|
|
| Microsoft's Ballmer Reportedly Threatens Red Hat - Updated 3Xs |
 |
|
Monday, October 08 2007 @ 08:51 PM EDT
|
Tom Sanders is reporting that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer gave a talk at a company event in the UK last week saying that Red Hat customers need to pay Microsoft for its beloved IP, whatever it may consist of:Users of the Red Hat Linux distribution will have to pay Microsoft for its intellectual property, Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer has cautioned.
"People who use Red Hat, at least with respect to our intellectual property, in a sense have an obligation to compensate us," Ballmer said at a company event discussing online services in the UK last week. A video report of Ballmer's speech was posted online over the weekend.
The link doesn't work for me. Maybe it's been taken down? Anyone of you attend that event? I know. It's a long shot. Or if anyone finds the video, please post the url. [Update: Here's a Microsoft guy, Lars Lindstedt, who heads up the UK Software Economy and Emerging Business program at Microsoft, blogging about the event, the UK Microsoft Startup Accelerator Programme launch event, and he has a link to a video. But .asp format. So I don't know if this is the right video or even the right event. The page indicates Ballmer left to give another speech right after this event. But here's the Q & A with Ballmer.] So, if the report is true, we have an "obligation" to pay. OK. How about this? How about Microsoft has an obligation to reveal its patents or whatever its "intellectual property" is first? How's that? "Intellectual property" doesn't mean anything under the law, unless you specify. So, patents? Copyrights? What? That was SCO's downfall, the refusal or inability to specify.
He reportedly said also that he hopes that when reforming patent law people don't throw out the baby with the bathwater and get rid of software patents altogether. Actually, that sounds like a great idea. Let's do. Update 2: I've heard the tape now. It's true, only it's actually worse. Ballmer threatens to destroy all FOSS with patents, not just Red Hat. Update 3: Oct. 9: BetaNews says Microsoft is "scrambling" to come up with a statement to "explain" Ballmer's comments: But one spokesperson acknowledged late this afternoon that multiple sources have yet to come to an agreement over what the company should say. How about, "woops"?
Here's what Ballmer said:
On the other hand, I'd also tell you the following is true. All... I would love to see all Open Source innovation happen on top of Windows. So we've done a lot to encourage, for example, the team building, PHP, the team building, many of the other Open Source components, I'd love to see those sorts of innovations proceed very successfully on top of Windows.
Because our battle is not sort of business model to business model. Our battle is product to product, Windows versus Linux, Office versus OpenOffice.
The only other thing I would say that is probably germane is, we spend a lot of money, the rest of the commercial industry spends a lot of money on R & D. We've spent a lot of money licensing patents, when people come to us and say, "Hey, this commercial piece of software violates our patent, our intellectual propery, we'll either get a court judgment or we'll pay a big check. And we are going to -- I think it is important that the Open Source products also have an obligation to participate in the same way in the intellectual property regime.
That's why we've done the deal we have with Novell, where not only are we working on technical interoperability between Linux and Windows but we've also made sure that we could provide the appropriate, for the appropriate fee Novell customers also get essentially the right to use our patented intellectual property. And I think it's great the way Novell stepped up to kind of say intellectual property matters. People who use Red hat, at least with respect to *our* intellectual property in a sense have an obligation to eventually compensate us.
There are plenty of other people who may also have intellectual property. And every time an Eolas comes to Microsoft and says, "Pay us," I suspect they also would like to eventually go to the Open Source world. So getting what I call an intellectual property interoperability framework between the two worlds I think is important.
He has just clearly outlined how Microsoft intends to extinguish Linux as we know it. Microsoft knows full well that in any intellectual property regime based on software patents, particularly when used as weapons against innovation to protect and reward the old, no one can compete with Microsoft. They have all the money. FOSS is written by individuals who don't have a pile of gold under the bed to go to court and get a court judgment or pay "a big check". Ballmer of course knows that. So this is the anticompetitive plan, under the guise of everyone having to play by the same rules.
But it is actually a struggle between business models. And he knows that too. So he is saying, to me, that they will use patents and will get partners and others to attack FOSS with patents, so as to burden it with financial stress until it dies. Then it hopes to pick up any willing sellout developers and have them "innovate" under Microsoft's control and for its benefit.
So, I'd say this means that software patents have to go. Microsoft started when there were no software patents to worry about; now it wishes to use them as a way to cut off FOSS's air supply. Nothing short of getting the "intellectual property regime" altered will be effective, I don't think, since it's built for entities like Microsoft, not for FOSS. And that is why it wishes to fight on that tilted battlefield. The coward. What Ballmer doesn't understand, or pretends not to, is that people move to Linux because they wish to escape from Windows. That's why I did. I still have XP on one half of one laptop, and it simply doesn't work. Let me tell you about this week's adventure. I couldn't get on the Internet for an unknown reason, and I wanted to so I could sign up for the Corel translator between ODF and OOXML. So, troubleshooting began. I noticed that TCP/IP wasn't activated, although I have no idea how that happened. By that point, I was on the phone with the manufacturer, and the guy was trying to walk me through whatever the problem turned out to be. So when we got to that point, I clicked to install/activate it. The prompt said it couldn't find the driver. Insert the CD. You guessed it. The stupid software comes with no CD. Microsoft forgot to rewrite the help information, I guess. So there I am. I need a driver. It's for unknown reasons not on the computer any more. And I need a CD that Microsoft won't provide. So. Now what am I supposed to do?
Now, as it happens, I have an XP CD from another, older computer. So I asked the guy if the IP police would come and drag me away if I used that. He said no, but what do you bet it doesn't work because it's one that came with another set of hardware? So, I guess I could install from scratch, I was thinking, annoying as that would be. But even if I figure out some way to install it, then it won't authenticate, I'm guessing, because it was on another computer. That Microsoft world is a nightmare, and the idea of FOSS innovation happening on top of Windows is exactly what I don't want. I want to use non-Microsoft software. I want to be able to use non-Microsoft software. That is my free-will choice. And I want the marketplace to provide me with a choice. Microsoft wants every software sale in the world to be a Microsoft sale. I think they call that monopoly.
I get why Microsoft wants what it wants. They don't want to die off like an aged and irrelevant elephant. But I don't want to use their software ever again as long as I live. I hate it. It doesn't work. It spies on me. It's a malware magnet. It's slow. It doesn't multitask the way I'm used to. It takes over my computer in ways I can't prevent, and the worst is, when something goes wrong, there's nothing you can do about it without worrying about stepping on some of their stupid IP. It is the exact opposite of FOSS, where none of that happens. FOSS can't survive in an IP regime such as Ballmer has laid before our eyes. The developers give their code away. How can they pay for patent licenses? That's the point, obviously. But I don't want FOSS to be choked to death, so it's time to seriously figure out how to get software and patents to get a divorce. Reform isn't going to work, if a monopoly player is willing to misuse patents as an anticompetitive weapon. It raises antitrust issues, of course, but ideally patents need to be taken off the software table altogether. This little speech is the clearest and most obvious proof that they are being used now not for innovation, but to crush it. I remember Sam Ramji in the video from the Olliance Think Tank in March, when he tried to make us believe that Ballmer understood that his patent saber rattling remarks in November were "counterproductive". You just can't trust what Microsoft folks tell you, no matter how nice they may seem or be. Because Ballmer hasn't stopped. He's still saying the same things. So did he *really* realize his remarks were counterproductive? Obviously not. So please don't anyone tell me about the new Microsoft and how they are moving toward openness. They are moving toward destroying FOSS, although outsourcing some of it. That's it.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: chaz_paw on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 09:17 PM EDT |
Corrections, if any
---
Proud Linux user since 07/26/04
Registered Linux user #422376
Charles[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections, if any - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 09:27 PM EDT
- Corrections, if any - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 09:29 PM EDT
- Corrections, if any - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 10:30 PM EDT
- Corrections, if any - Authored by: muon on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 12:02 AM EDT
- "Linux" -> "Open Source" - Authored by: dobbo on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 02:02 AM EDT
- Corrections, if any - Authored by: yorkshireman on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 02:28 AM EDT
- sor tof --> sort of - Authored by: ankylosaurus on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 03:47 AM EDT
- an an -> as an - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 04:39 AM EDT
- BetaNews link changed - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 06:40 PM EDT
- BetaNews link changed - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 06:45 PM EDT
- Corrections -> "developers" should read "users" - Authored by: Superbowl H5N1 on Thursday, October 11 2007 @ 12:42 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: chaz_paw on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 09:19 PM EDT |
News Pick thread
---
Proud Linux user since 07/26/04
Registered Linux user #422376
Charles[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chaz_paw on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 09:20 PM EDT |
Clickies if you have them.
---
Proud Linux user since 07/26/04
Registered Linux user #422376
Charles[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stumbles on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 09:22 PM EDT |
I think in this case the baby (patents) is soooo filthy that no amount of bath
water can clean it, so yes I agree with PJ, toss em both.
---
You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Waterman on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 09:24 PM EDT |
And as if we had a question of who was pulling SCOG's strings. Sounds like them
thru and thru.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 09:24 PM EDT |
| in less than two years", all because Red Hat did not co-operate, just like
Netscape (now dead and buried) did not co-operate in the illegal market division
plan of Microsoft's in 1995, as document in Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact.
That is monopoly power and the power to reshape one's legacy, with the benefit
of billions, more than the GDP of the government of some countries.
Link to Matt Asay's
blog
Lobby4Linux blog, original
'source'
I think things will get even more interesting, soon.
Obviously, Microsoft's plan to kill Linux through the Novell patent deal failed,
thanks to sites like Groklaw who warned of the dangers. That Novell patent deal
lies in the two-year time frame from that 'mysterious meeting' between Steve
Ballmer and Red Hat's Matthew Szulik in May 2005. I guess Microsoft just didn't
see Ubuntu coming. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chaz_paw on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 09:25 PM EDT |
SCO and Microsoft both need to "put up or shut up."
---
Proud Linux user since 07/26/04
Registered Linux user #422376
Charles[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Microsoft's Ballmer Reportedly Threatens Red Hat - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 10:02 PM EDT
- Already annoying their own customers - Authored by: cmc on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 10:38 PM EDT
- Already annoying their own customers - Authored by: mossc on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 11:08 PM EDT
- Already annoying their own customers - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 11:46 PM EDT
- Already annoying their own customers - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 12:35 AM EDT
- Already annoying their own customers - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 01:14 AM EDT
- Winamp, Winzip etc ... alternatives that don't start with "Win" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 02:37 AM EDT
- Annoyed users - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 02:59 AM EDT
- Annoyed users - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 09:55 AM EDT
- Non-geek users - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 10:25 AM EDT
- Annoyed users - Authored by: Debonair on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 10:24 AM EDT
- Annoyed users - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 09:27 PM EDT
- VMWare Server under Ubuntu works well. - Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 04:39 AM EDT
- Already annoying their own customers - Authored by: micheas on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 05:28 PM EDT
- Microsofts undisclosed IP and the MS tax - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 10:58 AM EDT
- Microsoft's Ballmer Reportedly Threatens Red Hat - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 03:31 AM EDT
- Microsoft open your code - Authored by: Bill R on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 08:13 AM EDT
- Microsoft's Ballmer Reportedly Threatens Red Hat - Authored by: eddie on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 12:15 PM EDT
- You know what's really stupid about this? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 02:57 PM EDT
- Declaratory Judgement - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2007 @ 12:25 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 09:25 PM EDT |
This might not have been a smart move for Microsoft. The UK doesn't have
patents the same way the U.S. does. Specifically, the U.K. patent office
actively discourages software patents. The U.K. does have fairly effective
false advertising and libel laws.
Depending on what Microsoft said, this
lawsuit might not be in the direction that Microsoft is expecting ... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 09:28 PM EDT |
Software "as such" is not patentable in the UK. So if he was trying to
make a patent threat he picked a particularly silly place to do it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 09:31 PM EDT |
The big problem is SO many people do not/ will not understand that we've
already danced this whole jig with tSCOG. Put up or shut up, Ballmer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 09:31 PM EDT |
The reason SCO worked is that the principals didn't care that SCO would be
reduced to a pile of smoking rubble. Presumably, Microsoft wants to continue as
an ongoing business.
Microsoft has already been convicted of anti-trust charges on both sides of the
pond. Presumably, someone in Europe will tell them to put up or shut up. Steve
Ballmer made his statements in the UK. He can't rely on his friends to protect
him over there.
I wonder how far he has to go before he steps over the line into a Lanham Act
violation. Even if he is directly threatening Red Hat, he is threatening IBM by
extension. Once SCO has been reduced to the aforementioned pile of smoking
rubble, I wouldn't be surprised to see IBM training its guns on Microsoft.
BTW Stevie baby, you can have my Linux when you pry it from my cold dead
fingers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mkc on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 09:35 PM EDT |
Our company has a ban on Microsoft Products.
We have been a pure Linux based company for many years now.
We started with Red hat.
All of our office and production needs were meet with Linux on the desktop for
going on 10 years.
We use Debian now.
I would not give Mr. Steve Ballmer the time of day, much less any money for his
faulty products (Microsoft's Operating System and MS Office) which we abandoned
long ago.
There is nothing in Linux that they can claim, most likely it is the other way
around.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 09:35 PM EDT |
slander
of title [groklaw.net]
tortuous
interference [groklaw.net]
IANAL - It looks to me that it is time for MS
& Steve Ballmer to 'put up or shut up'.
Steve Ballmer states in the
vnunet.com article: "Every time an Eolas comes to MSFT and says: 'Pay us,' I
expect they eventually would like to go to the open source world [as well].
Getting an intellectual property interoperability framework between the two
worlds, I think, is important."
Steve seems to forget that Eolas showed
MS the offending material. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bbaston on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 09:42 PM EDT |
| Grabbed this
report from October 2.
So indeed Stevie had the audience available to
continue his badmouth Red Hat theme. ---
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 09:52 PM EDT |
| because that big mouth is what will bring them down. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 09:56 PM EDT |
Yeah Uncle Steve, show us the code! All source code for Windows and MS
applications. Show us that MS is not using GPL'd and copyrighted code owned by
others!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Discovery - Authored by: argee on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 10:35 PM EDT
- Discovery - Authored by: jmc on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 03:52 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 10:03 PM EDT |
It's hard to see this as anything more than baiting Red Hat to sue them. I
can't see how they can expect to benefit from this sort of behaviour.
Could it be that they are begging Red Hat to sue them? Does this possibly
constitute a Lanham act violation?
Would Microsoft benefit by being sued? How?
Clearly Microsoft won't be materially harmed by any lawsuit. They've lost
multitudes of lawsuits over the years --- in including hundreds of millions of
dollars to companies like the old Stac electronics, Caldera (successors in
interest to the old DR-DOS product line), etc. Obviously a billion dollars a
year in legal fees, judgement award expenditures, pentalties and fines is no
deterrent to them.
Still it seems odd for them to be ... to all appearances ... deliberately
baiting the competition. What could be their strategy? Could it be as simple
as an executive just being dramatic and controversial for it's own sake? (under
the "No such thing as bad press" theory of PR).
The only two elements of strategy that might be plausible for this would be:
* Goad the enemy into attack. Hope they will go into a beserker rage and
expend their resources on their attack or that their attack will distract them
from your counter offensive.
* Galvanize the opposition to goad them into a counter-strike that injures
one of your "unfriendly allies" more than it harms you.
In the first case perhaps they'd be hoping that Red Hat will sue and that it
will cost RH Inc. so much money and be so distracting to their senior staff that
it hurts their focus on the bottom line (perhaps stalling their sales growth
and/or delays their product development). Perhaps this would be coupled with
some other counter-offensive. It's hard to imagine any counter offensive or
other maneuver which would be at all obscured by these antics, however. (In
warfare and fencing it's relatively easy to see how one maneuver can be a feint
to obscure another. However, such techniques don't translate to games such as
chess nor, so far as I can tell, to economic and legal contests).
The second of these options is, perhaps, a bit more intriguing. It could be
that Microsoft hopes to galvanize the opposition to them and any involvement
they make with Linux companies and communities.
For example there's been much press about the deal between Microsoft and Novell.
I seem to recall some twists to that partnership which turned out to the
detriment of Microsoft (something about those vouchers lacking any sort of
expiration date and being arguably a basis for certain liabilities to
Microsoft).
Could it be that this is a way to stab Novell in the back by proxy? A week
attack on Novell's primary competitor which results in some sacrifices (MS loses
a $100M or so Red Hat, Inc. which RH then uses to cut further into Novell's
market share). Microsoft is cash rich; even a quarter billion dollars lost and
paid out probably wouldn't have any significant effect on their bottom line, nor
on their stock price. But a cash infusion of that sort into Red Hat might
severely hurt Novell. The positive press to RH would hurt its competitors even
more!
Meanwhile Microsoft might try to spin any of the resulting losses as examples of
how the open source and free software contingents are "picking" on
them. They might be vying for a campaign pitching them as an
"underdog" in some markets. (It's particularly hard to imagine them
pulling off such a media twist --- but not hard for me to imagine them
convincing themselves that they are, in fact, the underdogs here --- beset by a
pack of wolves)
[BTW: if anyone objects to the martial analogies I'm using here, keep in mind
that Microsoft is well known to consider business competition to be
"war." They exemplify a "take no prisoners" approach to
their business ... and the routinely sell out their allies in true Machiavellian
tradition].
JimD
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: schestowitz on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 10:06 PM EDT |
Mind the fact that Ballmer talks about intellectual property and not software
patents, which are not the same. He talks in the United Kingdom where software
patents are not legal, so he throws patents into a collective bag that is IP.
This is a very nasty strategy from Microsoft and not the first time it uses it
in Europe.
---
Roy S. Schestowitz, Ph.D. Candidate in Medical Biophysics
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 10:33 PM EDT |
| So I have a question for th Groklaw community: How much money would be
saved
if, as Ballmer fears, patent law were properly reformed to disallow
software
patents? My
feeling is that it would be a truly huge chunk of change in the
coming years.
C'mon, we're smart people: what's the biggest number if they
continue to be
allowed (not including total collapse of the US software
industry, which will be
inevitable)? And what's the likely savings therefore
if something more
reasonable is decided?
J
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 10:34 PM EDT |
For those of us that are not legal types there is one and
only one way to put an end to this and that is take
Microsoft's candy away from then.
I urge everybody to support Wine to the fullest. Once Wine
is fully operational there will then be no need for a
Microsoft operating system to run applications developed to
run on one.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tyche on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 10:34 PM EDT |
What I did was to copy the link and put it into VLC through File -> Open
Network Stream. I'm not sure how to actually "grab" the video for
transcoding to oog, nor the legality of providing such. But at least you could
see it.
Craig
Tyche
---
"The Truth shall Make Ye Fret"
"TRUTH", Terry Pratchett[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 10:54 PM EDT |
Why would any sane company risk its future with Microsoft's
slapdash software? Or with people of such low character?
Vista is a stunning failure, as was OOXML, both pushed out
the door for marketing purposes. You gotta keep tap dancing,
I guess, just like SCO.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cmc on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 11:21 PM EDT |
It's exactly like I expected it to be -- a boring conference where I would
literally have fallen asleep. No chair throwing to keep me awake, either (maybe
there would have been if somebody had fallen asleep?). Here's a quote from the
very beginning of the video:
"I thought I'd take a few minutes to kind
of share some thoughts with you on, really in a sense on the evolution of the
entire software industry, the entire IT industry, if you will, and really this
transition that I think we're all going through to a world of software plus
service. And no matter where you're coming from, what your prospective, whether
you started out developing websites, whether you start out developing
applications, whether you started with Windows, or you started with one of
Windows' erstwhile
competitors."
erstwhile: adjective
former; of
times past: erstwhile friends.
What exactly are Windows'
erstwhile competitors? Did Windows have a competitor that went away that I
don't know about? MacOS and Linux are becoming stronger and stronger
competitors by the day, so they can't (in any sane reality) be considered
"erstwhile" competitors. The only erstwhile competitors I can think of would be
DOS, Windows 3.1/3.11, and perhaps OS/2.
For what it's worth, the
actual video is a .wmv file (did you expect any different?). I didn't listen to
all of it, because I would have fallen asleep. But I skimmed through it,
advancing at about 10 seconds at a time then listening for a few seconds, and I
didn't hear anything mentioned about Red Hat. The video did not include the
Q&A session, however.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 11:29 PM EDT |
A desperate move at best. Clearly Ballmer feels like he's been backed into a
corner. SCO failed, Novell is not working out. Watch out for more chairs.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 11:39 PM EDT |
Watching this now, Steve wishes all open source development was done on "on
top of Windows".
Here's what is said about RedHat:
"People who use RedHat, at least with respect to our intellectual property,
in a sense have an obligation eventually to compensate us."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jhboyd on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 11:40 PM EDT |
The question that leads into this topic occurs at 5 minutes into the Q&A
video.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 11:41 PM EDT |
My thought: I'm not obligated to pay Microsoft anything other than for
material they own which I'm using. If they want me to feel obliged to pay them,
the prerequisite then, logically enough, is that they must tell me what of
theirs I'm using. If they don't, then I'm not obligated in any way. And if
Microsoft tried to bring me into court to force me to pay without telling me
what I'm paying for, I'm pretty sure the judge will agree that my prerequisite's
reasonable.
And no, an NDA isn't acceptable. If it's in RedHat, then it's
already public. Non-disclosure isn't applicable to material that's already been
disclosed. And I'm not in any way agreeing not to disclose something without
knowing beforehand what it is I'm agreeing to keep confidential so I can decide
whether I can legally agree not to disclose it. I may have other conflicting
legal obligations, after all, and I can't just go making agreements with no idea
whether they'll conflict with my existing obligations. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2007 @ 11:47 PM EDT |
They won't reveal which patents. They have been asked on numerous occasions to
inform the community so it can be fixed, if they bring suit now, the laches
affirmative defense would be huge and unstoppable.
This is such a strange and obviously losing strategy.
The first question always asked by anyone when accused of stealing is,
"What did I steal?"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 01:03 AM EDT |
According to Mr. B all development will be done on Windows and will
"execute" on Windows, Mac and Linux.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lannet on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 01:03 AM EDT |
I understand that the law in Germany says that is a patent threat is made there
then it can be called out in a court of law.
---
When you want a computer system that works, just choose Linux.
When you want a computer system that works, just, choose Microsoft.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 01:06 AM EDT |
| no text. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 01:38 AM EDT |
.asp format is non-existent in terms of video formats .. .asp is the language
the HTML page that contained the video was written in, conceptually its no
different to .php
in other words, the .asp ending to the link does not indicate anyting about the
format of the video contained on the page.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- .asp format? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 04:08 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: sproggit on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 01:48 AM EDT |
Hey Steve,
I do hope that you or one of you many minions get to read this and agree to
follow this plea for help. Simply, I'd like you to ratchet up your claims and
threats against GNU/Linux. Don't hold back please... go for it.
Why am I so keen? Well, Steve, it's really very simple. But let me explain it
for you slowly and carefully, so that even you can understand.
You see Steve, the European Union is presently the world's largest single
economic marketplace. It's bigger than the US and - if only for a short time -
bigger than China. So I think it's wonderful that you want to threaten one of
your largest potential customer bases. Really.
Another reason that your threats are so important to me comes from the business
or employment perspective. You see, even though Microsoft has R&D labs in
Europe and India and China and so on, we all know that your power base is in
Redmond, Washington. We're all completely aware that when Microsoft makes money
[which you do] that the largest beneficiaries are all US based. So your success,
Steve, is killing a large chunk of the software industry in Europe. The more you
threaten the European marketplace, the more you will encourage European software
engineers to turn to GNU/Linux as a platform and FLOSS projects as an
environment.
So please, just for me, keep going, huh?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 02:05 AM EDT |
Perhaps you don’t know how pervasive "One Person Businesses" are in
the USA and Europe. First of the all, in the USA, 78% of all businesses are One
Person Businesses!
The U.S. Census has new statistics out — and they show that the numbers of
single-person businesses are booming. There are now over 20 million such
businesses, based on the most recently available data as of 2005.
To be exact, the United States has 20,392,068 single-person businesses. In the
space of three years, 2.7 million more people became the owner of a “business of
one.”
These single-person businesses account for 78% of ALL U.S. businesses. You know
those millions of small businesses that everyone is always talking about? Well,
the majority of them fall into this category of single-person business.
http://www.smallbiztrends.com/2007/07/single-person-businesses-booming.html
When it comes to Europe, 60% of all businesses are One Person Businesses!
Around 60% of European businesses are “one-person-enterprises” (OPEs), i.e.
enterprises that employ no personnel. These 15 million single self-employed
entrepreneurs constitute more than 8% of total employment. They are primarily
active in crafts, personal and business services, trade and transport,
construction and agriculture.
The following facts and figures are results from an analysis conducted by the
European Commission Enterprise and Industry Directorate General, which included
a Eurobarometer survey among 4,000 OPEs in 19 countries and a group of national
experts. The aim was to identify reasons why OPEs do not recruit in order to
come up with recommendations as to how conditions could be improved to make
recruitment easier.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/05/202&format=H
TML&aged=0%3Cuage=EN&guiLanguage=en
What the two above quotes means is that there is a potential of 35 MILLION
people/businesses, to switch to FLOSS (plus a percentage of the contractors who
will switch because of "word of mouth"). You likely have heard of the
notion of the 'TIPPING POINT", and it would be interesting to see what
would happen after 35 million USERS switched to FLOSS.
Then there's a zillion school systems and last but not least a gazillion
municipal governments.
All of the above operate on "A Penny Saved Is A Penny Earned"
So what are "we" waiting for?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 02:08 AM EDT |
Mr Ballmer, but what part of GNU/Linux did your company write?
The source code is after all open for inspection by the public, and forgive be
but I can see nothing at all of your company's work in there.
Since GNU/Linux appears to be entirely created external to Microsoft, I am
having enormous difficulty in seeing why on earth I should give you any money
for my use of GNU/Linux, especially considering that you have so much money
already.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: skip on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 02:29 AM EDT |
Ballmer seems to have gotten a severe case of megolomania.
If microsoft do start going after Red hat, and by extension, other linux
vendors, it will come under scrutiny that simply did not occur back when they
took out their early competitors.
He's a powerful man within microsoft, and I rather suspect that he has been told
things that reinforce whatever he thinks is true, or his lawyers find a way to
back up his image of the world. They are having problems with linux, he wants
linux to go away, and so he has been told that this can be done.
Microsoft, as with many large corporations in the US, has a culture whereby it
is frowned upon to talk to someone above your own immediate management, let
alone the people at the top. In such a situation information is filtered, and
disagreeable notions, such as 'well, thats a stupid idea', simply don't get
said.
I know someone who worked for a fortune 100 corporation that broke this taboo.
Their manager was utterly horrified, and set to severely reprimand them. Luckily
the email sent actually resulted in the beginning of rapid promotion for my
friend, but it could have been far worse.
I think this is what we have here. Ballmer is being told what he wants to know,
and therefore has failed to grasp the information emerging from the SCO case,
that Linux does not contain anyone elses IP without consent, and that going
after it to make it play by the proprietary worlds rules is doomed to failure.
If microsoft try anyway, we may see the start of an avalanche as their precious
patent collection is revealed as mostly pointless and invalidated either for
obviousness or prior art.
Part of me wants microsoft to go ahead and take this to court. Sure it would be
difficult, but it might also be a good thing for linux to get this out of the
way before the next stage of the information age begins.
A stage which I strongly suspect will see the end of microsofts dominance.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 02:29 AM EDT |
Will the EU be accepting american refugee's from software patents?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 02:35 AM EDT |
When ever anyone from Microsoft talks about how precious their IP is, one name
always pops into my head...
Stac, Inc.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Winter on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 02:48 AM EDT |
I think Balmer wants to use copyright law to sever all links between FOSS and
MS.
The IP is fonts and codecs. Almost all users of OO.o and Linux use MS fonts and
audio/video codecs. The new default fonts of Office07 are all new and
proprietary. The new media formats are closely guarded.
Balmer wants to use copyright law to prevent FOSS users from exchanging any type
of document or movie with users of MS software.
Rob
---
Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth
lies probably somewhere in between.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DarkPhoenix on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 02:56 AM EDT |
God, I love living in a country that doesn't recognize software as a patentable
invention.
As for "IP", Ballmer's doing exactly what RMS says people do with that
term, trying to lump copyrights with patents. Honestly, the ONLY thing
Microsoft has a copyright on in the OS market is Windows. You can't stretch a
copyright like you can a patent...
Oh, and EOLAS? They went after Microsoft because Microsoft, oh, I dunno, STOLE
their software code without compensation? Generally, there are repercussions
for pulling moves like that. I don't see anyone in the FLOSS world stealing
other people's software code, mostly because you couldn't get away with it for
very long, the code is OPEN...
---
Please note that sections in quotes are NOT copied verbatim from articles, but
are my interpretations of the articles.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TiddlyPom on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 03:09 AM EDT |
This sound like time for a two pronged attack - anti-trust
legislation (especially in Europe) and the FOSS patent war chest. It is also about time that
Novell started to realise what a violent and anti-social (in terms of the rest
of the software community) that they have teamed up with.
Yoohoo
Microsoft!
Linux is no longer a garage product maintained by a few
people. It is a multi-billion dollar industry phenomenon and is quite capable
of taking you on as a competitor. In addition it is not constrained (across the
world) by USA intellectual property laws especially in countries that have
growing IT economies such as India and China. Do you honestly think that this is in your favour?
I will
never use another Microsoft operating system (for my own use) as long as I live
- especially now that you (Microsoft) have demonstrated to so many people what
an unethical company you are.
This is a war you cannot win and I know
more and more people (personally and professionally) who have moved to Linux and
will never turn back. Whatever patents you have we can find prior art or work
around so try and work with us rather than against us or (in the long term) you
are a doomed company.
Linux is now too big for you to kill and there are too many large
companies that depend on it for us to let you.
---
Open Source
Software - Unpicking the Microsoft monopoly piece-by-piece. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cmc on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 03:12 AM EDT |
As I was reading this article and the comments, my randomized playlist ended up
on Ozzy Osbourne's "You're No Different". It seems quite appropriate
if you ask me. I think the best part in relation to Microsoft is:
"Concealing your crimes behind a Grandeur of lies
Tell me where do I begin
If you think you're without sin
Be the first to cast the stone"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 03:14 AM EDT |
Thank you for this clear exposition of some of the reasons software patents
are bad.
In a Microsoft-controlled world, it is going to be a tough
struggle to get rid of them, but many of us are ready to help in whatever way we
can. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 03:19 AM EDT |
The joke to me is: Pay the tax on what?
And NO, I'm not expecting any specificity on what we are supposedly paying for,
other than general allegations.
Does anyone expect Steve to be more specific than he's already been in the near
future? Or in any future?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ashtead on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 03:44 AM EDT |
Remember the words "convicted monopolist", and also the hefty fine that the
EU recently upheld for anti-competitive behavior? This looks like it will fly
like a lead balloon when seen against that background.
Of course, there will
be the question of "IP", but that s going to be specified ere long, if the
"ammo" is going to be copyrights or patents (I can't see it being trademarks or
trade secrets). Copyrights can be easily traced, and I think after the SCO
debacle that the people responsible for the Linux kernel and the GNU utilities
surrounding it have got their copyright ducks pretty much all in a row. As for
patents, they're not even recognized everywhere, so that seems even more of an
uphill battle -- and the potential for retaliation is quite big: how many
patents did IBM have, again? and how many of these might MS infringe on? hmm? I
for one wouldn't want to try and find that out the hard way...
Microsoft is
going to have to compete on merit, like everyone else is expected to. If it is
good enough it will sell -- their mice and keyboards are quite nice for example,
and they don't have a monopoly there.
Ashtead
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 03:52 AM EDT |
As a German, I have a feeling that I heard similar things in our recent
histwory, when the Communist regime of East Germany repeatedly tried to
intimidate and talk away the iompact of the rising freedom movement in their
country.
Ballmer is a person of the past. History shows that you never ever can fight
sucessfully a technical movement, technical evolution. MS shareholders get
increasingly nervous that he obviously has no strategy to compete on the product
level but needs now to play the legal cards as a last resort.
The situation at MS, the impact of FOSS on their revenue must be much worse than
we and industry analysts currently think.
Please be assured that in the very same moment a MS representative claims such
things in my home country Germany, MS will be taken to court, for a vialation of
competition laws.
I am amazed that it is possible in the US to make such public claims without
proof. In our legislation this is a obvious case of slander against Red Hat. And
it will be pursuit if a MS person would be stupid enough to extend this claim to
Germany. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 04:05 AM EDT |
"[I]n any intellectual property regime based on software patents, ... no
one can compete with Microsoft."
To be fair, a few can if they want to: IBM comes to mind. Given that IBM has
invested substantially in Linux as a business model, and that they've been
acting so determinedly against SCO, there is a possibility that they might want
to step in if this goes too far. Let's hope so.
Tim R.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick_UK on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 04:11 AM EDT |
On the other hand, I'd also tell you the following is true. All... I
would love to see all Open Source innovation happen on top of Windows. So we've
done a lot to encourage, for example, the team building, PHP, the team building,
many of the other Open Source components, I'd love to see those sorts of
innovations proceed very successfully on top of
Windows.
Basically what he is saying here is that at the
moment there in no Open Source innovation at all on MS platforms, but he would
_love_ to see it happen. This is worded to make it sound like MS are already a
leading force in this (ha!)
Because our battle is not sort
of business model to business model. Our battle is product to product, Windows
versus Linux, Office versus OpenOffice.
FOSS/OSS - GNU/Linux
is not it a battle (and never has been/will be) - this is only MS's
perspective.
The only other thing I would say that is
probably germane is, we spend a lot of money, the rest of the commercial
industry spends a lot of money on R & D. We've spent a lot of money
licensing patents, when people come to us and say, "Hey, this commercial piece
of software violates our patent, our intellectual propery, we'll either get a
court judgment or we'll pay a big check. And we are going to -- I think it is
important that the Open Source products also have an obligation to participate
in the same way in the intellectual property regime.
This is
again cleverly worded. MS's R&D fund is actually litigation money that is
put aside for the court cases they know will happen after they have stolen,
copied or downright ripped off from competitors and they can easily crush this
Companies in court even if they lose - history shows this time and time again
with MS.
That's why we've done the deal we have with
Novell, where not only are we working on technical interoperability between
Linux and Windows but we've also made sure that we could provide the
appropriate, for the appropriate fee Novell customers also get essentially the
right to use our patented intellectual property. And I think it's great the way
Novell stepped up to kind of say intellectual property matters. People use Red
hat, at least with respect to *our* intellectual property in a sense have an
obligation to eventually compensate us.
Buying out a turncoat
doesn't mean what MS says re IP is true - read Lamlaw on the Novell deal. This
is one of the first attempts from MS to try to get the GPL scuppered (but as
seen it just made it stronger).
There are plenty of other
people who may also have intellectual property. And every time an Eolas comes to
Microsoft and says, "Pay us," I suspect they also would like to eventually go to
the Open Source world.
People sue MS because they steal - so
that doesn't mean everybody does, although Balmer tries to make it sound like
that (We steal and pilfer code because EVERYBODY does! So why should we be the
only ones sued?? he cries) (and FOSS/OSS is clean anyway, as can be proven
anytime by looking at the code).
So getting what I call an
intellectual property interoperability framework between the two worlds I think
is important.
This is the MS threat - do it by OUR rules or
ELSE.
Nick
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 04:12 AM EDT |
This is not Microsoft making threats - please read the quotes carefully.
Microsoft is whining that third parties keep making them spend a lot of money to
license IP, but these same third parties don't attack Open Source projects in
the same way.
It's a rich kid whining that the bullies who sometimes
steal his dinner should pick on the poor kids too - ignoring that the other kids
don't have anything to steal - giafly
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 04:16 AM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Limulus on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 04:18 AM EDT |
> "It is the exact opposite of FOSS"
This reminds me of an incident I once reposted to my local LUG:
http://list.slg.org/200611/11678.html
---
Subject: Meanwhile, in the real world...
In my quest to find an inexpensive old laptop, I made a pit stop at a computer
store across from Home Depot. They had some there, though they cost rather more
than I was willing to pay, but I was looking around at the used computers and
one of the salesmen started to tell me about their special deal this month and
so I politely listened. He read through the specs of the computer and when he
got to the OS (Win XP) I interrupted him and asked if they had any computers
with Linux on them. The reply I got was on the incredulous side with a hint of
annoyance; I was told among other things that Windows was what people used in
the "real world".
Also, they had a used OEM copy of Microsoft Works for Windows 95 and since the
current copies are 'like $100' they were willing to let it go for a mere $25 (or
$20 cash). I politely declined and left; outside their advertising sign loudly
proclaimed that they offered a virus-removal service.
(Its nice to be back in Wonderland ;)
---
> "please don't anyone tell me about the new Microsoft and how they are
moving toward openness. They are moving toward destroying FOSS. That's
it."
Paul Thurrott's description of "the bad, old Microsoft" from
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_5308_05.asp would be good to tack
onto this article, and even he admits that its still there...
"This is the Microsoft that ran roughshod over competitors in order to gain
market share at any cost. The Microsoft that forgot about customers in its blind
zeal to harm competitors. The Microsoft, that frankly, all the Linux and Apple
fanatics always imagined was out there, plotting and planning their termination.
The Microsoft that threatens Windows fans with needless legal threats rather
than reaching out and creating constructive relationships with the very people
who prop up the company the most. This Bad Microsoft is not all of Microsoft,
and it's not even all of the Windows Division. But it's there."
Ballmer is of course the embodiment of it; I don't see how there can possibly be
a "new Microsoft" until he is gone. (I mean really; "Ballmer is
currently the longest-serving employee of Microsoft after Gates." according
to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Ballmer :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cybervegan on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 04:47 AM EDT |
So this is pure FUD - but unfortunately, it may very well scare PHB's who don't
know this fact.
Man, do they fight dirty!
-cybervegan
---
Software source code is a bit like underwear - you only want to show it off in
public if it's clean and tidy. Refusal could be due to embarrassment or shame...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 04:53 AM EDT |
| Oxymoron of the year :-
SB:"I would love to see all Open Source
innovation happen on top of Windows."
Translation :-
"Developers
are leaving Windows, Vista isn't THAT bad - is it ??"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grundy on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 04:58 AM EDT |
One of steve's remarks could be interpreted as a claim that they
have a patent on IP. They do act as though they owned it all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 05:48 AM EDT |
| The really sad thing is that he actually believes this is a battle. Mr. Ballmer
is at war. He thinks in terms of fighting and in incapable of doing
otherwise. He may be one of the most wealthy men in the world. But he certainly
is one of the poorest, only he does not know it.
There is a number of
reasons for choosing Linux over Windows, or OpenOffice over MS Office, and many
users will consider more than one factor. In our company (60,000 PC's, 5,000
servers) we have switched server-wise to Linux because of technical and
commercial reasons. The business model is part of the game, that is for
sure.
In Germany we have a legal instrument called negative
Feststellungsklage. The best translation I could find was negative declaratory
relief. I sure hope someday someone will have the balls and funds to assert such
a claim against the monopoly. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 05:55 AM EDT |
Hi.
My background is a lot of martial arts and having worked as a close protection
services person.
It is interesting for me to note something I have not even seen mentioned in all
the comments.
Steve B is not scared. He's not stupid either.
I wouldn't underestimate him nor Billy G, nor indeed their whole empire.
The war they have on may not be won by them but anyone that thinks these guys
are dead in the water is in for some severe surprises.
Microsoft is going to use every single possible trick, advantage, underhand,
vile, workable unethical technique it can. Their view of this situation is in my
opnion thus: "There is an enemy ---> it is Linux. How do we make them
irrelevant to our profit base? Do it. And keep reserves at the ready. this is
not a quick fight. Things will change and evolve and we will change and evolve
with them but as much as possible we will determine the way and the direction in
which things change and eveolve. And we will orient it to our advantage"
Ultimately game theory says Microsoft's business model will fail. I believe this
too...but these guys are far from toothless. They bite. And they play hard. It
would be a mistake to underestimate them or get complacent. And they may yet
morph the whole playing field so that it threatens what should be a mainstay of
reality (game theory predicts the open source model will eventually take over).
Steve's mannerism is not that of a deluded person nor of one that has the fake
bluster of confidence. This is a guy that is clear on where he wants to go. Even
his voice is monotonously pounding away at your unconscious with a subtext of
"we are more powerful, more knoweledgable and ultimately more successful
than you...join us or perish" It's not posturing. It's a life-style.
In a way he reminds me of a mixture of Emperor Palpatine and Xerxes as presented
in the movie 300.
Watching that video has motivated me to blog a bit about open source. If for no
other reason than (though a paltry substitute for the real thing) it's a fight
that looks to be an interesting one to be in. And I have chose my side long
ago.
I salute you Steve B. Your methods and philosophies are anathema to me, but your
viciousness and conviction alone make you a formidable enemy. To say nothing of
your resources.
G-Man.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 06:12 AM EDT |
PJ wrote "So this is the anticompetitive plan, under the guise of everyone
having to play by the same rules."
I'm reminded of something from Anatole France in The Red Lily, 1894
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to
sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread".
Over a century later and fools still assume the fairness of laws which apply
equally regardless of circumstances. Wiser heads, like PJ and M. France,
recognise that some laws are inherently unequal. The modern patent regime
favours the rich, because only the rich can afford to patent every stumbling
step on the road to progress. The poor, unable to pay to protect themselves even
if they wished to, must benefit the rich by their labours.
Note that I'm not arguing against patents per se - there are arguments for and
against. I am simply of the opinion that the current environment
disproportionately favours those with large coffers. I seem to recall that
Richard Dyson, inventor of the cyclone vacuum cleaner and holder of many related
patents, nearly bankrupted himself establishing the validity of those patents.
He had already become a self-made millionaire through his previous inventions
and it still nearly exhausted his resources. What hope for the garage
enthusiast?
-------------------
Nigel Whitley[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Yossarian on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 06:36 AM EDT |
There is something the Microsoft missed. Even if he gets his
wish from US courts, and does not end up like SCO, he can't
control the world. The free software server will just move
to another country and the US will lose its edge in software
industry. The US will have be cut from reliable OS and tools
while the rest of the world will have cheap and reliable
tools.
I am sure that Congress, no matter which party will control
it, is crazy enough to go down this road. I am not sure that
the US public will let Congress serve Microsoft by detroying
most of the US software industry.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: FrankH on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 06:56 AM EDT |
Dear Mr Ballmer
1. In view of your recent
pronouncements about Microsoft intellectual property in Open source software,
please find enclosed a cheque for 3 pence [or cents, or whatever the lowest
amount is in your currency]. I currently have three computers using Linux
and feel that 1 penny is more than enough to compensate for all the Microsoft
intellectual property for which you have shown evidence. Please send a
receipt.
2. I have shown the same amount of evidence for all of my
intellectual property in Microsoft software. I feel that a reciprocal agreement
is in order so please include with the receipt a cheque for 1 penny for each
copy of Windows sold.
Yours faithfully etc
---
All right now, baby it's all right now. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 07:23 AM EDT |
The video linked to here is the wrong one, here's the Q&A with the quote:
http://www.mydeo.com/videorequest.asp?XID=48644&CID=133678[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The video - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 07:24 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 07:25 AM EDT |
Now I get it. PJ isn't upset about Ballmer claiming he is going to shut down
Redhat and all the other Linux distributions. It's because she just had a bad
experience with her XP partition.
I would like to offer this kind suggestion. Get a Toshiba, and purchase a copy
of XP from Toshiba. (I hope she realizes I'm talking tongue in cheek.)
Toshiba was the only company around still providing an install CD when I bought
this laptop last year.
Regarding Microsoft's threat to shut down Linux. It can't happen. It can just
wreck Linux in the US. Europe, and other countries outside Europe don't have
software patents.
I hope PJ forgives my political note here. The DOJ caved to Microsoft when Bush
became president. Hopefully we can get some recovery in the next four years,
but an horrendous amount of damage has been done.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Limulus on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 08:17 AM EDT |
I've just downloaded Ballmer's speech with VLC and noticed something interesting
about Silverlight from 14:22-14:48 which I've transcribed:
"Mark's gonna to show you... is gonna focus some on a couple of these
themes. Is gonna show you a little bit of Silverlight, which talks to some of
the next generation presentation and programming capabilities that we think we
can do in a reach way, that is consistent, runs everywhere on the internet.
It'll be further enhanced... can be further enhanced if you wanna marry yourself
to a... t..to Windows, which will provide a superset of Silverlight."
Curious that; Silverlight is consistent and runs everywhere, but for the full
"superset of Silverlight" you have to "marry yourself" to
Windows.
Haven't I heard something like that before?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
>"Embrace, extend and extinguish," also known as "Embrace,
extend, and exterminate," is a phrase that the U.S. Department of Justice
alleged was used internally by Microsoft to describe their strategy for entering
product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards
with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences to disadvantage
its competitors.<
Microsoft use proprietary Windows-only extensions to Silverlight to disadvantage
its competitors? Surely that must just be my imagination, given that this is
the 'new Microsoft' these days ;)
I also note in the Q&A video, the question from 3:22-4:42 about if there
were plans to have Silverlight development tools on OS X or Linux, the answer
was no; you write your apps on *Windows* and have them display everywhere.
There would only be consideration of Linux software if there was demand AND the
demand was for non-free-cost software.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 09:03 AM EDT |
From Mr Ballmer himself:
... we spend a lot of money, the rest
of the commercial industry spends a lot of money on R & D. We've spent a lot
of money licensing patents, when people come to us and say, "Hey, this
commercial piece of software violates our patent, our intellectual propery",
we'll either get a court judgment or we'll pay a big
check.
Without even taking the context away, the emphasised text
is plainly stating that MS don't innovate, but buy in IP. So what is this MS IP
that needs paying for.
As an aside to Mr Ballmer himself, I'd like to point
out that as a UK resident, if I am ever billed for his "IP" without FULL
disclosure of said "IP", he will be in serious trouble. (Buying a pig in a poke
voluntarily is a failure on my part, whereas the seller refusing to open said
poke when requested is another matter on this side of the pond.) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lokikatz on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 09:38 AM EDT |
| This is the direct link to the video, it's a wmv file. I'm watching it now in
VLC.
Ballmer droning on [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 09:52 AM EDT |
Could the "destroy all FOSS" be a social organization rally call.
Typical of large empires that begin failing due to internal reasons,
particularly leadership, is the focus on an external threat to attempt to focus
control and effort.
"Eurasia has always been at war with Oceana"
This movement from Microsoft looks more like a soci-political motivated focus to
avoid looking at any real internal structures and policies as solutions.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 09:59 AM EDT |
I have decided that if I have to support any Windows boxes, I would much rather
they be virtual machines. There are some big advantages to going virtual. I see
a few responses below which recommend one laptop manufacturer over another to
solve your problem. IMO, that is not the best answer. The best answer is to go
virtual (VMWare, Xen).
First, buy a laptop which is known to be compatible with GNU/Linux. This is the
top criteria because GNU/Linux will be the primary OS. (My choice for hardware
currently leans toward Dell because it works and because of their recent support
for GNU/Linux.)
Virtualization has some major advantages when supporting Windows (and other
OSs).
1. VM's are consistent on different physical hardware. For example, the virtual
hardware will not blue screen at boot when moved to a new virtual host. This
solves the problem of constantly reinstalling from scratch (for example, when
moving to a newer laptop.)
2. Stable GNU/Linux host platform.
3. Virtual hardware protected by robust firewall on host (iptables) and NAT.
4. The virtual machine is encapsulated as files within a directory. This is very
easy to backup.
5. The virtual machine can be used as a test platform for developers. Using a
virtual machine also showcases cross-platform applications running side-by-side
(on the host and guest platforms.)
6. The virtual machine can be suspended when not in use. This allows the VM to
be used as a crutch for running programs only available on Windows.
7. GNU/Linux host can be setup to run from an encrypted root filesystem. Both
the host and guest are encrypted which protects your data if the computer is
lost or stolen.
You will need to dedicate a Windows license to every Windows box (virtual or
real). Please, read the products EULA to confirm eligibility for use as a
virtual machine. I know you know all about the Windows EULA.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 10:05 AM EDT |
To a large part this news is a great big no surprise. Everyone aware of this
situation has been expecting Microsoft to try to use software patents to crush
FOSS since what seems like forever. The only questions have been when, and
exactly how.
It's been my guess for years that what's been holding them back is concern about
how this will affect their anti-trust legal problems. For this reason I
expected the move to come from some cat's-paw patent troll. Intellectual
Ventures seemed like a possibility.
