Hints That Microsoft May Use IP Against Linux
Roy Schestowitz
,----[ Quote ]
| "In an interview with Forbes, Microsoft?s CEO Steve Ballmer stops short
| of announcing patent litigation against Linux"
`----
Erik Funkenbusch
I knew it wouldn't take you long to post that. If you actually read the
article, you find that what he actually said is nothing like that. He
simply said that Microsoft needed a strategy, but didn't know what that
would be. The author of the commentary is reading far more into what was
said than was actually said.
In fact, he doesn't even mention patents at all. It's just a lot of
assumptions on the part of the commentor. Microsoft has never inititiated
a patent lawsuit against anyone, much less Linux, and I find it very
difficult to believe they're going to start now.
Rob Hughes
No, but he does say "intellectual property". And as the author points out,
this is a nice, vague term used to cover patents, copyrights, and
trademarks (it also covers trade secrets, though the author doesn't mention
that). So tell us Erik, how would linux violate anything "owned" by MS
other than patents? Do you think covert linux operatives have been working
as programmers at MS in order to pass trade secrets to the linux kernel
team? Do you think the MS strategy that Ballmer thinks he owes his stock
holders will be to sit and watch F/OSS developers violate MS patents
without penalty?
Personally, I hope MS does launch a patent-based lawsuit against
distributors and/or users. Once IBM and HP initiate suits against MS in
retaliation, we would see, if not the end of MS, a much poorer MS. Compared
to those two companies, the MS patent portfolio is likely little more than
a bad joke, and would likely not serve MS well as a shield against either
of those two companies.
Personally, I think every Justice that voted for software patentability in
Diamond v. Diehr should've been taken out and whipped. It was stupid to the
point of criminality not to see that companies would attempt to get
government-granted monopolies on entire areas of software design through
vaguely worded patent claims.
--
Ignorance is a condition. Stupidity is a way of life.
Chris H
Quite right, it's always going to be a bit embarrassing when asked in
court why they did nothing to protect their IP for years when the source
code is available for all to see.
Glad you're around again Erik coz I'm just dying to know what the
official spin is on the rumour that 60% of Vista has to be rewritten:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30516
--
C.
Roy Schestowitz
many such patents, which Microsoft have been accumulating are ludicrous.
http://news.com.com/Microsofts+file+system+patent+upheld/2100-1012_3-6025447.html?tag=nefd.top
,----[ Quote ]
| The FAT file system, a common means of storing files, was originally
| developed for Windows but is also employed on removable flash memory
| cards used in digital cameras and other devices. Some Linux- and
| Unix-related products also use the system to exchange data with Windows.
`----
And along that tune:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4552214.stm
,----[ Quote ]
| The European Commission has threatened to fine Microsoft up to 2m
| euros (£1.36m; $2.4m) a day until it gives rivals more access to
| its systems.
`----
Needless to mention, the FAT file system is an adaptation of something that
existed beforehand. I couldn't find a key article which said that Microsoft
now file almost 10 times as many patents as many before, relying on them as
a weapon for future and lining applications up like cannonballs.
> Personally, I hope MS does launch a patent-based lawsuit against
> distributors and/or users. Once IBM and HP initiate suits against MS in
> retaliation, we would see, if not the end of MS, a much poorer MS. Compared
> to those two companies, the MS patent portfolio is likely little more than
> a bad joke, and would likely not serve MS well as a shield against either
> of those two companies.
When/if Microsoft take others to court (rather than be pulled into it),
expect many companies (HP and IBM are indeed good examples) to turn their
backs on Microsoft. So far, Microsoft has done that only using a puppet,
which we all know as SCO.
> Personally, I think every Justice that voted for software patentability in
> Diamond v. Diehr should've been taken out and whipped. It was stupid to the
> point of criminality not to see that companies would attempt to get
> government-granted monopolies on entire areas of software design through
> vaguely worded patent claims.
Sorry to squeeze in a personal, but I happened to write this only yesterday.
http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/03/25/ip-negative-effect/
The Xeron-Palm case shows the detrimental effect of software patents.
Everyone suffers because some fsckwit invented typography.
7
By bringing up the subject of 'shareholder value', micoshaft
have stopped just short of declaring all out patent war on Linux.
Interesting times ahead me thinks.
Now that the saber has been rattled, there can be no choices left
for any company doing business with micoshaft or that is using
software which may have submarine patents planted on it by micoshaft.
Micoshaft is taking the litigation route to failure in order
to 'maximise' its shareholder value, and you may
as well get in there first with some nasty 'submarine' patents of
your own to fsck up micoshaft first / in defence of commies in micoshaft
central command trying to fsck up your own businesses.
Thats capitalism at work boy! And Don't argue back!
Jerry McBride
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 11:06:28 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> http://www.no-lobbyists-as-such.com/florian-mueller-blog/ballmer-linux/
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| "In an interview with Forbes, Microsoft?s CEO Steve Ballmer stops short
>>| of announcing patent litigation against Linux"
>> `----
>
> I knew it wouldn't take you long to post that. If you actually read the
> article, you find that what he actually said is nothing like that. He
> simply said that Microsoft needed a strategy, but didn't know what that
> would be. The author of the commentary is reading far more into what was
> said than was actually said.
>
You don't have to be a super sleuth to figure that out... The ONLY recourse
microsoft has is to try and kill off or slow down the Linux Juggernaught...
> In fact, he doesn't even mention patents at all. It's just a lot of
> assumptions on the part of the commentor. Microsoft has never inititiated
> a patent lawsuit against anyone, much less Linux, and I find it very
> difficult to believe they're going to start now.
I don't and neither does a lot of other linux users... microsoft cannot be
trusted while it falls into decay and dust... They will grab at anything
and anyone to keep from drowning in failure.
--
Jerry McBride
Erik Funkenbusch
> Quite right, it's always going to be a bit embarrassing when asked in
> court why they did nothing to protect their IP for years when the source
> code is available for all to see.
You seem to be mistaken. There is only one kind of IP that has to be
protected to keep it, and that's trademarks. Copyrights, Patents, etc have
no such protection requirements, especially the law was ammended to no
longer require that copyright be labeled as such.
> Glad you're around again Erik coz I'm just dying to know what the
> official spin is on the rumour that 60% of Vista has to be rewritten:
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30516
Don't pay attention much, do you?
http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_No_Vista_Code_Changes/1143232877
http://gamerscoreblog.com/team/archive/2006/03/24/533961.aspx
http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/03/24/rewrite-of-windows-vista-underway-hogwash/
etc.. etc.. etc..
billwg
"Rob Hughes" <r...@robhughes.com> wrote in message
news:b4Sdnb1HO9p...@comcast.com...
>
> Personally, I hope MS does launch a patent-based lawsuit against
> distributors and/or users. Once IBM and HP initiate suits against MS
> in
> retaliation, we would see, if not the end of MS, a much poorer MS.
> Compared
> to those two companies, the MS patent portfolio is likely little more
> than
> a bad joke, and would likely not serve MS well as a shield against
> either
> of those two companies.
>
>
cross-licensed themselves on most of their patents? That has been a
kind of standard boilerplate thing in contracts for decades now.
Microsoft could assert against some linux organization and IBM couldn't
do much about it as they have already licensed MS for everything MS
uses.
Erik Funkenbusch
> many such patents, which Microsoft have been accumulating are ludicrous.
Perhaps. But even Red Hat has been acquiring patents. You *HAVE* to in
this day and age in order to protect yourself against being sued by someone
else. The typical approach is that if you can patent enough stuff, it's
extremely likely that anyone that wants to sue you for patent infringement
probably vioates one of yours, so you simply cross license your patents and
you're immune to any further patent lawsuits from that company.
> http://news.com.com/Microsofts+file+system+patent+upheld/2100-1012_3-6025447.html?tag=nefd.top
How is this ludicrous?
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4552214.stm
What does that have to do with Patents Microsof owns?
> Needless to mention, the FAT file system is an adaptation of something that
> existed beforehand. I couldn't find a key article which said that Microsoft
> now file almost 10 times as many patents as many before, relying on them as
> a weapon for future and lining applications up like cannonballs.
Perhaps you should actually read the patent before running off half cocked.
I know that's a little too much for someone of your mental facilities to
do, so i'll make it clear. Microsoft does not have a patent on FAT. They
have a patent on an algorithm used in VFAT, the long file name enhancement
to FAT. VFAT most definately did not exist "before" (what I don't know,
you weren't clear).
No, Microsoft's patent portfolio is strictly defensive, not offensive. As
I said already. Microsoft has *NEVER* initiated a patent lawsuit against
anyone. Ever. Nor do I expect them to start.
Chris H
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:24:56 +0100, Chris H wrote:
>
>
>>Quite right, it's always going to be a bit embarrassing when asked in
>>court why they did nothing to protect their IP for years when the source
>>code is available for all to see.
>
>
> You seem to be mistaken. There is only one kind of IP that has to be
> protected to keep it, and that's trademarks. Copyrights, Patents, etc have
> no such protection requirements, especially the law was ammended to no
> longer require that copyright be labeled as such.
You really have reading comprehension problems don't you Erik? I never
said it had to be protected to keep it, all I said was it's going to be
embarrassing in court when asked why they did nothing about it when they
first discovered the problem, and the defense *will* ask.
>>Glad you're around again Erik coz I'm just dying to know what the
>>official spin is on the rumour that 60% of Vista has to be rewritten:
>>
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30516
>
>
> Don't pay attention much, do you?
Oh I pay attention and I didn't believe 60% could be correct for one
minute, I just like to watch you dance around. You're are just so damn
predictable.
