[News] Microsoft Eats Own Poison, Sued for Patent Infringement Again
Roy Schestowitz
,----[ Quote ]
| Besides Seven Networks, Redwood Shores-based Visto has sued rival
| Good Technology Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Research In Motion Ltd.,
| the maker of the ubiquitous BlackBerry device that helps keep
| workers connected to their jobs even when they are out of the office.
`----
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061220/visto_patent_award.html?.v=4
Related:
Big businesses boast of patent benefits, for small businesses
,----[ Quote ]
| A report published by an EU task force on intellectual property claims
| that small businesses benefit from a patent system, despite lacking
| almost any participation by the small business community.
|
| Instead, the report, titled IPR (intellectual property rights) for
| competitiveness and innovation, was written up almost entirely by
| large corporations and the patent industry.
|
| [...]
|
| The report does note objections from the likes of patentfrei.de and
| Sun Microsystems, which were recorded at some length in the report.
| But this does not appear to have impacted the conclusion of the
| report in any way
|
| [...]
|
| Jean-Pierre Laisne, of ObjectWeb, an open source software community,
| said that he found the report useless: participants were told that
| all their contributions would be recorded but at the end only
| those of Business Software Alliance and Microsoft were used.
`----
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/99155/big-businesses-boast-of-patent-benefits-for-small-businesses.html
Commerce Secretary names Schramm to innovation panel
,----[ Quote ]
| He will be part of a lineup that includes the Microsoft Corp. CEO
| Steve Ballmer, 3M CEO George Buckley, UPS Chairman and CEO Michael Eskew,
| IBM CEO Samuel Palmisano and Wal-Mart Stores Vice Chairman John
| Menzer.
`----
http://biz.yahoo.com/bizj/061206/1386414.html?.v=2
Do Windows users have an "undisclosed balance-sheet liability" too?
,----[ Quote ]
| Who can tell what infringes what any more? Also, I wonder if we should
| even care. Patents were originally created to protect the little guy
| who invents a gizmo, tries to sell it, but sees another company come
| along, copy the gizmo, and make all the money selling their version.
| But today's application of patents to software is completely warped
| and twisted from that noble idea of fairness and reward for hard
| work... Countries that see what we're doing and avoid it will be
| at a competitive advantage. While we sit around gazing at our
| navels, they will be free to let developers develop, collaborate,
| and innovate in peace...
`----
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=216
NT influenced by Unix
,----[ Quote ]
| (Gates:) "And through Windows NT, you can see it throughout the design.
| In a weak sense, it is a form of Unix. There are so many of the
| design decisions that have been influenced by that environment. And
| that's no accident."
|
| In light of the recent saber rattling about Linux and patents, the "There
| are so many of the design decisions that have been influenced by that
| environment" sentence is particularly interesting if these patent
| threats include things that are prior Unix art. "In a weak sense, it
| is a form of Unix" is also telling. I said before that I don't think
| that's the case; I think the patent stuff is talking about things like
| Samba and Mono, but even there the "influenced by that environment"
| could be important in the court of public opinion if not in actual
| law.
`----
http://aplawrence.com/Unixart/gates_quote.html
Microsoft's stolen code and IP infringements
,----[ Quote ]
| Soon, MS-DOS 6.0 was released, including the Microsoft DoubleSpace
| disk compression utility program. Stac successfully sued Microsoft
| for patent infringement regarding the compression algorithm
| used in DoubleSpace...
|
| F. Scott Deaver, owner of Failsafe Designs, says Microsoft is guilty of
| the "outright theft" of his product name and intellectual property
| (IP)...
|
| Alacritech sued Microsoft in Federal District Court on August 11,
| 2004, alleging that Microsoft's existing and future operating
| systems containing the "Chimney" TCP offload architecture uses
| Alacritech's proprietary SLIC Technology architecture...
|
| In April 2001, Intertrust initiated a lawsuit against Microsoft. The
| lawsuit ultimately accused Microsoft of infringing 11 of Intertrust's
| patents and almost 130 of the company's patent claims...
|
| Visto Corporation has filed a legal action against Microsoft for
| misappropriating Visto's intellectual property... "Microsoft has a
| long and well-documented history of acquiring the technology of
| others, branding it as their own, and entering new markets," said
| Mr. Bogosian...
|
| Telecoms company AT&T accused Microsoft of infringing its patent for
| a digital speech coder in its Window software in a lawsuit it filed
| in 2000...
|
| The likelihood of Microsoft having to pay millions of dollars in
| damages for infringing the contested Eolas patent for web browser
| technology increased last week when the US Patent and Trademark
| Office reaffirmed the patent's validity...
|
| A bitter fight has broken out between Symantec and Microsoft.
| Symantec claims that Microsoft stole code from Veritas software...
`----
http://www.openaddict.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1385
Is Microsoft infringing upon Xerox, Apple and Unix intellectual property?
,----[ Quote ]
| Intellectual Property is a term widely abused in the software industry
| by firms such as Microsoft and SCO using it to scare people into not
| using certain products in favor of their own. This disparaging tactic
| has even been given a name: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD). It seemst
| hat anyone nowadays can make bold, unsubstantiated claims of IP
| infringement without actually having any proof simply to hurt another
| products reputation and destroy healthy competition. In this article,
| we will explore what intellectual property is and why every computeru
| ser should care when unreputable companies abuse legal systems in
| order to gain an unfair business advantage.
`----
http://www.openaddict.com/page.php?27
The Apple vs. Microsoft GUI Lawsuit
,----[ Quote ]
| Without warning, Apple filed suit against Microsoft in federal court on
| March 17, 1988 for violating Apple's copyrights on the "visual displays"
| of the Macintosh. (Apple also filed suit against HP for its NewWave
| environment that ran on top of Windows 2.0.)
|
| Apple's suit included 189 contested visual displays that Apple
| believed violated its copyright.
|
| Microsoft countersued, but it failed to stem the bad publicity.
| Windows' development community was terrified that any court ordered
| changes to the software would render their products incompatiblea
| nd make Windows undesirable to consumers. Borland's CEO said itw
| as like "waking up and finding out that your partner might have
| AIDS."
`----
http://lowendmac.com/orchard/06/0825.html
Windows Vista vs. Mac OS X: The Copycat Olympics
,----[ Quote ]
| In Microsoft's defense, though, why wouldn't you want to "borrow" ideas
| from other successful products? Vista, Leopard, and Linux are all
| competing against each other, although in reality, each one is better for
| a different set of users. Apple may go on and on about the similarities
| between Tiger and Vista, but they're there for a reason. When
| innovation fails, then you need to try and learn from the best, and
| that's what Microsoft is doing. However, they're a little late to the
| game, and the competing follow-up usually isn't as good as the original.
`----
http://www.osweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2300&Itemid=449
All the Myth about Microsoft!
,----[ Quote ]
| * Microsoft was first with graphical user interface
|
| * Microsoft designed BASIC Language
|
| * Microsoft designed visual basic
|
| * Microsoft invented DOS
|
| * Microsoft designed the first spreadsheet - Excel
|
| * Microsoft designed the first word processor
|
| * First with Internet browser
`----
http://196.2.70.231:8080/ict_blog/open-ict-hacks/microsoft-myth
The Redmond Copying Machine?
,----[ Quote ]
| My recent video, which tweaked Microsoft for crowing about its
| "innovation" in Windows Vista (without acknowledging its huge debt
| to Mac OS X), triggered plenty of reaction. It probably comes as no
| surprise that your comments quickly devolved into "which is better"
| bickering, which will proably never end.
|
| [...]
|
| Then this e-mail message, which arrived today from a guy who says
| he worked as a Microsoft temp employee from 2003 to 2004. I've
| agreed not to publish his name.
|
| [...]
|
| "Around the corner was another grid, showing the RealPlayer
| application. This grid was the same: grid A1 was the front userv
| iew of the application, mirroring what was on the iTunes wall/grid.
|
| "Around the next corner was another grid, this one showing Windows
| Media Player version 9 !! This one was missing a few tiles in the
| grid, but you could actually see the progress as each feature [of
| iTunes and RealPlayer] was copied, square for square.
|
| "Amazing. New software is put out, a manager sees it and decides that the
| creative part of their day is making color screen captures of the
| software and presenting it to the copying--er, engineering team."
`----
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/the-redmond-copying-machine/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDNuq94Zg_8 (Vista copies Mac OS X)
Robert Newson
...
In all of these, why haven't the IP holders sued any of MS's customers;
afterall, MS has [trumpetedly] claimed that Linux vendors give no
indemnification, so the conclusion would be that MS /DOES/, and expects that
IP holders /WOULD/ [sue].
Or is it just MS who would sink to such low tactics as to sue the end users
who purchased the goods in good faith, not the suppliers who nicked the IP
in the first place?
Erik Funkenbusch
Microsoft indemnifies it's customers. They can't sue the end users,
otherwise they're just sueing microsoft anyways.
> Or is it just MS who would sink to such low tactics as to sue the end users
> who purchased the goods in good faith, not the suppliers who nicked the IP
> in the first place?
Microsoft has not said they would sue anyone. It's pure FUD to say
otherwise.
Robert Newson
...
>>>Microsoft's stolen code and IP infringements
...
>>In all of these, why haven't the IP holders sued any of MS's customers;
>>afterall, MS has [trumpetedly] claimed that Linux vendors give no
>>indemnification, so the conclusion would be that MS /DOES/, and expects that
>>IP holders /WOULD/ [sue].
>
> Microsoft indemnifies it's customers. They can't sue the end users,
> otherwise they're just sueing microsoft anyways.
There's the rub...instead of one nice case against a big company, lot of
cases against small companies - who knows, they might just even pay up
without even going to court and risking losing larger amounts (in costs, etc)...
>>Or is it just MS who would sink to such low tactics as to sue the end users
>>who purchased the goods in good faith, not the suppliers who nicked the IP
>>in the first place?
>
> Microsoft has not said they would sue anyone. It's pure FUD to say
> otherwise.
Who said they would...just their implication is that they could and might -
afterall, what was the Novell-MS deal all about? Didn't MS promise not to
sue IP infringing Linux customers /of Novell/, but no comment was made as to
the non-suing of people who were Linux customers not of Novell - the
implication being that MS might just sue you for IP infringement?
Erik Funkenbusch
>> Microsoft indemnifies it's customers. They can't sue the end users,
>> otherwise they're just sueing microsoft anyways.
>
> There's the rub...instead of one nice case against a big company, lot of
> cases against small companies - who knows, they might just even pay up
> without even going to court and risking losing larger amounts (in costs, etc)...
Not sure what your point is.
>> Microsoft has not said they would sue anyone. It's pure FUD to say
>> otherwise.
>
> Who said they would...just their implication is that they could and might -
> afterall, what was the Novell-MS deal all about? Didn't MS promise not to
> sue IP infringing Linux customers /of Novell/, but no comment was made as to
> the non-suing of people who were Linux customers not of Novell - the
> implication being that MS might just sue you for IP infringement?
Microsoft's deal was with Novell, why would they make a deal with Novell to
grant patent licenes to Ubuntu's customers (or anyone elses?). Too many
people are reading too much into a simle, industry standard common practice
of cross licensing patents between companies. Microsoft didn't even seek
out the deal, Novell propositioned Microsoft for it, according to Novell's
CEO.
I've said this a number of times, and I will continue to say it. Microsoft
doesn't sue people for patent infringement unless they are sued first.
People have been arguing that they would Sue open source users and
companies for almost a decade, and it's never once happened, nor do I see
it happening anytime soon. Microsoft doesn't like patents any more than
anyone else, but they recognize that in order to protect their own software
they need to amass a large patent portfolio to use in cross-licensing to
avoid being sued themselves.
Freeride
> Microsoft's deal was with Novell,
Horse shit! Microsofts deal with Novell is all about fucking with Linux in
an attempt to slow down its adoption because Microsofts slow lazy fat
ass can not keep up.
> why would they make a deal with Novell
> to grant patent licenes to Ubuntu's customers (or anyone elses?).
99% of SUSE is open source code, how can you indemnify SUSE and not have
it covered under Ubuntu?
Phil Da Lick!
>
> Microsoft indemnifies it's customers. They can't sue the end users,
> otherwise they're just sueing microsoft anyways.
Wrong, wrong wrong. They can sue the end users, who would then have to
make contact with microsoft.
Mark Kent
Phil Da Lick! <phil_t...@SPAM-TRAP-REMOVEhotmail.com> espoused:
And Microsoft's huge team of highly-paid lawyers would waste no time at
all in showing how the indemnification doesn't cover this particular
situation, and the party being sued would quickly realise that paying up
will be quicker and far less expensive than fighting their supplier in
court.
I wouldn't trust a Microsoft indemnification any more than I'd trust
windows to be secure or reliable.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Keep on keepin' on.
Brandon J. Van Every
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Microsoft's deal was with Novell, why would they make a deal with Novell to
> grant patent licenes to Ubuntu's customers (or anyone elses?). Too many
> people are reading too much into a simle, industry standard common practice
> of cross licensing patents between companies. Microsoft didn't even seek
> out the deal, Novell propositioned Microsoft for it, according to Novell's
> CEO.
But Microsoft gains leverage for their SQL Server offerings, against
Red Hat's Oracle offerings. MS has a huge financial stake in this.
They're trying to keep from losing the database market entirely. I
think, honestly, I can't put any credence in Microsoft "not seeking out
the deal."
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
Brandon J. Van Every
Mark Kent wrote:
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Phil Da Lick! <phil_t...@SPAM-TRAP-REMOVEhotmail.com> espoused:
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>
> >> Microsoft indemnifies it's customers. They can't sue the end users,
> >> otherwise they're just sueing microsoft anyways.
> >
> >
> > Wrong, wrong wrong. They can sue the end users, who would then have to
> > make contact with microsoft.
>
> And Microsoft's huge team of highly-paid lawyers would waste no time at
> all in showing how the indemnification doesn't cover this particular
> situation, and the party being sued would quickly realise that paying up
> will be quicker and far less expensive than fighting their supplier in
> court.
Unless the company is just as big as Microsoft. Like, say, HP or IBM.
At that scale, indemnification does have meaning.
> I wouldn't trust a Microsoft indemnification any more than I'd trust
> windows to be secure or reliable.
I doubt HP or IBM do either. But companies that big have their own
legal ICBMs to lob if need be.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
Mark Kent
Brandon J. Van Every <SeaFu...@gmail.com> espoused:
>
> Mark Kent wrote:
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Phil Da Lick! <phil_t...@SPAM-TRAP-REMOVEhotmail.com> espoused:
>> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Microsoft indemnifies it's customers. They can't sue the end users,
>> >> otherwise they're just sueing microsoft anyways.
>> >
>> >
>> > Wrong, wrong wrong. They can sue the end users, who would then have to
>> > make contact with microsoft.
>>
>> And Microsoft's huge team of highly-paid lawyers would waste no time at
>> all in showing how the indemnification doesn't cover this particular
>> situation, and the party being sued would quickly realise that paying up
>> will be quicker and far less expensive than fighting their supplier in
>> court.
>
> Unless the company is just as big as Microsoft. Like, say, HP or IBM.
> At that scale, indemnification does have meaning.
But that rather sums up the problem, doesn't it? If the indemnification
is only meaningful if you're an organisation large enough to scare MS,
then it's essentially worthless for 99.999% of customers.
>
>> I wouldn't trust a Microsoft indemnification any more than I'd trust
>> windows to be secure or reliable.
>
> I doubt HP or IBM do either. But companies that big have their own
> legal ICBMs to lob if need be.
>
I agree, they do. All 1,000-ish of them.
Doug Mentohl
> Microsoft indemnifies it's customers. They can't sue the
> end users, otherwise they're just sueing microsoft anyways.
Well spotted that fuddie, It's Microsofts own customers who are being
threatened with litigation. Litigation scares promoted by the self same
Microsoft. Eg. MS indemnifies it's customers against getting sued by
MS.BSA~1 ..
> Microsoft has not said they would sue anyone. It's pure FUD to say otherwise.
What the fuck do you call statements like this then ..
"every Linux customer has an undisclosed balance-sheet liability",
Steve Ballmer
--
The ever changing FUD of FunkenTROLL in response to the latest change
of tac in Redmond ...
"Microsoft doesn't sue people for patent infringement unless they are
sued first", fuddie Dec 2006
"MS has hundreds of patents, but they only use them defensively by
preventing others from gaining patents on things they do", fuddie Jun
2001
"I've never heard of Microsoft sueing someone for patent infringement",
fuddie May 2000
Erik Funkenbusch
> Dec 21 2006 Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> Microsoft indemnifies it's customers. They can't sue the
>> end users, otherwise they're just sueing microsoft anyways.
>
> Well spotted that fuddie, It's Microsofts own customers who are being
> threatened with litigation. Litigation scares promoted by the self same
> Microsoft. Eg. MS indemnifies it's customers against getting sued by
> MS.BSA~1 ..
No, Microsoft indemnifies it's customers from intellectual property
lawsuits.
>> Microsoft has not said they would sue anyone. It's pure FUD to say otherwise.
>
> What the fuck do you call statements like this then ..
>
> "every Linux customer has an undisclosed balance-sheet liability",
> Steve Ballmer
Exactly what it is. It's a claim that Linux customers, because the Linux
vendors are not doing due dilligence on IP, are likely liable to pay
licensing fees. Even the OSDL claims that Linux likely infinges some
patents (not necessarily Microsofts).
This is not a direct or even indirect threat to sue. It's just a
statement.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:51:24 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2006 10:07:09 -0800, Doug Mentohl wrote:
>
>> Dec 21 2006 Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> Microsoft indemnifies it's customers. They can't sue the
>>> end users, otherwise they're just sueing microsoft anyways.
>>
>> Well spotted that fuddie, It's Microsofts own customers who are being
>> threatened with litigation. Litigation scares promoted by the self same
>> Microsoft. Eg. MS indemnifies it's customers against getting sued by
>> MS.BSA~1 ..
>
> No, Microsoft indemnifies it's customers from intellectual property
> lawsuits.
>
which doesn't mean they won't get sued, it means that MS will do
something (defend them, fund their defense, etc) if they are sued.
>>> Microsoft has not said they would sue anyone. It's pure FUD to say
>>> otherwise.
>>
>> What the fuck do you call statements like this then ..
>>
>> "every Linux customer has an undisclosed balance-sheet liability",
>> Steve Ballmer
>
> Exactly what it is. It's a claim that Linux customers, because the Linux
> vendors are not doing due dilligence on IP, are likely liable to pay
> licensing fees. Even the OSDL claims that Linux likely infinges some
> patents (not necessarily Microsofts).
>
> This is not a direct or even indirect threat to sue. It's just a
> statement.
Ballmer makes a lot of silly statements.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFlxJYd90bcYOAWPYRAjCqAJ48Ms+ioVFGjtl5k+UmAE5t1Kg2zgCg8D3Y
ft+Ya4OqXx5O1DrPPImNNhw=
=cAcu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Smith & Wesson, the *original* point and click interface.
Doug Mentohl
> It's a claim that Linux customers, because the Linux vendors are not
> doing due dilligence on IP, are likely liable to pay licensing fees"
No, it's a claim by Ballmer that Linux uses Microsoft IP, as such it is
up to Ballmer to produce the evidence. The 'due dilligence' insertion
is a typical fuddie distortion shuffle.
"We've had an issue, a problem that we've had to confront, which is
because of the way the GPL works, and because open-source Linux does
not come from a company - Linux comes from the community - the fact
that that product uses our patented intellectual property is a problem
for our shareholders", Ballmer
Appropriately covered against who and what?
> This is not a direct or even indirect
> threat to sue. It's just a statement.
"We agreed on a, we call it an IP bridge, essentially an arrangement
under which they pay us some money for the right to tell the customer
that anybody who uses SUSE Linux is appropriately covered", Ballmer
What parts of Linux violates MS IP, please give specifices or else stop
threatening us.
http://snipurl.com/169dr
http://www.cbronline.com/article_news_print.asp?guid=B26EEB22-F90A-4519-A9E0-BDF78F20BAFA
Erik Funkenbusch
>> This is not a direct or even indirect
>> threat to sue. It's just a statement.
>
> "We agreed on a, we call it an IP bridge, essentially an arrangement
> under which they pay us some money for the right to tell the customer
> that anybody who uses SUSE Linux is appropriately covered", Ballmer
>
> What parts of Linux violates MS IP, please give specifices or else stop
> threatening us.
That statement still isn't a threat to sue anyone. You and many others
appear to be highly paranoid. Microsoft has *NEVER* sued *ANYONE* for
patent infringement, other than as a countersuit when someone sued them
first.
Robert Newson
> On 31 Dec 2006 09:04:48 -0800, Doug Mentohl wrote:
>
>
>>>This is not a direct or even indirect
>>>threat to sue. It's just a statement.
>>>
>>"We agreed on a, we call it an IP bridge, essentially an arrangement
>>under which they pay us some money for the right to tell the customer
>>that anybody who uses SUSE Linux is appropriately covered", Ballmer
>>
>>What parts of Linux violates MS IP, please give specifices or else stop
>>threatening us.