But apparently my guess is wrong, since their anti-trust problems are somewhat
worse than they have been, and now they make this move overtly. My big
puzzlement is, why now?
Eliminating software patents would be great, but I would be astonished if
Congress here in the US has the backbone to do it. I suspect a more fruitful
approach in the short term is to point out this anti-competitive behavior to
Microsoft's anti-trust oversight in the US and Europe. Unfortunately, that will
still leave Microsoft the option of using a cat's-paw. This is going to be a
very hard problem to solve.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 10:23 AM EDT |
PJ,
It is simply not fair for you to call Mr. Ballmer a coward. other adjectives
come to mind, but when you're playing to win you take whatever advantage you can
get. Cowardice has nothing to do with it, it's about being smart.
Ethics now, that's another question. My point is that name-calling is not only
petty, but is counter-productive. We want rational discussion based on fact.
If we stick to that we win. It's easy to get carried away when rightfully
outraged by Microsoft, but let's not get sidetracked.
Regards,
Karl O. Pinc <kop@meme.com>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 10:35 AM EDT |
Ballmer is simply doing what the Republican Party and the Right Wing Churches in
the USA have been doing since the 70's.
Have something repeated often enough, in all the media, and one's brain actually
becomes FRAMED. Once a phrase is FRAMED into one's brain - it then becomes fact.
It's simply brain washing. And it works:
"Because they've put billions of dollars into it. Over the last 30 years
their think tanks have made a heavy investment in ideas and in language. In
1970, [Supreme Court Justice] Lewis Powell wrote a fateful memo to the National
Chamber of Commerce saying that all of our best students are becoming
anti-business because of the Vietnam War, and that we needed to do something
about it. Powell's agenda included getting wealthy conservatives to set up
professorships, setting up institutes on and off campus where intellectuals
would write books from a conservative business perspective, and setting up think
tanks. He outlined the whole thing in 1970. They set up the Heritage Foundation
in 1973, and the Manhattan Institute after that. [There are many others,
including the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institute at
Stanford, which date from the 1940s.]
And now, as the New York Times Magazine quoted Paul Weyrich, who started the
Heritage Foundation, they have 1,500 conservative radio talk show hosts. They
have a huge, very good operation, and they understand their own moral system.
They understand what unites conservatives, and they understand how to talk about
it, and they are constantly updating their research on how best to express their
ideas."
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml
As George Lakoff explains the Democratic Party has still not learned that it
needs to play the FRAMING game. And it seems to me; neither has FOSS.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 10:41 AM EDT |
When a "software company" buys the copyright from software author they
get the right to resell any number of copies of the software isn't it?
If the above statement is true..... when someone buys software from
"software company" they automatically gets the right to sell any
number of copies as well isn't it?
Same law should apply for SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS isn't it? Go figure it out.......
think.........[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stevieboy on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 11:30 AM EDT |
I think the problem with Microsoft, PJ, is not that they have manipulated their
way to a monopoly (and in such a short period of time and with such a poor
product). Any commercial company would do that if they could get away with it.
The problem is that government and international institutions have, at best,
turned a blind eye to them and at worst, have actively promoted Microsoft to
that position. You can think your most cynical thoughts and still be shocked at
the corruption that has been involved in the latter.
A case in point is the ISO fast track process and OOXML. Anybody with any
intelligence whatsoever (and I'm sure that applies to the members of ISO) must
have quickly realized that OOXML is primarily a spoiler for ODF and secondarily
a method of ensuring there is no interoperability with non Microsoft products.
Despite this, over 50% of the ISO members voted for the fast tracking of OOXML.
Put it another way, and given the above, more than half of ISO members were
willing to be 'persuaded' by Microsoft to allow OOXML as a standard WITHOUT ANY
REAL OBJECTIVE SCRUTINY.
If a recognised international body such as ISO can be so easily subverted, what
hope have smaller national bodies and organizations?
There is a body in Northern Ireland called Invest NI that helps finance small
businesses using public money. Their software technical side, as a matter of
course, recommend Microsoft Small Business Server to its clients (who often have
little understanding of its downsides). We all know the Linux alternative is
cheaper, more stable, less problematic - indeed anybody who is in the IT
consulting business will tell you that.
I asked the guys at Invest NI why they were recommending this Microsoft product
- their reply?
Organisational Policy.
Not a better, more cost effective product (we know we could argue against
this).
I think humanity has now reached a turning point - in Microsoft, we now have a
company that is more powerful than most of the legitimate governments and
national and international bodies in the world in its own sphere of influence -
ie. software.
The good of humanity, in this sphere, is now subborned to the good of the
Microsoft shareholder.
We who care may win small battles but, in the end, there is virtually nothing
anybody outside Microsoft can do about it.
Steve Ballmer talks all this nonsense about his competitors and their customers
'owing' Microsoft money for supposed 'intellectual property' of Microsoft within
Microsoft's competitors' software when there is no proof that he is willing to
show us that this is the case.
Why?
Because he knows this will adversely affect his competitors and because he knows
he can get away with it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grouch on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 11:56 AM EDT |
| Ballmer must not have kept up with the fiaSCO. SCOG is a twitching corpse.
Microsoft is next.
Looking at Ballmer's fantasy:
On
the other hand, I'd also tell you the following is true. All... I would love to
see all Open Source innovation happen on top of Windows. So we've done a lot to
encourage, for example, the team building, PHP, the team building, many of the
other Open Source components, I'd love to see those sorts of innovations proceed
very successfully on top of Windows.
This is a very good
illustration of how Microsoft is just about the world's worst innovator;
Microsoft never changes its battle plans. In the mid-1990s, their objective was
to get the "Win32 API" the default on Apple, using "WLM" (Windows Layer for the
Macintosh), on OS/2, on Sun and other UNIX systems. (See, e.g.
Effective Evangelism [PDF]
and note particularly page 21 of the PDF,
"Platform example: Win32", and page 119, "Mind
Control").
Because our battle is not sort of business
model to business model. Our battle is product to product, Windows versus Linux,
Office versus OpenOffice.
Such sleight of hand! Who is
Ballmer really talking to? It can't be anyone who understands the difference
between the enabling power of source code which can be modified and
redistributed, such as IBM, Google, PJ or the Rev. Parris, and the crippling
power of Microsoft's rental products with their jealously litigated,
unmodifiable, DRM encumbered, patent encumbered, secretly attacking
code.
The only other thing I would say that is probably
germane is, we spend a lot of money, the rest of the commercial industry spends
a lot of money on R & D. We've spent a lot of money licensing patents, when
people come to us and say, "Hey, this commercial piece of software violates our
patent, our intellectual propery, we'll either get a court judgment or we'll pay
a big check. And we are going to -- I think it is important that the Open Source
products also have an obligation to participate in the same way in the
intellectual property regime.
SCOG also thought that
they deserved to tax the world just because they spent a lot of money.
Apparently, Ballmer wants Microsoft to be just like SCOG when it grows
up.
That's why we've done the deal we have with Novell,
where not only are we working on technical interoperability between Linux and
Windows but we've also made sure that we could provide the appropriate, for the
appropriate fee Novell customers also get essentially the right to use our
patented intellectual property. And I think it's great the way Novell stepped up
to kind of say intellectual property matters. People use Red hat, at least with
respect to *our* intellectual property in a sense have an obligation to
eventually compensate us.
Is Ballmer reading Darl's cue
cards? Didn't Darl proclaim to all and sundry that Red Hat would have to pay
SCOG someday? It appears SCOG's pie in the sky fell down and went splat. Ballmer
wants Microsoft to do the same.
Don't lose your sense of humor yet, folks.
Remember how long SCOG avoided specificity. Eventually, Microsoft will stand
before a judge who asks, "Is this all you've got?" (See
First Report
from the Hearing - Updated 4Xs - Wells to SCO: "Is This All You've
Got?"
2006-04-14)
There are plenty of other people
who may also have intellectual property. And every time an Eolas comes to
Microsoft and says, "Pay us," I suspect they also would like to eventually go to
the Open Source world.
Plenty of other wrongs do not
make you right, Ballmer. There are places in the world which do not suffer the
insanity of software patents. The advantages of true innovation in software in
such places will eventually be obvious to legislators even through the fog of
misinformation and greed pumped up by the likes of
Microsoft.
So getting what I call an intellectual property
interoperability framework between the two worlds I think is important.
Ah! Ballmer knows that interoperability among programs
is very simple -- all Microsoft would need to do is stop deliberately breaking
standards and everyone's software could interoperate -- thus, he simply applies
the buzzword to a different area in order to frame the problem in a way that
results in him getting paid. All the Microsoft misinformation and FUD now
focuses on how to continue the Microsoft tax on business after business has
learned that FOSS doesn't tax them.
The only way to end the parasitic
attacks by Microsoft is to end Microsoft. Thankfully, it appears to be following
in the footsteps of its prototype protege, SCOG. It will take a bit longer to
bankrupt Microsoft, simply because of the foundation of lock-in which they have
established.
---
-- grouch
"People aren't as dumb as Microsoft needs them to be."
--PJ, May 2007
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 11:58 AM EDT |
I really think it's time for folks to take a weekend and read Stallman's
"Free Software, Free Society" book. See what the distinctions are
between patent, copyright, and trademark, and realize that "intellectual
property" is a BS term meant to skew those different concepts (with their
different historical laws) into one bucket.
As long as we keep answering to the "intellectual property" topic, it
will continue to become a "real" topic, and if that day comes, the
historical distinctions between patent law, copyright law, and trademark law
will melt away.
Imagine if auto, motorcycle, and boating laws were lumped into one
"transportion" category. If you agree with a law that makes sense for
boating, do you then implicitly accept it as sensible for a motorcycle? That's
what the term "intellectual property" does.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kosmonaut on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 12:30 PM EDT |
I commend PJ for her article and the conclussion it leads to.
