in investment and effort.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Be Very Afraid Tour and a Word About that Patent Study
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 12:53 PM EDT
    The Fear Factor works both ways. A few year back (before I retired) one of our
    young engineers traveled to Redmond to get a driver bug fixed (DOD shipboard
    application). Once he found the right guy, the Off-by-One error was quicked
    patched.

    Being observant, he noticed that the system prompt on the development lab's
    server looked off for a M$ shop. It was Linux. When he asked about it, he was
    told that they use Linux because they don't want to lose their work in a system
    crash (Linux doesn't crash).

    I doubt that has changed. If M$ pushs too hard, somebody might just do
    Discovery about how many Linux system M$ is using and get a C&D order if GPL
    violatons can be proved. GPL extends not only the right to Distribute, but also
    the right to USE.

    GPL is your only right to use copyrighted code. Violate GPL and you are legally
    barred from using GPLed products. If M$ loses that right, the Howl will be
    heard around the world.

    EK, a recovering Workaholic.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Reminds me of the Second World War
    Authored by: darkonc on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 06:09 PM EDT
    At the end of the First World War, things were set up to discourage another war from starting. Among other things, most of the countries around Germany were set up with a good defensive system and a series of mutual defense pacts (If someone declares war against you, we'll consider it a war against us).

    (( We should point out here, that it came out in the Justice Department against Microsoft that they think very much in warfare terms when dealing with their competition, so this analogy is rather apt. ))

    What Germany did is they isolated the various members of the european community and went after them one at a time -- sometimes arranging non-aggression treaties with other related parties so that they didn't get anxious until it was too late (The Soviet Union being the most famous of those). Of the countries that Hitler "Made peace" with, I think that only Japan wasn't attacked. Even their staunchest ally, Italy, ended up under German control by the end of the war.

    By the time that the overreaching nature of Hitler's ambition was impossible to deny, Nazi Germany controlled most of Europe and was poised to squash much of what was left

    Once again: peace treaties didn't do Germany's neighbors much good -- it simply allowed Hitler to safely express aggression in other directions until he was ready to squash his erstwhile ally.

    I think that anybody considering an alliance with Microsoft should consider themselves about as safe as 1938 France.

    ---
    Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life..

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Be Very Afraid Tour and a Word About that Patent Study
    Authored by: Alan(UK) on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 07:14 PM EDT
    It seems that nowadays we get evidence daily that Microsoft is yesterday's
    company. This patent rant (and I would rate it no higher) is typical - the
    company cannot even tell a consistent story - if I was a shareholder, I would be
    asking, 'Where is the business plan in all this?'

    The Vista launch has been a fiasco, the media that rushed to publish the
    Microsoft hype, has been quick to publish articles rubbishing the product once
    they saw which way the wind was blowing.

    Microsoft has relied on lies and bullying tactics to maintain its monopoly. This
    is now wearing thin; people are beginning to see through it and some (like Dell
    - who sorely needs to pull a rabbit out of the hat) are actually calling
    Microsoft's bluff. The ODF/MA business has severely shaken Microsoft - they now
    keep harping on about 'interoperability' (Billy G even mentioned it on UK TV),
    but eveyone who is actually concerned about it (and you have to be a *X user to
    be concerned) knows that all the incompatibility lies on the Microsoft side of
    the fence.

    So where do things stand today?

    Microsoft has a problem with their end users. They do not want Vista 'upgrades'
    on existing machines and they do not want Vista at all until the problems are
    sorted out. Office 2000 worked fine and everyone could read everyone elses
    files, the users do not even know what the 'interoperability' problem is - let
    alone how MSOOXML is going to solve it.

    Microsoft still has the PC industry by the short hairs. Dell is going to offer
    XP for the moment but as this will be on machines that are already obsolete,
    Microsoft is not too bothered - it is still a Windows sale and if it locks in
    one more customer...

    Microsoft still has one big advantage when it comes to Linux on the desktop -
    the big PC firms have no idea about how to run a Linux business.

    The area where, in my opinion, Microsoft is having an increasing influence is
    among hardware manufacturers. The original IBM PC was a very general-purpose
    machine. The modern PC is very much a Windows machine. A retail DVD drive
    will come with Windows software - Linux is not an option. Most Linux
    installations have to be made on machines which are not really suitable for it.

    So, where do things go from here?

    Vista will get patched until it is acceptable - by which time PCs will have the
    power to run it. Users will find that Office 2007 XML, Office 2003 XML, and
    Office 2000 documents are not interchangeable between systems. Users will get
    more vociferous in their complaints about Microsoft.

    PC manufacturers will try small scale trials selling Linux boxes - but they will
    be loaded with much proprietary code in the form of drivers, fonts, DVD and
    other media players. This will be at odds with the Linux philosophy,
    particularly of frequent updates. The PC manufacturers will try to sell Linux
    with the Windows business model (or just sell a few unsupported systems for
    hobbyists).

    This all looks a very gloomy outlook for everyone. The problem is that nobody
    will actually be supplying the product that the market needs. Microsoft cannot
    do it, but on the other hand, they will still have such a large market share
    that they will stymie any attempt by others to do it.

    Now proponents of the capitalist system would say that this should not happen -
    someone will always step in to fullfill a market need. (Of course opponents of
    the capitalist sytem would say that proponents of the capitalist system are more
    interested in maintaining the status-quo while cashing-in on their monopoly.)

    Why does someone not do the obvious thing - put together a PC with a completely
    open hardware specification and install Linux on it and market it directly. The
    'someone' needs to be someone who can muster sufficient resources to do the job
    but who would find that serving perhaps one or two percent of the world PC
    market to be adequately rewarding. Above all they should be someone who has no
    existing dependency on Microsoft for their business.

    The basic problem will be to obtain chips with completely open specifications.
    These things can be designed and there are people who will make them. It would
    probably have to be accepted that you will not be able to have a
    top-of-the-range GPU suitable for game playing. The new DTX form-factor is
    claimed to be made with only four layers and leaves off a lot of the legacy
    hardware support - so it should not be too difficult to design and make cheaply.
    The end result should be a small, light, PC with low power consumption, that
    will run circles round a Vista machine with all its cooling fans.

    ---
    Microsoft is nailing up its own coffin from the inside.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    NYSE
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 11:16 AM EDT
    "That might explain the New York Stock Exchange switching to AIX and Linux,
    starting today"

    Well, the NYSE story might surprise outsiders.

    But everybody who tracked RedHat for sometime now, would of course recall that
    NYSE was one of the first RH customers and run pilots for very long time. I
    think since time of RH going to public.

    So it shouldn't be much surprising. NYSE used before mainframes from IBM and
    NonStop systems from HP/Compaq/DEC/Tandem/whatever - they were happy with
    provided service and you might have noticed that the two remained in the deal.

    Or rather it is not revolution - but rather evolution of NYSE back system.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Comments are owned by the individual posters.

    PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )