"In short, IBM intends to skin SCO alive at trial."
thingy
Not so much the tide has turned against SCO as here comes the 200foot
high tsunami.........dear Darl's bad mouthing is coming home to roost
big time....
:D
I cannot see how SCO's business will even survive the trial, Novell
should get it pretty quick. If that fails SCO's business selling i386
Unix should collapse anyway, I mean customers would need their bumps
felt if they are still or contemplating rolling out platforms based on
SCO.....then IBMs counter suits arrive....where is this vendor going to
be at most 2 years from now? (apart from jail).
regards
Thing
Peter
> I cannot see how SCO's business will even survive the trial, Novell
> should get it pretty quick. If that fails SCO's business selling i386
> Unix should collapse anyway, I mean customers would need their bumps
> felt if they are still or contemplating rolling out platforms based on
> SCO.....then IBMs counter suits arrive....where is this vendor going to
> be at most 2 years from now? (apart from jail).
(There was a story that MS was providing funds via some third party, as part
of MS's dirty tricks campaign against Linux.)
peterwn
And / or MS has 'guaranteed' other outfits investing in SCO.
thingy
Nope, Baystar etc ran away. Also I am hoping if it can be shown that
SCO used MS's money to fund such a malicious and unfounded attack and is
damaging RH/IBM/Linux it could be argued that MS as a supporter of the
action is also liable.....that would be neat....
regards
Thing
Adam
It looks doubtful that will happen, as the main case looks like it will fold
soon.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061129165103775
Now this MS-Novell-GPL thing, looks like that has legs.
steve
MS pulled the funding from the 3rd party....who then cat a cat fight with
SCO.
Old news. :-)
whome
"thingy" <thi...@nowhere.commy> wrote in message
news:456dd02c$1...@clear.net.nz...
don't believe for a minute that ibm cannot be evil too.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> don't believe for a minute that ibm cannot be evil too.
Sure. But nowadays its business is depending more and more on software
released under the GNU General Public License. That kind of puts a crimp in
the sort of evil you can commit--as Microsoft has been discovering with the
fallout from its Novell deal.
impossible
message news:ekm2kj$bcp$6...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> In message <TP6dnbnK4Ign4vPY...@giganews.com>, whome
> wrote:
>
>> don't believe for a minute that ibm cannot be evil too.
>
> Sure. But nowadays its business is depending more and more on
> software
> released under the GNU General Public License.
Not true at all. Servicing open-source software is a very, very small
part of IBM's business. As you well know, IBM holds 50,000 software
patents, more than any company in the world. Last year alone it was
granted 3000 software patents. It's core business is proprietary from
top to bottom.
> That kind of puts a crimp in
> the sort of evil you can commit--as Microsoft has been discovering
> with the
> fallout from its Novell deal.
IBM fights for its intellectual property rights every bit as fiercely
as Microsoft. For instance, IBM is currently suing Amazon for
violating a 1994 patent said to concern the creation of electronic
catalogues, among other things.
http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/10/24/ibm-amazon-update-markets-equity-cx_mk_1023markets05.html
Earl Grey
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
> message news:ekm2kj$bcp$6...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> In message <TP6dnbnK4Ign4vPY...@giganews.com>, whome
>> wrote:
>>
>>> don't believe for a minute that ibm cannot be evil too.
>> Sure. But nowadays its business is depending more and more on
>> software
>> released under the GNU General Public License.
>
> Not true at all. Servicing open-source software is a very, very small
> part of IBM's business. As you well know, IBM holds 50,000 software
> patents, more than any company in the world. Last year alone it was
> granted 3000 software patents. It's core business is proprietary from
> top to bottom.
>
Mmmm, if you say so ...
http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/opensource/
http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/index.shtml
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/os-sutorinterview.html
"This highlights IBM's recent activities in patents and open source. In
July 2004, we pledged not to assert any patents against the Linux
kernel. Another example is in the area of Web services standards where
we asserted that we would not make any claims. You should expect some
other things from IBM in this area as the year goes by. We intend to be
very creative."
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
> message news:ekm2kj$bcp$6...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> In message <TP6dnbnK4Ign4vPY...@giganews.com>, whome
>> wrote:
>>
>>> don't believe for a minute that ibm cannot be evil too.
>>
>> Sure. But nowadays its business is depending more and more on
>> software released under the GNU General Public License.
>
> Not true at all. Servicing open-source software is a very, very small
> part of IBM's business.
How is that disagreeing with what I said, exactly?
impossible
news:456f9257$1...@clear.net.nz...
IBM has playing the open-source community for so long, you folks can't
even tell anymore when you're being had. 500 obsolete,
about-to-expire-anyway patents get tossed to you and you're giddy.
impossible
>> part of IBM's business. As you well know, IBM holds 50,000 software
>> patents, more than any company in the world. Last year alone it was
>> granted 3000 software patents. It's core business is proprietary
>> from
>> top to bottom.
>>>That kind of puts a crimp in
>>>the sort of evil you can commit--as Microsoft has been discovering
>>> with the
>>>fallout from its Novell deal.
>> IBM fights for its intellectual property rights every bit as
>> fiercely
>> as Microsoft. For instance, IBM is currently suing Amazon for
>> violating a 1994 patent said to concern the creation of electronic
>> catalogues, among other things.
> How is that disagreeing with what I said, exactly?
For your convenience, I've restored all of my remarks (and yours) that
you deleted. Maybe we're in agreement that IBM's primary software
business is proprietary, that it commands far more software patents
than Microsoft has ever dreamed of owning, and that it's vigorous
defense of intellectual property through lawsuits is conspicuously at
odds with the public-relations nonsense it peddles to the OSS
community about the need for a warm-and-fuzzy "intellectual commons".
You tell me.
impossible
"impossible" <anyw...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:yeadnXwB66AVOvLY...@comcast.com...
Oh, and btw -- the part of my remarks that you conveneiently chose to
ignore:
>>> IBM fights for its intellectual property rights every bit as
>>> fiercely as Microsoft. For instance, IBM is currently suing Amazon
>>> for violating a 1994 patent said to concern the creation of
>>> electronic catalogues, among other things.
>>> http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/10/24/ibm-amazon-update-markets-equity-cx_mk_1023markets05.html
Just where do you stand on IBM's lawsuit against Amazon for patent
infringement? I didn't notice any references to this on any of the
links you provided. Any implications here for open-source developers,
you suppose?
Earl Grey
>
> IBM has playing the open-source community for so long, you folks can't
> even tell anymore when you're being had. 500 obsolete,
> about-to-expire-anyway patents get tossed to you and you're giddy.
>
>
Heh
I think its you thats doing the spinning !
They pledged to not assert any patents against the Linux kernel
As contributors they can't anyway.
impossible
Flailing over patent issues with the Linux kernel was SCO's folly.
Microsoft is naturally still concerned about it's intellectual
property in operating systems, and so maybe we haven't seen the last
of the challenges, but the MS truce with Novell is at least
encouraging. IBM, on the other hand, has no operating system of its
own -- just a lot of proprietary hardware and software applications to
sell, and an IT services business to develop ("just" meaning $100
biillion or so in annual revenues) -- and so it's intellectual
property lines are drawn a little differently. Both Linux and Windows
are good for IBM's business -- thewy can afford to be agnostic. But
read for yourself what IBM said in announcing its lawsuit against
Amazon:
http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/20481.wss
"IBM said that Amazon.com has willfully infringed and continues to
infringe on a number of key IBM patents, including:
"1. US 5,796,967 - Presenting Applications in an Interactive Service.
"2. US 5,442,771 - Storing Data in an Interactive Network.
"3. US 7,072,849 - Presenting Advertising in an Interactive Service.
"4. US 5,446,891 - Adjusting Hypertext Links with Weighted User Goals
and Activities.
"5. US 5,319,542 - Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue."
These are just 5 patents out of the 40,000 IBM now owns. You can
actually look them up online, if you're interested. You don't think
this lawsuit is going to send a chilling message to all developers,
open-source or otherwise? In fact, that seems to be the very point.
"...When someone takes our property, without our permission through a
license, we have no option but to protect it through every means
available to us," said [IBM's] Kelly." On this much, at least, IBM and
Microsoft are in complete agreement.
Chris Hope
[snip]
[ibm's patents]
> "5. US 5,319,542 - Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue."
WTF?!! How on earth do you get a patent for that?
--
Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.com
Earl Grey
> "Earl Grey" <e...@t.pot> wrote in message
> news:456fc372$1...@clear.net.nz...
>> impossible wrote:
>>
>>> IBM has playing the open-source community for so long, you folks
>>> can't even tell anymore when you're being had. 500 obsolete,
>>> about-to-expire-anyway patents get tossed to you and you're giddy.
>> Heh
>> I think its you thats doing the spinning !
>> They pledged to not assert any patents against the Linux kernel
>> As contributors they can't anyway.
>
> Flailing over patent issues with the Linux kernel was SCO's folly.
No
There were no patent issues in dispute in SCO vs IBM, just unsupported
assertions of copyright infringement and breach of contract.
Earl Grey
> impossible wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> [ibm's patents]
>
>> "5. US 5,319,542 - Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue."
>
> WTF?!! How on earth do you get a patent for that?
>
You have to be first in line, or buy it off the guy who was.
impossible
Pardon me for confusing one folly with another. Still, for some
reason, you avoid commenting on IBM's patent suit against Amazon.
http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/20481.wss
"IBM said that Amazon.com has willfully infringed and continues to
infringe on a number of key IBM patents, including:
"1. US 5,796,967 - Presenting Applications in an Interactive Service.
"2. US 5,442,771 - Storing Data in an Interactive Network.
"3. US 7,072,849 - Presenting Advertising in an Interactive Service.
"4. US 5,446,891 - Adjusting Hypertext Links with Weighted User Goals
and Activities.
"5. US 5,319,542 - Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue."
Is that a good thing for the cause of software freedom?
impossible
Cute. But seriously, how on earth do you get a patent for that?
Here's the link to the complete patent file:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,319,542.PN.&OS=PN/5,319,542&RS=PN/5,319,542
More importantly, why does IBM get a pass from the open-source
community for asserting property rights of this ridiculous sort? Very
odd.
Chris Hope
Well I'm in violation on that patent on every ecommerce website I've
ever created (and that's a lot of ecommerce sites), if it is actually
for what it appears to be for based on that title. Hmm lets's see...
"SELECT something FROM sometable ORDER BY somefield" and display it in
an electronic catalogue and oops, I'm in violation of a patent.
Chris Hope
Having skim read that patent document, it's a little more complex than
the title would suggest, but I also have to ask again, how on earth can
you get a patent for something like that? Some of the software patents
these companies hold are just crazy.
Earl Grey
You might as well be asking why the open source community let Saddam gas
the Kurds.
impossible
If you read the subject line of this thread, you'll see that it began
with the claim that "IBM intends to skin SCO alive at trial" over
doubtful intellectual property rights claims, a case that the Linux
blogs have been featuring for years, and which is commonly cited by
these bloggers -- and in this newgroup -- as example of IBM's
allegedly more principled stand on IP in comparison to Microsoft.
Turns out, however, that IBM and Microsoft are kindred souls on IP,
which they are both inclined to fiercely defend. So now IBM intends to
skin Amazon alive at trial over doubtful patent claims -- and yet the
blogs (and you) are stunningly silent. Amazon, unlike SCO is a rather
prominent and successful company, and so IBM's lawsuit has potentially
much greater implications for software developers everywhere --
whether proprietary or open-source. If this were Microsoft
spear-heading the attack on Amazon, instead of IBM, I seriously doubt
that you would you be as flip about the matter as you are now.
Earl Grey
impossible
That's a shame.
Don Hills
"impossible" <anyw...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> ... So now IBM intends to
>skin Amazon alive at trial over doubtful patent claims ...
How quickly we forget. Google for "one click patent".
(With the quotes around it, as an exact quote search.)
--
Don Hills (dmhills at attglobaldotnet) Wellington, New Zealand
"New interface closely resembles Presentation Manager,
preparing you for the wonders of OS/2!"
-- Advertisement on the box for Microsoft Windows 2.11 for 286
impossible
news:vJTcFtga...@attglobal.net...
> In article <laadnduUEaQ82O3Y...@comcast.com>,
> "impossible" <anyw...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> ... So now IBM intends to
>>skin Amazon alive at trial over doubtful patent claims ...
>
> How quickly we forget. Google for "one click patent".
> (With the quotes around it, as an exact quote search.)
For one take on why this might be something more than a case of
tit-for-tat, Google "Why IBM's patent suit against Amazon could be bad
news for the entire Web" (With the quotes around it, as an exact
quote search.)
Oh, heck, here's the link: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3848
Earl Grey
A link to the same blogs that you were previously dismissing.
The patent system has valid reasons for its existence and a lot of
unintended consequences like a lot of civil law. IBM is in the patent
business, Amazon is trying to compete with IBM in the patent business
and is being given some lesson time. IBM is aware of the value of
detente, and the relative wisdom of assertion and non assertion of its
patent rights, and we mice have to watch out when the elephants start
fighting.
impossible
> impossible wrote:
>> "Don Hills" <black.ho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:vJTcFtga...@attglobal.net...
>>> In article <laadnduUEaQ82O3Y...@comcast.com>,
>>> "impossible" <anyw...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> ... So now IBM intends to
>>>> skin Amazon alive at trial over doubtful patent claims ...
>>> How quickly we forget. Google for "one click patent".
>>> (With the quotes around it, as an exact quote search.)
>>
>> For one take on why this might be something more than a case of
>> tit-for-tat, Google "Why IBM's patent suit against Amazon could be
>> bad news for the entire Web" (With the quotes around it, as an
>> exact quote search.)
>>
>> Oh, heck, here's the link: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3848
> Gosh
> A link to the same blogs that you were previously dismissing.
Nice to see that some people are more thoughtful about these issues.
>
> The patent system has valid reasons for its existence and a lot of
> unintended consequences like a lot of civil law. IBM is in the
> patent business, Amazon is trying to compete with IBM in the patent
> business and is being given some lesson time.
Seems we're all being schooled now. Which is a good reason to bring
these disputes out in the open. IBM is more than "in the patent
business" -- with 40,000 + patents it's by far the dominant player in
IT. The fact that Amazon happens to hold 1 patent that I'm aware of
hardly makes it a serious competitor.
> IBM is aware of the value of detente, and the relative wisdom of
> assertion and non assertion of its patent rights, and we mice have
> to watch out when the elephants start fighting.
Unfortunately, most Linux bloggers seem to take the view that, so long
as IBM doesn't declare war on the Linux kernel, they'll sit back and
ignore every other instance in which IBM throws its considerable IP
power around. That's a bit short-sighted, I'd say.