> http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_No_Vista_Code_Changes/1143232877
> http://gamerscoreblog.com/team/archive/2006/03/24/533961.aspx
> http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/03/24/rewrite-of-windows-vista-underway-hogwash/
>
> etc.. etc.. etc..
--
C.
Erik Funkenbusch
>> You seem to be mistaken. There is only one kind of IP that has to be
>> protected to keep it, and that's trademarks. Copyrights, Patents, etc have
>> no such protection requirements, especially the law was ammended to no
>> longer require that copyright be labeled as such.
>
> You really have reading comprehension problems don't you Erik? I never
> said it had to be protected to keep it, all I said was it's going to be
> embarrassing in court when asked why they did nothing about it when they
> first discovered the problem, and the defense *will* ask.
Your statement makes no sense. Why would it be embarassing when there is
no requirement for them to protect it? The answer would simply be "Because
we didn't want to".
Chris H
Because, o'retarded one, to claim that you have been materially robbed
by the opposition who have used your property illegally you have to show
how you have in fact been robbed. To turn around and claim that you have
suffered damages and have done nothing about it for years is going to
look like you don't care. The first question the defense is going to ask
is "When did you first send your cease and desist letter?"
But of course, MS doesn't to care about the damages, they just care
about fucking up the playing field.
--
C.
Ray Ingles
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>You really have reading comprehension problems don't you Erik? I never
>>>said it had to be protected to keep it, all I said was it's going to be
>>>embarrassing in court when asked why they did nothing about it when they
>>>first discovered the problem, and the defense *will* ask.
>>
>> Your statement makes no sense. Why would it be embarassing when there is
>> no requirement for them to protect it? The answer would simply be "Because
>> we didn't want to".
> Because, o'retarded one, to claim that you have been materially robbed
> by the opposition who have used your property illegally you have to show
> how you have in fact been robbed.
Well, that would affect damages to a degree, but technically, with
patents one can pick and choose who you want to enforce them against,
and when. They certainly wouldn't be able to claim 'willful' damages if
they made no effort whatsoever to appraise anyone of the problems.
Of course, if they claim actual damages, and also say they didn't do
anything about it for years, it could open them up to a shareholder
lawsuit... but technically that's a separate issue from patent
enforcement.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Here, Iraq, take our Constitution. We're not using it anyway.
-- Robin Willams
Chris H
> On 2006-03-29, Chris H <N...@None.no> wrote:
>
>>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>>>You really have reading comprehension problems don't you Erik? I never
>>>>said it had to be protected to keep it, all I said was it's going to be
>>>>embarrassing in court when asked why they did nothing about it when they
>>>>first discovered the problem, and the defense *will* ask.
>>>
>>>Your statement makes no sense. Why would it be embarassing when there is
>>>no requirement for them to protect it? The answer would simply be "Because
>>>we didn't want to".
>
>
>>Because, o'retarded one, to claim that you have been materially robbed
>>by the opposition who have used your property illegally you have to show
>>how you have in fact been robbed.
>
>
> Well, that would affect damages to a degree, but technically, with
> patents one can pick and choose who you want to enforce them against,
> and when. They certainly wouldn't be able to claim 'willful' damages if
> they made no effort whatsoever to appraise anyone of the problems.
I agree, all I said to spinning boy was that it would be embarrassing in
court and he's taken it as yet another personal insult because we've
dared to say something bad about MS, and its given him yet another
reason to defend them.
I really wonder what makes him tick, why, for instance, does he need to
come here day in day out and look like a tosser all the time? He must
realise we're not laughing with him.
> Of course, if they claim actual damages, and also say they didn't do
> anything about it for years, it could open them up to a shareholder
> lawsuit... but technically that's a separate issue from patent
> enforcement.
>
--
C.
Erik Funkenbusch
>> Your statement makes no sense. Why would it be embarassing when there is
>> no requirement for them to protect it? The answer would simply be "Because
>> we didn't want to".
>
> Because, o'retarded one, to claim that you have been materially robbed
> by the opposition who have used your property illegally you have to show
> how you have in fact been robbed. To turn around and claim that you have
> suffered damages and have done nothing about it for years is going to
> look like you don't care. The first question the defense is going to ask
> is "When did you first send your cease and desist letter?"
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you have to ask for
damages. If I own a patent, I *Might* sue you for damages, but more
importnatly, I can simply sue you to stop using my patent. No need to
prove any kind of damage.
Chris H
Erik, you half wit, read what I fucking wrote - I simply said that is
was going to be embarrassing in court when confronted with the fact that
they did nothing to protect their property. Jesus Fucking Christ Erik
you just can't let anything drop can you? I NEVER SAID THAT MICROSOFT
DIDN'T HAVE A CASE, I simply said it would be embarrassing. But even a
mild tongue in cheek statement like that is too much for you to ignore -
ask yourself why.
Get over yourself you stupid twat.
--
C.