Now, reading Ballmer`'s words:
<blockquote>I would love to see all Open Source innovation happen on top
of Windows. So we've done a lot to encourage, for example, the team building,
PHP, the team building, many of the other Open Source components, I'd love to
see those sorts of innovations proceed very successfully on top of
Windows.<blockquote>
It could very well mean they are already copying FOSS successful developments
and integrating it into their products (remember that M$ never inoovates, it
just copies, buys or destroys -if it can't do the former two- other products).
Take for example "runas" copy of "sudo" or "switch
user" in XP; morevoer, Vista is proof they aren't capable of launching any
interesting/worthy product anymore, so the only way is to kill any escape way
for their customers.
Will they then sue the FOSS world from which they are taking ideas in the first
instance?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 12:33 PM EDT |
Misusing a monopoly to enforce in continued existence, or forcing a monopoly
into a related market segment, that is a crime.
It is worse than that. Did Ballmer hint that patent settlements with companies
going after Micro$oft will include provisions that they must go after FOSS?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: KentWA on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
I think one of the things that needs to be undertaken is to find all the
examples that can be found of times the Patent Office granted a patent that
should never have been patented and collecting them in one place.
Two patents
leap into my mind right away as totaly stupid that they were ever awarded. The
first is the patent for swinging side to side on a park swing and Amazons's
One-Click shopping.I also seem to remember there was a patent on using email in
eCommerce as well.
That would be one weapon in the battle, having the
examples of why patents do not work.
So I will start to create a few
pointers to some really stupid ones:
eMedicines Group Author
Tool
Method of
playing a bowling Game
The infamous
Swing
Sub-domains
The Peanut Butter Sandwich
Many More
Kent
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 12:43 PM EDT |
I was thinking initially that "MS still doesn't get it". The "it" I'm
refering to is the fact that it's a community that has been targeted. Not a
business.
Then I thought: wait a sec, MS refuses to disclose the "IP"
that Linux is supposed to infringe. If it was a business, would they be so
reticent? Possibly. But considering the cost of hiring the correct experts to
be able to prove a patent invalid, MS probably would disclose the IP that is
supposed to be infringed.
So.... MS' refusal to disclose the patents
could very well show an understanding of the effectively unlimited resources of
the community. Any patent they disclose in any way has a serious risk of being
examined by a few thousand knowledgeable individuals. Experts in various fields
that could easily destroy such patents by providing the prior art that MS hopes
does not appear.
Note: All the above is pure conjecture, but it gives
indication that MS does potentially understand they are fighting a community.
They are also struggling with how to combat such a "beast" because all their
"best tools" have proved ineffective at best and back-firing at worst.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 12:47 PM EDT |
I wouldn't get to exercised about Ballmer's speech – he is just preaching to the
stock holders and independent developers that despite all the bad news lately,
Microsoft is still relevant and in control of its own destiny (read that as
pricing control).
We will probably see sooner or later a series of management shake-ups at
Microsoft like IBM went through, until they find a good fit in an environment
they no longer control.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsmith on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 01:03 PM EDT |
Microsoft has now oficially joined the ranks of the patent trolls.
They've got a >90% market share, and they still feel the need to try and tilt
the market in their favor. One wonders why they keep getting convicted for
monopoly abuse?
Put up or shut up, MS. Now that SCO is as good as finished we'll demolish your
phony patents with glee!
---
Intellectual Property is an oxymoron.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 01:36 PM EDT |
The worst part about windows isn't even the fact that it's slow, or that it
crashes all the time, or that you often just can't get it to work. The wost part
about it is the fact that Microsoft keeps changing how it works all the time,
never making it better of more intuitive, just different. While it's extremely
profitable for re-sellers and consultants to keep charging money for re-training
people and re-writing existing software, it is precisely for this reason that
people are switching to Linux. The cost of the operating system itself is
completely insignificant when compared to the cost of re-writing working
software / re-training people. So while the Red-hat top end server version of
Linux may be more expensive than Windows, the fact that you don't need to keep
chaning your systems makes it well worth the money.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 03:05 PM EDT |
It's tough to take someone quoted out of context and try to understand his
meanings properly, but that's what I'm going to try to do here...
Ballmer was reported to say, "The only other thing I would say that is
probably germane is, we spend a lot of money, the rest of the commercial
industry spends a lot of money on R & D. We've spent a lot of money
licensing patents, when people come to us and say, "Hey, this commercial
piece of software violates our patent, our intellectual propery, we'll either
get a court judgment or we'll pay a big check. And we are going to -- I think it
is important that the Open Source products also have an obligation to
participate in the same way in the intellectual property regime."
But in that particular paragraph he's not really talking about IP that belongs
to Microsoft. It seems he chose to emphasize the difficulty that Microsoft has
when trying to compete with an operating system that does not pay for IP that
other companies or individuals (rather tnan Microsoft) charge Microsoft for
using.
So I view this interview with Ballmer as signalling a change of direction in the
battle against Microsoft's competition. Rather than trying to attack other
operating systems directly, he wants to drum up other companies that Microsoft
pays for IP to attack Unix, Linux, MacOS, etc., in court over IP issues. He's
trying to broaden the battle to include all FOSS-type developments that
potentially compete with Microsoft's sales, not merely to include Linux. Then,
eventually, when a series of Microsoft allies have already spent themselves in
fruitless court battles (few deep pockets in FOSS, after all), attacking
numerous FOSS projects, then Microsoft would consider stepping in and starting
their own suits.
This, after all, is what Microsoft did with SCO. Only the opening round...
It's kind of like Germany talking small countries like Panama into attacking the
US or England before the start of World War II.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 03:50 PM EDT |
| In chess, the most valuable aspect of any given piece (especially the bigger
pieces) is more in the threat of what that piece could do than what it
actually does.
For example, a queen, in the right place, can protect 3 or 4
pieces from attack and threaten to attack another 3 or 4 enemy pieces. If,
however, you actually put the queen into play, Most of those pieces will lose
their protection or threat.
Balmer knows that the threat of
litigation is far more powerful than actual litigation (cf. SCO). If Microsoft
actually does sue an OSS project, they could find themselves in a patent war for
which there is no clear winner (especially since the FOSS community could plead
that MS's patents are invalidated because they are being used in an
anti-competitive manner, but MS couldn't plead the contrary).
Then again, of
course, there's the problem that, once MS's 'infringed' patents are on the
table, any that are actually being infringed could quite possibly be worked
around.
This doesn't obviate the need for tossing software patents,
generally, but I think that MS's patent threat against the (FL)OSS community is
far from overwhelming. Yes, a MS patent war would be annoying, distracting and
expensive, but I doubt that it would actually be overwhelming.
(and the
thought of MS ultimately having to pay billions of dollars per year to the FLOSS
community has a tantalizing taste of irony to it.) ---
Powerful, committed
communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rweiler on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 03:57 PM EDT |
Ballmer knows the button to press, and it is 'interoperability'. When the market
is controlled by an abusive monopolist, competitors have no choice but to
implement the file formats and protocols of the monopolist if they want to
penetrate the market. Ballmer is making it clear that anybody that tries to
inter operate with Windows is going to be threatened with a lawsuit for patent
infringement. In the US, he will probably get away with it too since they have
installed their own man as the top guy in the anti-trust department of the
USDOJ. Hopefully the next administration will be more willing to enforce
anti-trust law, but I wouldn't bet on it. Microsoft can give them $60B not to,
and if that's what it takes, that's what they will do. Microsoft makes the mafia
look like two bit thugs.
---
Sometimes the measured use of force is the only thing that keeps the world from
being ruled by force. -- G. W. Bush
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 03:59 PM EDT |
One definition of "a diplomat":
Someone who can tel a tiger 'nice
kitty, kitty, kitty' while you're searching for a nice, big
rock>/i>.
What we simply need to do is immortalize
Balmer's comments so that, if Microsoft is ever stupid enough to start a patent
war, we can force him to eat his words with pepper-spray
sauce.---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within
each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 06:12 PM EDT |
"I get why Microsoft wants what it wants. They don't want to die off like
an aged and irrelevant elephant. But I don't want to use their software ever
again as long as I live. I hate it. It doesn't work. It spies on me. It's a
malware magnet. It's slow. It doesn't multitask the way I'm used to. It takes
over my computer in ways I can't prevent, and the worst is, when something goes
wrong, there's nothing you can do about it without worrying about stepping on
some of their stupid IP. It is the exact opposite of FOSS, where none of that
happens."
DSM[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 08:46 PM EDT |
In an earlier post people thought I was cruel when I said that Microsoft will
kill you and make sure you are dead never to come back. I used to like
Windows,but after fighting with my wife's computer over and over, I hate their
crap. It just doesn't work consistently and they should compensate me for the my
time that I waste fixing bad software (and of course, little bubbles that tell
me how stupid I am). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 09:11 PM EDT |
Yes, and we can clearly see throughout the long, drawn-out Eolas battle how well
Microsoft respected their intellectual property. After pulling every dirty legal
trick in their arsenal to weasel out of it, and finally losing, did they pay
up.
What a sterling example of walking the walk. Yes Ballmer, let's all follows
Microsoft's example.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: CypherOz on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 09:41 PM EDT |
Does Ballmer really want to fight IBM over patents? MS will be destroyed!
That is what will happen if MS try and destroy FOSS/Linux using so called IP
law. IBM have put too much into FOSS and have made 'Open Computing' their
mantra.
Linux on Systems x, p, i and z.
---
The GPL is enduring, not viral[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 09:57 PM EDT |
Seriously, repeated claims that "Linux" is violating mysterious and
unnamed "IP" are simply trade libel. They haven't named a single
specific piece of IP -- and worse, they've said they won't because if they did
we would know what to avoid!
Because of that, they *cannot* win damages in *any* patent case *ever*. Judges
don't appreciate that sort of abuse of the system.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 10:16 PM EDT |
. . .for the appropriate fee Novell customers also get essentially
the right to use our patented intellectual property.
