|
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.
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MDT on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 11:45 AM EDT |
Clickies if you have them
---
MDT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- More Moves to Linuxland - Authored by: MDT on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 11:54 AM EDT
- SCOX stock - Authored by: stephen_A on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 11:58 AM EDT
- Dell interview in the newspicks - Authored by: rocky on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 11:58 AM EDT
- RIAA : Oh Deary My... - Authored by: MDT on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 12:08 PM EDT
- AACS Cracked before it even leaves the gate - Authored by: MDT on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 12:20 PM EDT
- Microsoft to concede 32-bit x86 to GNU/Linux and OSX - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 01:28 PM EDT
- Jonathon's Blog - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 03:28 PM EDT
- MSN dot com jacks IE6 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 03:47 PM EDT
- I found one of them! - Authored by: overshoot on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 04:15 PM EDT
- Response from Beckerman in Lindor Case - Authored by: MDT on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 04:34 PM EDT
- Userfriendly about Microsoft/SCO - Authored by: gjleger on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 07:07 PM EDT
- Off Topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 07:11 PM EDT
- BLT - Basic Linux Training - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 07:25 PM EDT
- joke - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 09:14 PM EDT
- joke - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 04:22 AM EDT
- joke - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 05:02 AM EDT
- joke - Authored by: Toon Moene on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 07:43 AM EDT
- joke - Authored by: jog on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 10:24 AM EDT
- Guys, it was a joke, already...! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 09:11 PM EDT
- Attacks on non-Microsoft/TSCOG sites - Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 10:15 PM EDT
- Microsoft patent attack is a base shakedown - Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 10:45 PM EDT
- Gartner Joins Open Source Squabble; users demand the right to modify and redistribute - Authored by: warner on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 12:54 AM EDT
- From the link - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 08:30 AM EDT
- Patents are granted by society in the interest of society. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 04:08 AM EDT
- The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 05:05 AM EDT
- Open Source Terrorism - Authored by: jplatt39 on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 07:48 AM EDT
- Chair alert: Linux move reaps dividends for stockbroker - Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 09:48 AM EDT
- Poor Document Control - Authored by: MDT on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 10:38 AM EDT
- Firefox leads the way... - Authored by: MDT on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 11:44 AM EDT
- News Picks: Microsoft's Queeg-like obsession with Linux - Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 12:03 PM EDT
- Dell announces the models for Ubuntu - Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 01:24 PM EDT
- Aquantive - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 01:33 PM EDT
- Aquantive - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 01:35 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Danger Will Robinson danger!! This could be an ambush!! - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 12:31 PM EDT
- Danger Will Robinson danger!! This could be an ambush!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 01:26 PM EDT
- I've said this before - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 01:37 PM EDT
- Danger Will Robinson danger!! This could be an ambush!! - Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 02:28 PM EDT
- That's exactly what it is. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 03:42 PM EDT
- Mono - Authored by: filker0 on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 04:43 PM EDT
- Mono - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 04:59 PM EDT
- Samba-like sharing - Authored by: bb5ch39t on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 05:18 PM EDT
- Mono - Authored by: Fractalman on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 11:13 PM EDT
- Mono - Authored by: Darigaaz on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 12:10 AM EDT
- Mono - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 01:35 PM EDT
- Mono is not Covered - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 01:42 AM EDT
- Danger Will Robinson danger!! This could be an ambush!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 08:54 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- The Be Very Afraid Tour and a Word About that Patent Study - Authored by: PM on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 05:40 PM EDT
- The first thing MS should do - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 05:53 PM EDT
- Durr - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 08:17 PM EDT
- Durr - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 08:35 PM EDT
- Durr - Authored by: Wol on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 09:40 AM EDT
- Durr - Authored by: Tufty on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 01:17 AM EDT
- Durr - Authored by: AndyC on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 04:43 AM EDT
- Durr - Authored by: LaurenceTux on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 10:27 AM EDT
- Yes, MS are cornered, but not that way - Authored by: devil's advocate on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 08:47 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 10:57 AM EDT |
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|