>
> That statement still isn't a threat to sue anyone.
Perhaps, but it is an implied threat to sue someone not using SUSE Linux.
> You and many others
> appear to be highly paranoid.
With MS, not surprising.
> Microsoft has *NEVER* sued *ANYONE* for
> patent infringement, other than as a countersuit when someone sued them
> first.
But there is no promise to NOT sue as a first strike (except, possibly, for
the next 5 years for the purchases of SUSE Linux).
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On 31 Dec 2006 09:04:48 -0800, Doug Mentohl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>This is not a direct or even indirect
>>>>threat to sue. It's just a statement.
>>>>
>>>"We agreed on a, we call it an IP bridge, essentially an arrangement
>>>under which they pay us some money for the right to tell the customer
>>>that anybody who uses SUSE Linux is appropriately covered", Ballmer
>>>
>>>What parts of Linux violates MS IP, please give specifices or else stop
>>>threatening us.
>>
>> That statement still isn't a threat to sue anyone.
>
> Perhaps, but it is an implied threat to sue someone not using SUSE Linux.
No, it's not. There is no threat of a lawsuit at all.
>> Microsoft has *NEVER* sued *ANYONE* for
>> patent infringement, other than as a countersuit when someone sued them
>> first.
>
> But there is no promise to NOT sue as a first strike (except, possibly, for
> the next 5 years for the purchases of SUSE Linux).
And there's no promise they won't sue you for breathing either.
Microsoft uses patents defensively, to prevent others from sueing them for
patent infringement on things they've developed. This is what lead to
lawsuits like the Eolas lawsuit, which many Linux advocates seemed to
support because it was "sticking it to the man", but in reality it just
makes defensive patents all the more critical.
Sure, Microsoft would love to have people pay them for their patents, but
there's no evidence that they're going to start sueing people for it. All
you're doing is spreading FUD by saying so.
Robert Newson
...
>>>>>This is not a direct or even indirect
>>>>>threat to sue. It's just a statement.
>>>>>
>>>>"We agreed on a, we call it an IP bridge, essentially an arrangement
>>>>under which they pay us some money for the right to tell the customer
>>>>that anybody who uses SUSE Linux is appropriately covered", Ballmer
...
>>Perhaps, but it is an implied threat to sue someone not using SUSE Linux.
>
> No, it's not. There is no threat of a lawsuit at all.
So what does
``...anybody who uses SUSE Linux is appropriately covered''
mean, except that "anybody who does *NOT* use SUSE Linux is *NOT*
appropriately covered"? The question then arises as to what the appropriate
coverage is?
The possible answer is that MS is quite vocal about the lack of
indemnification of Linux users, in particular to being sued by an IP owner
over illegal use of their IP; the first part stated mentions ``an IP
bridge'' which would lead most people to conclude, with the trumpeting of
indemnification by MS, that people *NOT* using SUSE Linux *MAY* be sued for
IP [of MS] infringement - that sounds very much like an implied threat -
whether that is the actual meaning of the statement or not: it is what
people will conclude (possibly what the statement is intended to do).
>>> Microsoft has *NEVER* sued *ANYONE* for
>>>patent infringement, other than as a countersuit when someone sued them
>>>first.
>>>
>>But there is no promise to NOT sue as a first strike (except, possibly, for
>>the next 5 years for the purchases of SUSE Linux).
>
> And there's no promise they won't sue you for breathing either.
Except that they have no /legal/ right as to whether I breathe or not.
> Microsoft uses patents defensively, to prevent others from sueing them for
> patent infringement on things they've developed.
Developed: as in Web Browser, GUI, etc...?
Obviously the cold war has moved from USA vs USSR in the physical
obliteration stakes (defensive nuclear weapons) to between US companies
themselves, and US companies and the rest of the world.
Obviously Linux must be seen in the same light as countries like Iran, etc
who are creating nuclear weapons...
> Sure, Microsoft would love to have people pay them for their patents, but
> there's no evidence that they're going to start sueing people for it. All
> you're doing is spreading FUD by saying so.
WOW! And I thought it was MS spreading the FUD by harking on about the lack
of indemnification (against IP litigation) in Linux - indemnification they
imply they provide, but seems to be lacking from their EULAs.