Finally, the
win32 GUI kicks in and I can get the WinSCOSource License - good work Balmer -
keep those chairs coming.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: david_koontz on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 10:27 PM EDT |
On the other hand, I'd also tell you the following is true.
All... I would love to see all Open Source innovation happen on top of Windows.
So we've done a lot to encourage, for example, the team building, PHP, the team
building, many of the other Open Source components, I'd love to see those sorts
of innovations proceed very successfully on top of Windows.
...
There
are plenty of other people who may also have intellectual property. And every
time an Eolas comes to Microsoft and says, "Pay us," I suspect they also would
like to eventually go to the Open Source world.
If one were to
take these two statements together one could note that Microsoft can afford to
pay off an Eolas, while a Sun, Novell, Linspire, etc. might have a harder time.
How about changing embrace and extend to
embrace and extinguish? "Aw, you
can't cover table stakes any more? Too bad, you're out of the
game!"
Followed by, "What? We tried to interoperate with the competition.
How were we to know these guys were going to come out of the wood work with
these patents? Too bad {insert Linux company collaborating with Microsoft here}
couldn't go the distance financially to stay in business. Tied their cart to
this joint venture, and couldn't afford the vig to stay in
business."
They're big enough not to mind the tar spots on their hide from
tangling with the occasional B'rer Tar Baby, where the smaller 'competitor'
might expire. We're talking about a company that can afford 1.2 milion a a day
for EU fines. Big enough to put the competition out of business by cooperating
with them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dht on Tuesday, October 09 2007 @ 11:01 PM EDT |
Open mouth, insert foot.. Or how to piss off your biggest customers. The ones
that already run a mixture of platforms, and have the influence and money to
make or break your business. MS is so concerned about "competitors" that they
have lost sight of "customers". So they end up threatening customers with
possible/potential lawsuits over vague possible/potential undisclosed patent
infringements.
It's high time they put up or shut up. The extended open
source community stands ready to either invalidate or work around any patent
that MS, or any other patent holder, will identify in GPL licensed open source
code or projects. If MS is so worried about it's "IP", then why not do something
about it? They can do it pleasantly by simply identifying them, or unpleasantly
by filing a lawsuit. Either way, the community response will be the same.
Ballmer states very clearly that they wish to compete on quality of product.
If he feels they have valid and supportable patents on concepts that are used in
Linux and FLOSS projects, it would be a solid and proper business move to simply
identify the patents in question. Let the community scramble to work around
them, possibly creating an inferior product as a result. Since MS refuses to
explicitly identify such patents, the only conclusion can be that they don't
feel confident in the validity of the patents in question.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2007 @ 03:20 AM EDT |
Once upon a time there was no Groklaw. Then SCO sued IBM and Groklaw came
into being. And it was assumed Groklaw would outlive its purpose once the
lawsuit against IBM was dismissed.
It's obvious now this is not the case. Groklaw continues and must continue until
Microsoft gets totally demolished. And even after that Groklaw's going to be a
good thing to have around to make sure no other crooks come and try the same
things again.
WTG PJ and Groklaw.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Wednesday, October 10 2007 @ 06:32 AM EDT |
Like a train going at full speed off a broken bridge or
a
trainee pilot
doing a loop-the-loop below a
thousand feet
in a fast military jet on
afterburner, it was kind-of
foreseeable. Steve
Ballmer is much like Darl
McBride. It appears that they
love to hear themselves speak, much more than
the rest of
us do.
For what it's worth, I'm now a convert to
the
"unconditional surrender" school of F/LOSS users
in relation to
Microsoft - I used to think co-existence was
possible, and that they and we had
approached some sort of
detente.
Because Microsoft still claims
that as a satisfied Linux
user, I owe them for the privilege of making use of a
project that started out as far from Microsoft as one could
get on a PC in the
early nineties, and since they won't
come clean
with any such minor detail as
"evidence for their
claims", I won't be
satisfied
with them merely
submitting their two vanity
licenses to the OSI; nor will I be satisfied
with their
occasional release of source code under an OSI-approved
license.
I've had to work with some truly ancient Microsoft
products
in my time, and they're still out there, still
being actively used by the
end-user. To help
people,
as opposed to merely going through the
motions, I will
expect Microsoft to release such products' source trees,
together with their development environments, under the GPL
v3. Right up to
and including the source trees of the most
modern
products I have had to try
to help people with - MS Windows
Vista, etc. (Of course Vista didn't
recognize her
digital
camera - it was a year too early for it!
Sheesh!)
Of course, there's a lot of people who see
Microsoft's
"IP claims" in the same light as The SCO
Group's similar "IP
claims", and predict an earlier
death for Microsoft than they had
previously imagined. In
that case, Microsoft could make a softer landing for
themselves than otherwise,
by making the sort of source code release I am
arguing
for - using the GPL's built-in software escrow. It's a
no-brainer -
which puts Steve Ballmer in a bad light,
doesn't it?!?
Oh yes,
Pan-Am?
Pan Am ordered both the [Boeing] 707 and the
[Douglas] DC8.
Then, in what today could be prosecuted as
ruthless competition, Pan Am
informed both manufacturers
that if they sold jets to Transocean, a California
to
Hawaii competitor, Pan Am would not buy any more of their
airplanes.
Transocean's Stratocruisers and Super
Constellations were unable to compete
with the newer jets,
so Transocean folded.
Jetliners, pg. 9
Clinton H.
Groves
MBI Publishing
Company, 1993
ISBN
0-87938-821-8
Now find me a share market still trading in Pan Am
shares. ---
finagement: The Vampire's veins and Pacific torturers
stretching back through his own season. Well, cutting like a child on one of
these states of view, I duck [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2007 @ 10:29 AM EDT |
As I think more about this I've come to the conclusion that
this is no "woops". This was a well planned event and SB
knew what he could say and what he could not say. The
back-pedeling in the PR department was also planned so
M$ would not look stupid. I think that this is a ploy
that has become popular. Get your top dog to do "stupid"
things in public, the top dog knowing full well that this
is the plan of course, then have some part of the
organization make statments that would seem to indicate
that it was caught off guard or something. The public
is then molified by the PR and the scheme proceeds
without the public outrage that might otherwise be met.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2007 @ 11:37 AM EDT |
I see it like this. If a Kernel modaled after a kernel that existed before
there was Windows (oh, DOS for that matter) is violating a patent from a company
patenting said process from a later work, that patent should never been issued.
Now the GUI, Are they attacking X11, That is funny, it is the real deal, not
modaled (like the Kernel). X11 has been around since before there was an IBM-PC
to run DOS on. How could they be holding a patent that X11 violates.
The rest of the patents, seems to me that FOSS has access to HUGE patent
portfolios too. Lets see, and anyone say Mutual Assured Destruction!!!!!
It is FUD, It will not go anywhere, and neither will the one spewing it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: KAKMAN on Wednesday, October 10 2007 @ 12:22 PM EDT |
Every Red Hat user - the gauntlet has been thrown - 1)send Steve Ballmer your
name address and phone number and what version of Red Hat you're using,2)OCT 31
2007 - a peaceful but loud demonstration by as many red hat users as possible at
the Microsoft campus - demand an apology from Steve Ballmer in person or he's
has to sue each and every person in the crowd who is indemnified by Red Hat
anyway. this is war. Let's celebrate the anniversary of the Halloween memos -
let's storm the campus - let's demand justice - no more fear -no more
uncertainty - no more doubt! Let's do this now![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: greeblesnort on Wednesday, October 10 2007 @ 04:44 PM EDT |
open up Vista? I mean, if they were to actually release the Vista source, even
under their lame shared source license (minus NDA), and allow developers to
submit patches back to them, what impact would that have on linux uptake?
I suspect that it would put a massive dent in uptake within a couple months as
people actually turned Vista into something worth running.
Barring, of course, the potential for one or more of those smart developer types
finding some sort of F/OSS code improperly used in the Vista code...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2007 @ 08:11 PM EDT |
The video is actually in wmv and the protocol mms:
mms://mydeo.wmod.llnwd.net/a584/o1/wmv/133677_1644.wmv?e=1192064962&h=734825
cd284ccedbafcd4f0bb225f409
All the ASP stuff is just for redirection (and probably providing metadata in
the tags -- I've never bother to understand all the asx magic).
MMS can be downloaded by
mplayer -dumpstream
mms://mydeo.wmod.llnwd.net/a584/o1/wmv/133677_1644.wmv?e=1192064962&h=734825
cd284ccedbafcd4f0bb225f409
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2007 @ 08:30 AM EDT |
See part of the Q&A here:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x36tn1_steve-ballmer-threatens-redhat-with_news[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: txwikinger on Friday, October 19 2007 @ 04:17 AM EDT |
Well, let's see what happens when the only serious
competition to Microsoft, which is FOSS is threatened by
them using IP.
According to EU Anti-competition law, a quasi monopoly
cannot use even their rights to destroy competition. No
corporation can use even legal rights to obtain monopoly
or even quasi-monopoly.
I think, at least in Europe they will lose. However, I
also
think the whole anti-trust issue in US will rolled up
again, and this time there will be a serious threat for
Microsoft to be broken up.
I doubt, Microsoft is so stupid. They might threaten a
little, but they will be to afraid to follow their threats
in the same measure.
Secondly, if they force the issue more, there will be a
rethink of IP in general. This time the opposition to IP
for the clan of oligarchs has already been established.
The fight will be far bigger than they believe. I
say.. "Bring it on". I am for quite some time that this
issue will in history be seen equivalent to the French
Revolution. Only this time, the battle will be in the
Courts and not on the streets.
Finally, let's have some more scrutiny on Microsoft's IP.
Who is really convinced that it will not crumble in pieces
when really looked at. Microsoft's blue bubble theory was
not very convincing to the EU Court. Let's see how many
blue bubbles are hidden in Microsoft's IP.
Ubuntu - Humility and Humanity
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
